Protest, police, and pepper spray at UC-Davis

Posted on April 13, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Most students, including even protesters, don’t encounter pepper spray during their studies at the University of California.

Last November, however, a campus police officer sprayed students protesting tuition hikes at the UC-Davis campus.  It’s worth looking at.

And it’s worth investigating.

Four months after the spraying, the committee appointed to investigate has published its report.

Chaired by Cruz Reynoso, who had served on California’s Supreme Court, the task force was charged with investigating the incident, evaluating the appropriateness of the police response, and assessing responsibility.

On matters of fact, the Reynoso report relies heavily on the investigation by Kroll Investigations, often contracted to consult with the University on security issues.

On matters of judgment, the Reynoso committee is clear: the use of pepper spray was not authorized or justified; campus administrators and police overreacted to the student demonstrators, assuming–without evidence–the presence of outside agitators.

On matters of responsibility, the Reynoso committee is generous in allocating blame.  From the officer who held the spray can on up to Chancellor Linda Katehi, who didn’t authorize pepper spray but was eager to clear out “Occupy” tents, everyone responsible for security on campus made bad misjudgments and mistakes.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the report is its first recommendation (p. 29–of 180):

The Task Force recommends the campus develop a broadly accepted agreement on rules and policies that regulate campus protests and instances of civil disobedience. This broadly accepted agreement should be grounded in our campus culture and regularly communicated to students. These rules and policies should be subject to regular review.

Campus rules should:
 Be consistent with free speech doctrine;
 Recognize the unique circumstances of a university community and the importance of open and vigorous debate to our institutional function and identity;
 Respect the rights and interests of non-protesting students, faculty and staff;
 Respect the legitimate needs of the University to fulfill its educational function and operate its programs without undue interference;
 Recognize that the legitimate purpose of protest in a campus setting is to inform and persuade, not to coerce;
 Determine and define “non-violent” versus “active resistance” and “violent” protests and clarify the use of force and the force continuum as recommended by Kroll;
 Accurately identify and clearly describe and communicate the legal basis for the University’s response to any protest or instance of civil disobedience;
 Identify the consequences for breaches of the rules and policies.

The Reynoso committee is clearly committed to safety and order on campuses, but the strongest message from the report is that the University of California has to recognize that protest, sometimes dramatic and disruptive protest, is part of the fabric of campus life, and indeed, contemporary politics in America.  When police overreact, in addition to proximate harm (pepper spraying students!), they undermine the mission of the university.

For the better part of fifty years, American police have moved–with frequent stutters and backsteps–toward a policing strategy that accommodates and contains protest.  Paradoxically, this makes protest less disruptive–and maybe less effective.

The strong reaction against the events at UC-Davis–and at the sporadic overreactions to Occupy protests (see Oakland!) underscores just how substantial this shift has been.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Indicting George Zimmerman: The impact of public protests

Posted on April 12, 2012 by David S. Meyer

When Florida state attorney Angela Corey announced that she would charge George Zimmerman with second degree homicide for shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, she emphasized that her decision was not influenced by politics or protests.  Instead, she said the facts of the case should drive the response of the criminal justice system.

“Let me emphasize,” the prosecutor said, “that we do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition.”

This ideal is certainly the way the justice system should work.  State Attorney Corey should have reviewed the facts of the case, including interviews with witnesses and forensic evidence, looked at the law, and made legal decisions about whether (and how) to charge George Zimmerman.

Should we believe this?  Did the protests matter at all?  Was it necessary to broadcast Trayvon Martin’s picture across the United States and gather over two million signatures on a petition?  Did the hoodie demonstrations in the streets and in legislatures affect the decision to prosecute George Zimmerman, weeks after he shot Trayvon Martin, and weeks after local police had detained–and released–Zimmerman?

It sure looks like it.

Angela Corey works for the state of Florida in Jacksonville, and normally wouldn’t be directly concerned with the prosecution of a case in Sanford (more than 2 hours South).  The protests and petitions interrupted the apparent efforts by local authorities to excuse or ignore this killing.  Protests across the country led Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee to step down (temporarily) and the local prosecutor ostensibly investigating the killing (Norman Wolfinger) to step aside.  National attention pushed Governor Rick Scott to appoint Corey as a special prosecutor. 

