The Breaking Time

Discussion Time: Election Day

E Pluribus Unum

After 18 months of sound and fury, Election Day is here. I've made my feelings on voting (in short: do it), clear in ways both vicious and kind before, and I don't see a need to repeat them at too much length.

This is a country founded by people who wrote eloquent, high-minded denunciations of the very concept of political parties, while forming political parties as fast as they could go. 

That kind of set the tone, with noble (and not-so-noble) ideas rubbing shoulders with the political knife-fighting required to accomplish anything when a species of evolved apes fight over power.

Susan B. Anthony was arrested in 1872 after voting for that paragon of virtue Ulysses S. Grant. She did this at a time when the women's rights movement was locked in internecine warfare over whether it should engage in mainstream politics or not, a fight every activist movement to this day feels the need to repeat. Poll taxes —  keeping blacks, Native Americans and poor whites disenfranchised — remained legal until the mid-1960s, after people shed blood to get the simple right to fill in boxes on a piece of paper that someone would actually listen to.

Like William Faulkner said, the past isn't even past. In 2012, we still see new versions of the same old fears and hopes.

For me, election day is something akin to feeling a high and a hangover at the same time. This is Black Friday for journalists, so there's a relentless and addictive work pace alongside a lot of camaraderie. As a citizen, it brings me face to face with the best and worst behavior my country can muster. For a second, I think it takes us out of our bubbles with a glimpse at the sheer staggering size and diversity of the electorate. Then the aftermath reinforces those barriers, often in the worst possible ways; I have seen people do and say some of the stupidest things of their lives just after an election.

That's my off-the-cuff rant. This is an open discussion of voting, elections, civic duties, and this campaign in particular.

Keep it smart and keep it civil.

Discussion Time: science vs. democracy

Because cat pictures help every discussion

Several recent items brought this particular discussion topic to mind. A column by Dr. Barry Starr asks if voters are qualified to decide issues like the labeling of GMOs, given that polls point to some massive scientific misunderstandings on the part of the public.

Part of the problem with the GMO debate is that the term encompasses everything from cattle pumped full of hormones (questionable/bad) to Vitamin A rice (good). But then that's the issue: popular will isn't known for fine distinctions.

Let's add to the mix the Portland mayor's grand fuck-off to anti-fluoridation activists, the North Carolina legislature's bill banning sea rise and the ongoing fights over vaccination.

On the other hand, science is a human process, and there are plenty of historic cases to give one pause in making policy based on today's science too quickly. As North Carolina battles over compensation for people whose lives were ruined by eugenics programs, it's worth remembering the damage done based on what seemed like sound science at the time, especially when good scientists' aversion to absolute certainty is removed and democratic rights are ignored.

For a more modern example, throw in Sam Harris' misreading of neuroscience to conclude that we should start brain scanning people accused of a crime. 

This is a classic conflict of two desirable goals running into each other: in this case people should have a say in what goes on in their communities and ideas are tested by observable evidence and experiment. 

So where's the dividing line? When science and democracy seemingly collide, who decides what wins? Plebiscite? Grand Science Council? What are systems are possible that respect science and popular will? Is that impossible?

Let's discuss below.

Discussion Time: Occupy's first anniversary

Original Adbusters poster for Occupy Wall Street.

A year ago, the Occupy Wall Street camp began in New York. Similar protests sprang up quickly, and before long there was an Occupy [X] in spots around the globe. People marched, got maced, got arrested, argued and held assembly after assembly. The "99 percent" entered the national parlance. Reporters like myself got used to using Occupy as a noun.

The Breaking Time was on hiatus at the time, which turned out to be fortunate, as it gave me a chance to think on this topic for awhile and do some deeper analysis.

Longtime readers of my work know that I'm not particularly a fan of protest culture, feelings that I've occasionally put in harsh terms. In a nutshell, modern protest culture — especially the American variety — has become a kind of ritual theater with the powers-that-be, less focused on strategies for actual change than on demonstrating personal bravery and making insular groups feel good about themselves.