The campaign for some legal response to the killing of a young unarmed man took off because local authorities appeared to have failed in discharging their duties–rather conspicuously.  The protests invoked higher authorities to intervene.  They did so, responding to a local crime in an unusual fashion.

I believe that Angela Corey didn’t consider the protests when she made a professional judgment as a prosecutor.  Without the protests, however, it’s extremely unlikely she would have had the opportunity to make this call at all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Targeting ALEC

Posted on April 5, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Coca-cola announced that it was ending its membership in ALEC; PepsiCo. had ended its membership in January.  This is an activist story, covered well by Peter Overby on NPR.

As we discussed, the long simmering campaign surrounding the Trayvon Martin killing gave activists the opportunity to draw additional attention to ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, but ALEC has been on liberal groups’ radar for a long time.  Funded primarily by corporate contributions, ALEC promotes business friendly legislation at the state level, writing model legislation and providing state legislators with information and training that helps them pass it.  ALEC has also promoted legislation favored by its sponsors, including the Stand Your Ground Law, endorsed strongly by the National Rifle Association.

Corporations join ALEC and offer up hefty contributions because much of the group’s agenda lines up with corporate interests, particularly reducing taxes and regulation at the state level.  ALEC’s leaders also recognize that their prospects of passing such legislation can be enhanced by shaping the electorate.  Voter identification laws are an important tool for doing so.  Although there are certainly cases of voter fraud, prosecuted at both the state level and federally, there’s a great deal of dispute about how widespread the problem is.  (See reactions in Texas.)  The Justice Department recently blocked a Texas law that would have required a state-issued photo id to be presented at the polls.  This case, and others, is now moving through the federal judicial system.

State-issued photo identification IS widely available, but the legal voters who don’t have it are disproportionately poor, black, and Latino–that is, people who are more likely to vote for Democrats, and more generally, people who don’t join ALEC.  It’s not surprising that advocates for these groups see the proposed laws as a modern incarnation of the poll taxes and literacy texts used to skew the universe of voters.

Color of Change started an online petition targeting ALEC well before Trayvon Martin was killed.  Activists also began a series of conversations with corporate sponsors that they could reach, discussing the possibilities of boycotts.  Supporters called board members of Coca-cola–and presumably other companies as well.  It’s really not so important to say out loud that they drink soda and that Pepsi no longer participates in ALEC.  Coke got the message.

In announcing its decision to leave ALEC, Coca-cola emphasized business:

The Coca-Cola Company has elected to discontinue its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)…Our involvement with ALEC was focused on efforts to oppose discriminatory food and beverage taxes, not on issues that have no direct bearing on our business. We have a long-standing policy of only taking positions on issues that impact our company and industry. (from Chicago Tribune.)

Plenty of companies will surely stay with ALEC; I don’t imagine privately held Koch Industries, for example, pulling out because of the possibilities of consumer pressure.  But public companies that sell heavily branded consumer products are more vulnerable to threats to their image and their markets.  Consumer boycotts and shareholder campaigns are, minimally, a public relations nuisance, and maybe much more.

Through effective targeting, Color of Change and other activist groups were able to peel off a little bit of ALEC’s support.  More importantly, there was another day or two of news about what ALEC does.  Coke’s departure raises the important question of the relationship of stand your ground or voter id laws to a healthy business climate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Easter eggs and opportunities

Posted on April 4, 2012 by David S. Meyer

PETA has announced plans to leaflet at the annual White House Easter Egg roll, protesting the use of eggs and the way chickens who produce those eggs are treated.  (Politico got the story first.)

Eggs are a tougher target for PETA than, say, animals mistreated in zoos, scientific experimentation on animals (particularly cute pets), donkey basketball, or captive apes anywhere.  Lots of Americans eat eggs which are a cheap and widely available source of protein.

But the White House is a huge opportunity.

Small children dressed in their Sunday best to play on the White House lawn with the Obamas and an actor in a bunny suit will draw reporters and cameras, and a small group of people with leaflets (purportedly written with sensitivity to their children’s sensibilities) will get much more attention than a comparable efforts anywhere else–at any other time.
And to meet the Easter Bunny, PETA promises to bring its own costumed figure, a large, yellow, baby chick.

If PETA is part of the coverage that appears in mainstream media, score this as a big victory for the group.  The ostensible targets of the leaflets, the children hunting for eggs, are really just a prop.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Occupy diversifies; takes a building

Posted on April 2, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Occupy San Francisco has seized a building on 888 Turk Street.  Located in the Tenderloin District, the building, owned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

The takeover followed an April Fool’s Day march, and police apparently stood by as the demonstrators took over.   Occupy promises to turn the site into a community service center.  Here’s what Occupy SF posted yesterday:

Tonight Occupy SF, through the OccupySF Commune, has inhabited a vacant building onTurk St. for the purpose of creating a community center in the spirit of this building’s original intention–to create a center for health and healing.

In a city with ten thousand homeless people and thirty-two thousand vacant but habitable units, it is a crime against humanity that people are prevented from sleeping through the night as part of a political protest or as a basic human right. The city wants OccupySF and the homeless off the street–harassing, intimidating, and arresting us every night–so now we are inside creating a vibrant space for health, humanity, and free expression.

This building has been empty for five years and was previously a mental health clinic providing a valuable service to the community. Five years ago the Board of Supervisors cut the funding to this vital community center causing many people with mental illness to be put out on the street and become subject to arrest and harassment simply for now existing in these very same streets they were forced into. This funding cut was brought on by the international financial crisis caused by a corrupt banking system which profits off the backs of the 99%.

This Turk St. building is owned by the Church and the owners, therefore, pay no property tax for it.  It has been vacant and unused for over five years and no services have been provided here. Further, the owners have failed to register the building as vacant, avoiding their duty to pay vacancy fees to the public coffers. The building is now occupied by a group of people willing to offer services such as food, housing, education, and community-building skills for free.

We assert our human rights to free expression, dissent, and 24-hour protest without undue harassment.

The charge, that there’s something wrong about leaving a building vacant when homelessness is such a salient problem in the city, is a powerful one, and the new Occupation is a powerful way to lodge that charge.  Absent provocation, the police are unlikely to evict the Occupiers unless the Archdiocese asks them to do so–and then the Church will have to explain why it prefers to hold an empty building and watch it deteriorate.

At the same time, making the charge is a lot easier than actually providing the range of services San Franciscans need and want–and Occupiers want to deliver.  Effective action will take money, expertise, organization, and the capacity to make tough decisions about priorities and access.  If, as in the outdoor Occupations, the site becomes a magnet for all sorts of people with all sorts of commitments and issues, the old problems of democracy and of safety are likely to reemerge.

Holding the Turk Street building could easily end up being more of a burden than blessing, another Occupation trap for the movement.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Drawing a line from ALEC to Trayvon

Posted on April 2, 2012 by David S. Meyer

George Zimmerman fired the shot that killed Trayvon Martin, but ALEC wrote the Stand Your Ground law at the core of his legal defense.  Taken just a slight step further, ALEC also pressed for the budget cuts that have led localities to depend more and more on volunteer neighborhood watch groups rather than professional police.

That’s the line that a coalition of advocacy groups is pushing, and it’s tricky, but completely plausible.

ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that has been active since 1973, producing model legislation for the states, and helping Republican state legislators to introduce, pass, and defend a raft of policies that weaken environmental laws, unions, public education, and state capacity generally.  Funded partly by state legislators, and mostly by powerful corporate interests (including, of course, the Koch brothers), ALEC has taken the conservative political agenda (“limited government” “free markets” federalism”) to the states in a very serious way.  Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, now facing a recall election, implemented an ALEC agenda.  (See Bill Cronon’s website on Walker and ALEC.)

ALEC’s organizers understood early on that state legislators in most states lacked the expertise and capacity to develop comprehensive agendas, so they developed a core package that allied legislators could use.  ALEC drafts legislation and schools its allies in how to use it.  It’s not a coincidence that newly elected Republican governors across the United States worked on the same issues; rather, it’s a triumph of conservative organizing.

ALEC supports Stand Your Ground legislation (copied, it says, from Florida’s 2005 law) which protects someone using deadly force in defense of what he or she deems to be a serious threat to person or property.  ALEC also supports model legislation making the purchase of guns readily accessible.  It’s not clear whether Trayvon Martin’s tragic death has stalled ALEC’s progress.  The Washington Post reports that the National Rifle Association is NOW actively lobbying Alaska’s state legislature to pass a similar law.

Last week, a coalition of civil rights and progressive groups, including the NAACP, Color of Change, the Urban League, Common Cause, People for the American Way, Moveon.org, SEIU, and the National Council of Churches, organized a demonstration outside the Washington office building that houses ALEC’s headquarters, asking the group to disavow the laws (reports here and here).