I believe that culture drastically overrates the importance of art and "making a statement" as opposed to figuring ways to get concrete goals accomplished. I believe it saps energy and resources that would be better spent elsewhere. I've seen protest culture disillusion too many good people because groups can't get better organized. I want more people of all types involved in politics, but I want them to tackle it as the fight it actually is.

That's my perspective, and is the shaker of salt you should take when assessing what I write on this topic.

However, while covering Occupy, especially Asheville's own coalition, I've found it interesting to see new activists cut their teeth. A lot of these people are — agree with them or no — genuinely committed to dealing with a host of very real social ills. A number have since moved to more local political involvement, like the clash over a Business Improvement District in downtown.

On a larger level, issues of wealth and class are a part of the discussion in a way they weren't pre-Occupy, and the backlash from law enforcement did illuminate how little respect too many police have for the right to protest.

But I think consensus structures are terrible at long-term political conflict. I've heard a number involved in Occupy say they missed a major opportunity by not coalescing around more definite demands (i.e. large-scale debt forgiveness) last year when their energy was higher and their opponents more off-guard. I've seen infighting reach absurd depths.

Part of me thinks that Occupy has simply reaffirmed the old protest culture, drawing another generation into the same vicious cycle. As I consider that dynamic a massive obstacle to positive change, I'm not happy about that. Perhaps more selfishly, I want my own generation to find a better way than those that proceeded it.

The signs are mixed, especially due to the extremely local nature of many of the movements. The DNC protests that were supposed to be a show of strength largely failed to materialize. Reports for today's marches are still coming in, but the count's about 1,000. Better than the DNC, but down from last year.

So readers, what are your thoughts? Is Occupy bullshit or a way forward? Fizzled or slowly gaining strength? Perspectives welcome below. Keep it civil and smart.

Discussion Time: Union revivals and the future of work

Cover design by Carrie Lare.

This is one of those occasions where my day job and the topics in this blog collide. Asheville, the city where I live, is in the middle of the least-unionized region in the least-unionized state in America.

But workers at the local Sitel call center are trying to change that:

“I have never seen a company run like this,” Brian Lane declares. “I'm here to work; I have a wife and children to support, and these people are sitting here making money hand over fist off the sweat of my back.”

An injury forced Lane, a former electrician, to change jobs. Gathering with fellow employees after work, he brandishes a form from a Hendersonville food pantry.

“That's where I have to go if I want to feed my family,” says Lane. “No matter how hard we work, the sword of Damocles is over our heads.”

---

As the region’s manufacturing base dwindled over the last several decades, local unions saw their membership decline, though many have claimed growth recently. No widespread data is yet available for that time period, however. And despite WNC unions' deep roots, historically they’ve mostly kept to themselves.

“We were all looking out for our own interests, but now we're starting to communicate and ally like nothing I've ever seen before,” says IBEW state coordinator Matthew Ruff. Despite membership growth, he asserts, “We're not fighting for another 5 to 10 percent of market share: We're fighting for our existence”

Low wages have been a major problem in Asheville for a long time: despite our reputation as a cultured, lovely city, they're about $100 a week lower than the state average. On a larger level, union membership has declined nationwide and in many other industrialized countries as well, to the point they're now often viewed as a holdover from a bygone era. Even the more liberal futurists rarely bring up unions in their plans for tomorrow. Working on this story, I ran into plenty of fairly well-informed people that weren't aware that trying to organize a union is perfectly legal anywhere in the country.

Unions seem to have sprang back into the public consciousness a bit more in recent years, especially as they've taken a more proactive approach and faced high-profile fights in a number of states. But it's still unclear if organizing drives like the one above are a blip or the cutting edge of a revived labor movement.

So let's use this as a launching pad for a larger discussion. Are unions making a comeback? Are they a useful way to improve conditions for the average person? If they're not, what works better? Are there other forms of organizing more suited to evolving conditions? What are they?

Comments welcome below.