ALEC responds that Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy, but the law doesn’t give anyone the right to chase after a perceived threat, and it’s  “shameful” for activists to use the Martin tragedy to attack ALEC.

Trayvon Martin’s death has opened a moment in public discussion that activists are trying to fill, seeking to give meaning to a tragedy.

This is, by the what, what savvy activists always do.  Antinuclear power activists used the accidents at Three Mile Island (1979) and Fukushima (2011) to draw attention to their claims.  Tea Partiers used confusion about and antipathy toward the health care law (2009) to advance a broader conservative agenda.

Trayvon Martin’s death provides activists with a tragic and unwanted opportunity to draw attention to a broader set of civil wrongs.

Finding a way to do so, however, is no easy matter, as the prospecting for demands suggests.  Indicting George Zimmerman, providing perhaps a crude justice in the case, won’t really change anything about profiling, racism, or armed neighborhood watch volunteers.  Attacking racism, in contrast, is big, ambitious, and extremely hard to track.

Trying to hold ALEC responsible might be the most productive middle course available.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Healthcare politics outside the court

Posted on March 31, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Most public attention to health care reform turned to arguments in front of the Supreme Court.  But while journalists and analysts interpreted every question, pause, and eye roll from the Supreme Court justices, activists took health care politics outdoors, offering clearer messages.

Initially supporters of the Affordable Care Act were visible in greater numbers, demonstrating the benefits of the law under challenge–even though most of it still hasn’t gone into effect.

By the second day of hearings, however, opponents of the reform were also out in numbers, expressing their opposition and their fealty to one vision of the Constitution.   At left you can see the opposition arguments in crystallized form: the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the flag, and charges that the Obama administration is socialist and immoral.

Meanwhile, demonstrators are using the occasion to put forward their vision of the most important issues in the bill; it’s another chance to demonstrate on abortion rights, for example, outside the Supreme Court.

What’s going on here?

Although it’s possible that some of the activists on each side believe their demonstrations will affect the Justices or a stray clerk by raising a new argument not present in the pounds of briefs filed by each side (the New York Times reports that advocacy groups filed a record 136 amicus curiae briefs), it’s hard to imagine many having faith in this notion.

The Justices may acknowledge the influence of many factors, not the least of these the Constitution.  Justice Clarence Thomas says that they won’t be distracted by the protests, because they, like basketball players shooting free throws, learn to block out the noise to focus on the task at hand.  Besides, any Justice could find a sympathetic demonstrator to justify whatever decision she or he chose to make.

But while the Justices ostensibly focus on legal arguments, the rest of the United States is focused on the Supreme Court.  Activists want to crowd into that field of vision, knowing that their protest will get more attention from the broader public than any of the mountains of text in the legal briefs.  And whatever the Supreme Court decides, the health care battle is far from over.

Supporters of the Affordable Health Care act wanted to show that the reforms had tangible–and positive–consequences.  Note above the uniforms; at the demonstrations, there were plenty of stories.  They won’t go away if the Court strikes down all or part of the law, nor will the 50 million or so Americans without health insurance.  The costs of health insurance and health care will continue to increase, comprising the largest–and fastest growing–obstacle to controlling the deficit.

And if the Court upholds the law?  All of the Republican presidential aspirants have promised to repeal what Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich call “Romneycare,” and will surely campaign on the issue.  And health care costs will continue to increase while opponents continue to insist on their vision of the appropriate interpretation of the commerce clause.

The demonstrations are reminders of these political realities, played more for a broad political audience than the Supreme Court itself.  More than one side has taken to the streets.  Ironically, there’s probably more discussion across those sides outside the Supreme Court building than in the Justices’ conference room.

Paradoxically, the loser in the Court is likely to gain the initial advantage in the streets.  Striking down the law will rob opponents of their unifying focus and shift the emphasis in questions to Republicans on just what they will replace the reform with.  (Not even the most optimistic and ideologically committed advocates think any of the proposed market-based reforms will extend health care coverage to more than a sliver of the uninsured.)

And it will energize those who have been working for health care reform–or benefiting from the first bits to come into effect–and provide them with a sharper political focus.  Watch particularly for the reactions from the 2.5 million young adults (under 26) who have been able to continue to benefit from their parents’ insurance; watch for their parents reactions as well as they contemplate allowing their underemployed offspring fend for themselves in the insurance market.

If the Court upholds the law, opponents will be able to avoid the debate of what to do instead, and focus instead on the law as it exists.  Every unhappy bit of news from the health care system will be evidence for their view of the laws inadequacies.  And, at least for the short run, they will focus very directly on the upcoming elections.

I don’t know how to read Justice Kennedy’s vote from his questions or tone of voice, but I am certain that this issue isn’t going away any time soon–whatever the Court does.  The demonstrators outside remind us all.

Posted in countermovements | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Cesar Chavez 2012

Posted on March 30, 2012 by David S. Meyer

I’m typing from my office today, March 30, but campus is quiet in honor of Cesar Chavez Day.  Below is a repost on the occasion:

On my campus, we commemorated Cesar Chavez Day early, yesterday, rather than March 31 (his birthday), by closing.  The state established the holiday in 2000, and six other states have followed suit.  In California, the legislature calls upon public schools to develop appropriate curricula to teach about the farm labor movement in the United States, and particularly Chavez’s role in it.

A campaign to establish a national holiday has stalled so far (The Cesar Chavez National holiday website seems to have last been updated in 2008), but last year President Obama issued a proclamation announcing a day of commemoration, and calling upon all Americans “to observe this day with appropriate service, community, and education programs to honor Cesar Chavez’s enduring legacy.”

Political figures have many reasons for creating holidays, including remembering the past; identifying heroic models for the future; recognizing and cultivating a political constituency; and providing an occasion to appreciate a set of values.  Regardless of the original meaning, the holidays take on new meanings over time.  Columbus Day, for example, is celebrated as an occasion for pride in Italian Americans (e.g.), and commemorated and mourned as a symbol of genocide  and empire (e.g.).

Cesar Chavez’s life and work is well worth remembering and considering, particularly now.  His career as a crusader was far longer than that of Martin Luther King discussed (here and here) and he was far more of an organizer than Fred Korematsu (discussed here).  Chavez’s Medal of Freedom was awarded shortly after his death in 1993, by President Clinton, but many of his accomplishments were apparent well before then.

Dolores Huerta, 2009

As a young man, Chavez was an agricultural worker; by his mid-twenties, he became a civil rights organizer, working for the Community Service Organization in California.  With Dolores Huerta, in 1962 Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers.  Focusing on poor, mostly Mexican-American workers, Chavez’s vision for activism was right at the cornerstone of racial and economic justice.  Establishing an organization, however, is a long way from winning recognition and bargaining rights as a union.

Chavez was a tactician, a public figure, a charismatic, and something of a mystic.  Modeling his efforts after Gandhi’s successful campaigns, Chavez was an emphatic practitioner of active nonviolence.  He employed boycotts, strikes, long fasts, demonstrations, long marches, and religious rhetoric in the service of his cause.  He also registered voters, lobbied, and worked in political campaigns.  He was a tireless and very effective organizer for most of his life.

But holidays are best celebrated with an eye to the future, rather than the past.

On Cesar Chavez Day this year, we can think about the large and growing Latino community in the United States.  The 2010 Census reports that Latinos now comprise roughly 1/6 of the American population, and more than 1/3 of the population in California. This is the youngest and fastest-growing population in America today, and they are severely underrepresented in the top levels of politics, education, and the economy.   The civil rights map is at least as complicated as at any time in American history, but not less important or urgent.  (The struggle about the DREAM Act is reminiscent of the debate about Voting Rights 45 years ago.)  The future of American Latinos is very much the future of America.

And Chavez saw the civil rights struggle as a labor campaign.  When Chavez and Huerta started their campaign, nearly one third of Americans were represented by unions.  The percentage now is now just about 10 percent, and less in the private sector.

And public sector workers, even if represented by unions aren’t doing so well.  The ongoing conflict in Wisconsin is all about weakening unions that are already making very large concessions on wages and pensions.  The campaign in Wisconsin is part of a larger national effort, which is playing out in Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere.  Even in states where anti-union forces are weaker, state employees face lay-offs, wage cuts, and increased health and pension costs.  Importantly, we need to remember that you can’t attack teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters without hurting the people they serve: us.

Or should I say, US?

Cesar Chavez’s birthday is an opportune time for thinking about Latinos, civil rights, and American labor, and not just the start of Spring.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Protest makes it harder to ignore injustice

Posted on March 26, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Full Disclosure: I started wearing hoodies in high school and they’ve been a staple part of my wardrobe since.

That’s not the only reason, of course, I was disturbed when Geraldo

New York State Senator Eric Adams, "I am Trayvon Williams."

Rivera suggested that Trayvon Martin’s attire was responsible for an armed neighborhood watch volunteer killing him.

Why is Geraldo even talking about the killing of Trayvon Martin?  And why is a New York State Senator wearing a hoodie in the Senate chamber?  (If he were cold, wouldn’t a Santorum style sweater vest be more appropriate?)

Putting on the hoodie is one way people have expressed their outrage with the killing of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old high school student in Sanford Florida, a month ago on February 26.

George Zimmerman, a zealous neighborhood watch volunteer who dreamed of becoming a police officer, saw the boy, judged him to be suspicious, called the police, ignored directions to leave him alone, assessed Martin as dangerous, and shot him to death.  (Reports that Zimmerman says Martin hit him are just beginning to circulate.)  Zimmerman claims self-defense, citing Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which protects people who use force, even deadly force, when they are threatened.

There are a lot of stories here that will continue to unfold for a long time.  The important one now is that there IS a national story.  Martin’s death got little attention from the Sanford police, much less the national media, until activists were able to use social media to spread the story–emphasizing the George Zimmerman was not arrested, or even detained, by the police.  Trayvon’s parents used change.org to circulate a petition calling for Zimmerman’s arrest.  As I write, it bears well over two million signatures.

The petition, along with protests and the ensuing media coverage, kept the story alive, and preserved the possibility that something else might come out of the tragic shooting of a child.  A month after the killing, there have been demonstrations across the United States, including virtually every large city in America.  Activists used the tragedy as a piece of a much larger story about widespread social problems.

Miami Heat players in hoodies

Parents of African American and Latino youth saw the killing as an instance of racism, recounting the detailed instructions they give their children in dealing with authorities, particularly police.  “The rules,” one mother explained, mean knowing “who you are.  You can’t do everything they do.”

Most of the stories emphasize the inherent dangers young black and Latino men face in dealing with police, who are armed and charged with facing dangerous situations.   (As your friends about their stories of encounters with police.)  But George Zimmerman wasn’t a police officer.

He was, however, armed.  Another grievance is the easy availability of guns in the United States generally, and even moreso in Florida.  Neighborhood watch patrols are normally equipped with flashlights and phones.  George Zimmerman was carrying his own gun–legally.  It’s doubtful that he would have pursued Martin without it.  Certainly, he couldn’t have shot him.  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the shooting demonstrates the need for gun control.

Zimmerman hasn’t, at this writing, been arrested, ostensibly protected by Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law.  John F. Timoney, formerly Miami’s police chief, published a piece in the New York Times, explaining why he and other police chiefs opposed the law.  Essentially, police officers can be trained and held accountable.  There is supposed to be a formal investigation every time a police officer fires a weapon; why should there be less than this for someone who hasn’t been subject to training?

Activists are trying to bring meaning to a senseless tragedy.  You know the story because they would not let it fade away.  By itself, this is a victory of sorts.  And it’s not enough.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The truth in fiction

Posted on March 19, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Fiction, labeled as fiction, can be every bit as powerful as good journalism for stirring the imagination and mobilizing support.  In yesterday’s post, I cited Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin as example, but obviously there are many many more.  Philip Cohen (at Family Inequality) identifies Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which was instrumental in promoting regulation of the meat industry.  (To my knowledge, even the libertarians support keeping meat inspection as a federal responsibility.)

Peter Weir’s Gallipoli is the most powerful antiwar statement I’ve ever seen, but it was no documentary.  The screenwriter, David Williamson, invented two sprinters (Mel Gibson and Mark Lee) and made them messengers at the British siege.

George Orwell, who wrote polemics and journalism as well, is best known today for his anti-totalitarian fiction, most notably 1984 and Animal Farm.

I wonder if a work of fiction requires a higher level of artistry and execution to be a powerful mobilizer.

Probably not.

My Congressman, John Campbell (R) reports that he gives copies of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged to departing interns, and that Rand’s rather artless novels were the inspiration for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisconsin) political career.  Rand’s fiction was obviously an effective conduit for her ideas.

You can list your favorites.

In the meantime, call it a novel or fantasy or allegory if it’s moral truth, rather than factual accuracy, that you’re after.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment