^^^Living on Less [Aug. 2003 Archive]

Current Journal Page <+> Contact Us If you send us your comments we will (probably) post them. <+> Our Web Sites The Common Wheel Collective Book on Collective Process <+> Journal Archives 2003 | m | j | j | a | s | o | <+> Link to Us <+> Book List <+> Recommended Web Sites 50 Years is Enough AKPress Anarchist Communitarian Network Anti-Slavery Better Times Brazilian Landless Workers Movement Brecht Forum Catholic Worker Collective Action Notes Committee to Protect Journalists Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Crimethinc East Bay Food Not Bombs End Page Archives Enough Free Free Now Fundación ESPERANZA Green Socialist Network Indymedia Infoshop Institute for Social Ecology John Gray Just the Facts Kamunist Kranti Kensington Welfare Rights Union Noam Chomsky Archive Ontario Coalition Against Poverty Organic Consumers Association Overcoming Consumerism Oxfam Pacific Environment Path to Freedom Urban Homesteading Peasant Movement of the Philippines People Against Oppression and War Peoples´ Global Action Poor News Network Reclaim the Streets Ruckus Society Shack/Slum Dwellers’ International The View From the Ground We the People Media <+> Odd and Interesting Links <+> Journals and Weblogs Abada Abada Alana's Dear Blog Aldahlia All About George Beyond Zoe's Diary Blankespoor Blogs Bluebird Escape The Cold Days of Chicago Dru Blood Experiment Fuck Corporate Groceries The Green Man Gujari Girl Invisible Adjunct Lorenzo's blog Madame Insane Modern Peasant Monumental Mistake Nature is Profligate One Pot Meal Path to Freedom Rebecca's Pocket Red Polka Steven Rubio's Online Life Treesit Blog Where Is Raed? Wood's Lot <+>

^^^ Current Journal Entries: [R] Writing, Activism, and that Same Old Division of Labor <><> [a] Anti-Poverty Feast in Ontario <><> [a] Neighborhood Pictures <><> [a] Furniture Inventory <><> [R] Computer Aaargh II <><> [a] Computer! Aaargh! <><> [a] Frugality as Greed <><> [a] Brazilian Landless Workers Fight for Land-Use Reform <><> [R] Blackout <><> [a] Urban Garden! <><> [a] [Meager] Options for Low-Income Health Insurance <><> [R] Health Insurance?! <><> [a] Apathy and Self-Interest <><> [R] Magazine List In the Book List <><> [R] An Updated (Even Bleaker) Report on U.S. Poverty <><> [a] People in My Neighborhood <><> <^><^><^><^><^> ^^^ August 31, 2003    Writing, Activism, and that Same Old Division of Labor [Richard] The other day while working at a temp job on the midnight shift, I ran into someone whom I had dined with some ten years ago, back in my writer days. This particular writer, Rob H., had arranged to have dinner with me one night in 1993, because I was working then as the editor of a small press anthology of semi-experimental science fiction, surrealist fiction, and horror called Air Fish. It was curious running into Rob H. and being reminded of that dinner, because it called to mind a time when I was very different in some ways. At the time that we had this dinner, I was very much part of some kind of literary scene (in an obscure area somewhere between "experimental fiction" and science fiction "cyberpunk"), and I tried as much as possible to identify myself as someone who had chosen writing as my vocation in life -- in short, as a writer... But even then, I wasn't entirely comfortable in that role, and I didn't have a whole lot of desire to become acquainted with all the literary big shots (in any genre), acquire a bunch of prestige, keep up with the trends of the "profession" or, most importantly, assume the role of expert in the field. In those senses, I felt that Rob H. was much more into being a writer and a literary figure, although he was also a musical composer and had other outlets and venues as well. I loved writing -- as I still do -- but even ten years ago, I was starting to become less and less interested in forming an idenity around being a writer, and I felt, increasingly, that just because I wrote a lot, I didn't necessarily have all that much in common with other people who happened to be writing a lot too. I think that this was a big part of the reason I drifted away from any efforts to be a "professional" writer, i.e., from establishing a writing career. Of course, I probably was also turned off by the usual tough knocks that turn many people away from the writing field -- the incredible amount of competition; the difficulties in even getting editors to read your work; the complete hopelessness regarding any prospect of actually making a living from this vocation (especially if you wrote essays and short stories, which is what I did), especially when weighed against the pressures within our society to pursue any artistic vocation with eventual income-earning in mind. But more than all that, I just didn't feel that I shared so many other self-proclaimed writers' desperate need to base their idenitities on this activity that we all did. In workshops and also at proofreading jobs (where you found a lot of writers, artists, and actors, especially in those days), I became increasingly turned off by writer-identified people's egotistical obsession with that role. I didn't want to be a writer, I just wanted to spend a good amount of time writing. Some years later, I began to get the same feelings about being an activist. I got fully into activism in the mid-90s, during my mid-30s (which surprises some people since activists usually start younger), because I got completely disgusted with NAFTA and the Contract With [on] America but also got highly inspired by the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas. These positive and negative events compelled me to participate in demonstrations, go to political meetings, take politically oriented classes and workshops, put up posters and flyers, and get other people to participate in the same ways (which I guess you could call organizing), i.e., to do all the things that activists do. Later, in 1998-99, my activities extended to participating in Reclaim the Streets demonstration-festivals to draw attention to various causes while reclaiming public space, and in efforts to barricade and defend soon-to-be-evicted local squats. And then in 2000, and for the next two years, I became addicted to participating in actions at anti-capitalist/"anti-globalization" protests. Now, I'm feeling a bit disillusioned with the whole activist scene. (There are a number of reasons for that, some of which are generally outlined in our other project, the Collective Book on Collective Process.) But even while I was more active in all the big protests and actions, I never really wanted to go around labeling myself an activist. It didn't feel right to me to base my identity on this stuff that I was doing, nor to establish myself as some kind of expert in that field. Fortunately, in the world of anti-capitalist protest, there actually have been a number of people who feel the same way about activism. This is because one aspect of revolutionary thinking is the desire to break away from this thing known as the division of labor, this mentality which has facilitated the hierarchical functioning of capitalism and other economic systems by establishing specific work roles for us which are somehow supposed to be the basis of our identity as well. It might seem rather ironic that people thrive on the division of labor -- and therefore on the establishment of hierarchical vocational expertise -- even while claiming to fight all systems of hierarchy, and even when these pursuits might impede, rather than enhance, their ability to market themselves in the capitalist system. But these sorts of ironies are pretty common in the lefty world and, besides, there are some "anti-capitalists" who manage to make bundles of money by becoming visible personalities frequently desired for mass-marketed interviews and speaking tours. There have been many writings describing this basic division of labor and urging some rebellion against it. The most famous revolutionary writing about the subject -- and the writing that actually influenced me profoundly -- was Marx and Engels' passages on alienation in The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach, A. Idealism and Materialism, especially the paragraphs under the heading "Private Property and Communism." Here, Marx and Engels point out beautifully what the division of labor does to human activity versus how human activity naturally should be: "For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." With reference to the contemporary concept of the activist, there was an excellent article written in 1999 by someone who called himself Andrew X, called "Give Up Activism." Reflecting on the "activist mentality" that he found evident during the June 18, 1999 Reclaim the Streets protests in the UK, Andrew X writes (brilliantly, I think): "Activism, like all expert roles, has its basis in the division of labour--it is a specialised separate task. The division of labour is the foundation of class society, the fundamental division being that between mental and manual labour. The division of labour operates, for example, in medicine or education--instead of healing and bringing up kids being common knowledge and tasks that everyone has a hand in, this knowledge becomes the specialised property of doctors and teachers--experts that we must rely on to do these things for us. Experts jealously guard and mystify the skills they have. This keeps people separated and disempowered and reinforces hierarchical class society." Of course, the two passages above describe very fundamental principles by which the vast majority of people within our society are asked to identify themselves. In actuality, fewer and fewer people really identify with the work that they have to do for a living, but there is still this compulsion to maintain some specialist identity in a hierarchical scheme of things. At the proofreading jobs where I've worked where there were other proofreaders who did writing or art or acting, most of these "creative" proofreaders made sure to mention their other, "real" vocations frequently. That's probably because people were so conscious of the social pressures to establish one's identity based on profession, and they were terrified that they might be identified with the boring, trivial, and lowly role of a proofreader. (Thus, they couldn't just escape their social conditioning by accepting and proclaiming that they proofread for wages but did many other things -- including writing, acting, art etc.; they had to make it clear that they were really writers, actors, or artists and not just proofreaders!) Sometimes when I tell people that I would like to end this tendency of identifying or self-identifying according to specific vocations, they act as though I'm insane. In this world, it's even worse to advocate that kind of change than to insist that we get rid of the wage system altogether or eliminate money! But as far as I'm concerned, whenever we self-identify according to a specific vocation, we not only contribute to one of the main hierarchical principles supporting capitalism; we also unnecessarily limit ourselves. I could speculate that if I had ever really settled on identifying myself with a money-making vocation, I probably wouldn't be poor and struggling now. But the fact that I have no money-making vocation with which to identify compels me to focus less, not more, on forming an identity around the roles I might assume through activities that are definitely not lucrative. Maybe because I've resigned to the idea that neither writing, activism, nor anything else that I spend most of my time doing will ever earn me money, I feel it's a little less necessary to identify myself as a person who specializes in any one of those things. Yet, I find it curious how much my own approach to that issue is obviously different from that of so many people, who actually want to be recognized as specializing in one activity. I find it equally curious how negatively people react to the idea that I am doing less of any individual thing. If I've decreased my writing in order to do some activism, then this means I have given up as a writer. If I've then decreased my activism and gone back to doing some writing, this means that I have given up as an activist. I've rarely heard people say that it's a good thing to do less of one of these activities in order to make time to do other things. It's incredible how ingrained the division of labor is in people's minds. Personally, I would rather do without it completely and wish I had never been pressured to form an identity around any particular vocation. And in the broader sense, I do genuinely believe that we need to do away with this division of labor (psychologically as well as materially) if we want to create a better and saner world. +/0/+/0/+/0/+/0/+/0+/0/+ ^^^ August 29, 2003          Anti-Poverty Feast in Ontario [asfo_del] The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty organized a radical and inspiring event on August 23 to call attention to economic inequality and provide a rich feast to all comers in the bargain. Several hundred homeless, First Nations people, and others gathered in a park directly across the street from some of Toronto's most luxurious restaurants and boutiques. Participants came together in a spirit of sharing and solidarity to demonstrate, unarguably, the wide disparity between the wealth of the immediate surroundings and the unmet needs of a great proportion of the local population. The police and city government, of course, overreacted, sending riot police to a picnic and issuing a statement to the press in the days before the event implying that it would be detrimental to Toronto's business district and might degenerate into an arrest situation. Which it did, thanks to the police's apparently needless arrest of four participants. [I only know about this demo from reading the articles linked below.] -------------------------------- Yorkville Feast Takes it to the Tory Trough "On Saturday, August 23rd, well over 500 people gathered amid the luxury condos, 'fine dining' establishments and upscale boutiques of Toronto's Yorkville district for a huge feast. Homeless people came to dine. Residents of nearby poor communities turned out. First Nations people brought their support and solidarity. Immigrant neighbourhoods under attack were represented. Trade unionists and social justice activists stood together. [...] In the days leading up to the Feast, it was clear that we had touched a very raw nerve with this action. The Toronto Police issued a press release that left no doubt as to who they are there to 'serve and protect'. [...] None of this vast and costly exercise in intimidation had the slightest effect. Homeless people, who are vulnerable as anyone can be to police abuse, showed no fear but boldly walked into Yorkville past lines of cops to join the Feast. Speeches from a range of supporting organizations were clear and defiant. A sense of strength and solidarity united everyone." Feeding the Poor in Yorkville "Brian Burch, editor of Resources for Radicals, wrote, 'This promises to be an effective and exciting protest. Symbolically, it is one of the more imaginative in recent times. With members of the First Nations acting as hosts to a feast for the hungry held in the midst of plenty, we are presented with a different model of society — not one based on greed, profit and privilege, but one based on sharing and mutuality.' ” Pictures :::==:::==:::==:::==::: ^^^ August 27, 2003         Neighborhood Pictures [asfo_del] I just recently got a digital camera. It was $29, plus $5 shipping, so the quality of the images is not great, but they do have a kind of painterly, nostalgic quality as a result of being so indistinct. It's true that my neighborhood looks pretty dreary in real life, but it is not quite so desolate as these pictures. These were taken just after dawn, so they are also somewhat dim. All three were taken within a block of my house on Staten Island. <^>^<^>^<^>^<^> ^^^ August 27, 2003         Furniture Inventory [asfo_del] This is a list of what furniture we have in the house and where it came from. Since I moved into this house after Mike was already living here, most of the furniture and appliances we have are his. When I left Texas several years ago, I didn't take anything with me, so whatever I had accumulated then is still with my old boyfriend, Bill, or has been discarded. Items Mike already had are marked [M]; items acquired after my arrival are marked [a&M]. Anything I brought in, which is almost nothing, is marked [a]. Our bedroom: [M] Metal bunk bed; the top bunk is a twin [no mattress; it's where we store our clothes]; the lower bunk is queen size with a futon. Mike bought it new for $300 about three and a half years ago. [a&M] Small three-shelf wooden bookshelf, 70's style with rounded corners, stained a walnut color and gloss-varnished. Garbage find. [a] TV, 13 inch, with rotary-knob channel changer and rabbit-ear antenna. Bought by my parents at a yard sale for $25 about twelve years ago. [a&M] Two-drawer wood nightstand, stained dark brown, with round metal knobs. Appears to be home-made. Garbage find. [M] Milk crate. Garbage find. [M] Tall wood dresser, painted dark brown. The bottom drawer is missing. Belonged to Mike's grandmother, who passed on in 1985. [M] Stereo with turntable, radio, cassette deck. Only one speaker works. Mike bought it new about 15 years ago. [M] Small three-drawer dresser, stained a mahogany color, with machine-carved shell design on front and ornate brass-looking pulls. Was bought new by Mike and his former wife as part of a bedroom set, the rest of which she still has. [M] Box fan, bought new. Mike's son's bedroom: [a&M] Twin bed with banister-style wooden headboard, bought used this year for $25. The mattress is from the top bunk of our bed. The box-spring was bought used for $25. [M] Large six-drawer double-wide wood dresser. Came with the house that Mike and his former wife had bought about ten years ago. [M] Large wall mirror with wood frame. Bought new by Mike and his former wife. [M] Double window fan bought by Mike's former wife. Living room/kitchen: [a&M] Tiny one-shelf bookshelf. Doubles as stool. Painted red-brown. Appears to be home-made. Garbage find. [a&M] Red metal folding chair borrowed by Mike at a construction job and never returned. [M] Apartment-size stove given to Mike by a neighbor in exchange for handyman work. [a&M] Half-size refrigerator bought used for $25. Dark brown fake-wood front. [a&M] Brass wall sconce with articulated arm. One of a pair bought used for $10. Cloth pleated lampshade, white, bought used for $4. [M] Dinette set: metal table with laminate top, one leg starting to come off, and two metal chairs with padded vinyl seats, both cracked. The other two chairs are already broken and in the basement. Belonged to Mike's grandmother. [a&M] Wood Windsor-style chair. Garbage find. [a&M] Upholstered office chair with adjustable seat, on casters. Gray cloth-covered, with wooden feet and arm supports. The screws keep falling out of the bottom. Garbage find by a friend of Mike's, who gave it to us. [a&M] Narrow modern three-shelf bookcase, painted black. Garbage find. [M] Mirror removed from a built-in style bathroom medicine cabinet. Garbage find. [M] Upholstered wing chair, blue. Given to Mike by a former boss several years ago. [a&M] Low wooden barstool. The seat was once padded, it appears, and is now bare particle board; the top surface is painted black. Garbage find. [M] Upholstered love seat, mousy brown, boxy shape. Given to Mike's former wife by her boss. [a&M] Boom box. Only the radio works. Bought used at a repair shop for $50. [a&M] Breuer chair: metal legs with wooden seat, arms, and back. The seat is padded in red-brown vinyl. Garbage find by two friends of Mike's, who gave it to us. [M] Drop-leaf table, wood, with cabriole legs. Belonged to Mike's grandmother. [M] Small coffee table, wood. The veneer is coming off the top. Garbage find. [a&M] Computer. Bought new in 2002 by Mike for $650. [M] TV, 19 inch. Mike bought it used for $100 at a hotel sale about ten years ago. [M] Metal arm to hold up the TV [screws into the wall]. Mike bought it new about 3 years ago. Mud porch: [a&M] Another red metal folding chair borrowed by Mike at a construction job and never returned. [M] Upright coat rack, wood. Belonged to Mike's grandmother. Bathroom: There's no furniture in the bathroom. -------------------------- Not including the computer, all the appliances and furniture we have cost us about $450, of which $300, went for the bed. I'm not counting stuff that was bought more than ten years ago, because I figure those costs were amortized long ago. And I haven't included wall decorations. With the computer, the total is $1100. +@+@+@+@+@+ ^^^ August 25, 2003        Computer Aargh II [Richard] Funny (or not so funny) thing is, there have been big computer problems on my end too. Since I'm using a Pentium I with Windows 98, my computer hasn't been susceptible to the new viruses; however, because I'm using such an antique, it's become increasingly impossible to find replacement parts, even for something as simple as a PS/2 mouse or a USB-to-PS/2 adapter. I've had particularly bad luck with my tracking ball mice (which I thought would be more durable than regular mice (as well as a lot less annoying to use) -- but never mind). In fact, I've had to buy four tracking ball mice within the past two years. I now have tracking balls rolling all over the apartment. The only good thing about this situation is that my seven-year-old cat, Chomsky, positively loves it -- with three old tracking balls to play with, it's probably even better than having real mice around (plus, I didn't exactly hold on to the two real mice that he's caught over the same period of time anyway), and it definitely helps to keep him in shape. But at $20 to $30 a mouse, considering my own condition of poverty, that's a lot of money to pay for cat toys. I wouldn't have had to buy the latest mouse, if only I could have found a simple USB-to-PS/2 adapter (since it was the adapter, not the mouse, that fell apart). But the stores aren't carrying them anymore (not the several that I've checked) and I've been told that it's because all the new computers are coming out with USB ports. The only way that I could get myself a replacement adapter was to look for a new mouse that came with one. And I've been told that those are going to be phased out too, just as serial port adapters were phased out of all the packages sometime ago. At the J&R Computers near City Hall, the sales guy told me I better do everything possible to save up for a new model computer because I'm going to end up spending at least as much money trying to fix and upgrade parts in my Pentium I, because it's so obsolete now. I suppose he would have been flabbergasted had I told him that all last year I was using an even older 486, because my Pentium I had crashed and I didn't want to spend the money to fix it -- at least not until the 486 crashed again... And right now, I'm actually using the monitor from that old 486 (which monitor I've had since 994 -- ancient history by computer standards) because the newer (five-year-old) monitor broke down last week. Computer technology itself has actually become cheaper and cheaper, if you count what you get for your bucks. Unfortunately, the business keeps demanding upgrades and making even reasonably old computers obsolete. And, it is definitely true that most of us simply don't need all this new technology. We did fine with our older computers, and we should have the choice to use those older computers for as long as we might use any other old appliances, and poorer people should at least have the (hassle-free) choice to use older models that will cause more affluent consumer types to turn up their noses. But, of course, it doesn't exactly work that way. This is capitalism, after all -- consumer capitalism. In my last real full-time job back in 2000, I was a copy editor for several computer buyers' magazines. I had no interest in the subject matter (probably part of the reason for my downfall in this position, but we won't go into that now); I simply needed a job in which I could use some skill that I had to earn a paycheck. Unfortunately, the material actually disgusted me. I've proofread ethically questionable material at corporations before (something best not gone into further right now either), but more linguistically technical material -- law, finance, etc. -- just isn't as in your face in terms of capitalist hucksterism as the stuff I had to read at these magazines. What these magazines did, on a constant basis, was relentlessly push every newfangled computer gadget as being absolutely necessary for the reader to keep up, be hip, not be left behind. But I don't think that a lot of people, except maybe some shallow Yuppies, are persuaded by such nonsense. Especially in depressed economic times, people will try to hang on to their old reliable machines as much as possible. Yet obsolescence is very expertly built into the computer market so that even all those people who don't want to spend more money upgrading equipment -- especially when they're on tight budgets -- are forced to upgrade anyway. In that sense, the computer industry is at least as disgusting as any other that you're likely to encounter -- far worse than cars, I would bet (though I don't know much about cars), and this swindle isn't going to end anytime soon, no matter how poor many of us get; most likely, there will simply be an increase in the technology gap, rather than the greater economic democratization of computer technology that could have happened and still could happen, if only we all had a real choice in the matter. *&!@#+&*#@!#@&~@#~@#! ^^^ August 25, 2003         Computer! Aaargh! [asfo_del] I just spent the last two and a half days trying [and succeeding, apparently - I'll be keeping my fingers crossed] to rid this computer of the Blaster worm. Man, did that suck. When the computer started acting crazy a couple weeks ago, I didn't know what was going on. It would abruptly shut itself off, at first with a warning, and then, sometimes, with no warning at all. When I tried running an anti-virus system-wide scan, which I did several times, the program would say it had encountered an error that forced it to turn itself off. Whenever I was online I was besieged by pop-ups. I think the pop-ups were exploiting the same vulnerability that allowed the worm to get in. But I don't know. I know nothing. I have no actual information on how the computer works, which can be very frustrating sometimes. On the other hand, I'm glad it works - most of the time [!!] - with no input from me. I dutifully sent an error report to Microsoft in response to a prompt ["The system has just recovered from a serious error..."], and they replied by directing me to a web page that explains how the problem can be fixed, with a fair amount of patience and determination, even by a greenhorn like myself. [ I'll let you know if it's actually fixed in a few days....] This is only the second computer I've ever had, and I've only had it for just over a year. [And it's not mine, it's Mike's, though I'm the one who uses it all the time]. The only other computer I've had in my home [it wasn't actually mine, either, it was my old boyfriend's] was a Mac 512 - not the very first one ever produced, but the second - purchased used in 1993, when it was about seven years old. Even then it was considered stupidly obsolete. But it was wonderful in its simplicity. All it could do was run MacWrite and MacPaint. There was no color. The screen was tiny. And we had a dot-matrix printer which we used to type up a little art newsletter that we put out twice a month. People often wondered at the look of the text, but I thought it was great: kind of vintage and nostalgic. During that same period, I had a mimeograph machine that I had bought for $20 at a school-equipment junkyard in Houston. [Castoffs from public schools, like old filing cabinets, overhead projectors, and child-sized desks, were literally strewn around, outside, in an overgrown lot guarded by a snarling dog.] People reading this might be too old to remember mimeographed sheets. They're those faint purple copies that smell of rubbing alcohol when they've just been printed; those of us who are over 35 received them from our teachers almost daily in elementary school. Making these copies costs almost nothing, but you have to write or type directly onto the master. The machine I had was hand-cranked, so it didn't even consume electricity. Nevertheless, the mimeographed zine I made at the time was met with puzzled looks. I thought it was great: fuzzy and smeared like an underground manifesto produced in some hidden basement. Using obsolete technology is a great way to conserve resources and to validate the efforts of the past. In 1984, when the first Mac came out, it was amazing. Those machines are still great, even though they can't do most of the things we take for granted in a computer. But they are the ones that set the standard for attractive and usable computers [and of course the Macs introduced the whole concept of the personal computer, along with the idea of using windows, on-screen icons, and a mouse]: black lettering on a gray/white background, real typography with the same pleasing letter-spacing as typeset text, ingeniously designed icons that can convey what they do with the sparest of imagery, and a beautiful, sensible layout. The computer I use now has so many bells and whistles that there's always something not working right. And most of its features are of no use to me; I don't even know what three quarters of them are meant to do. The recent scan I had to run in order to eliminate the worm revealed that I have over 20,000 files! It certainly seems to me [and this may be completely obvious to everyone] that if older operating systmes and programs were kept in use and improved over time, instead of new products being forever brought out so that customers will have something new to spend their money on, there would not be so many errors that leave systems vulnerable to invaders like the Blaster worm. My knowledge on this subject is extremely limited, but I think it's important to make sure that those of us who have web sites design them in such a way that older machines and browsers can have full access to their features. Otherwise we're only encouraging the technology of exploitation, whose goal is to force all of us to constantly update to newer devices - so that we can keep turning over more and more of our money to some of the riches companies in the world. ----------------- [The moral of this story is: don't ignore updates and don't put off the warnings from you anti-virus program that say, "Your virus definitions are not up to date: run live update now?"]. :::=:::=:::=:::=:::=::: ^^^ August 21, 2003         Frugality as Greed [asfo_del] Searching the web for ideas on living frugally yields a lot of advice on how to get some of the same stuff that a bigger spender would want, but for a lower price, usually by figuring out ways to be a savvier shopper. I don't want to disparage anyone's well-meant suggestions, but I find that not only does this particular strategy not result in any meaningful reduction in spending [because you end up buying a lot of stuff you don't need], but it also eliminates some of the great advantages inherent in not buying things, or buying as little as possible: refusing to support corporate control of our lives and society, going easier on the earth, and being less burdened by all the stuff that can so easily accumulate in daily living. Taken to an extreme, and understood to mean the desire to get more for less [or even something for nothing], frugality is just another variety of greed. And since there is so little that is sold in our culture that wasn't made through the suffering and degradation of other people, our best recourse in trying to be ethical is not to buy anything - or to buy very little and take better care of what we have, so that we won't have to replace it as often. Only a generation ago, my relatives in Italy routinely replaced the worn-out lining in winter overcoats, darned their socks, had their shoes mended, covered the good furniture with sheets, and wore housecoats in the house and good clothes only to go out. I think that if we were not taking advantage of young women, men, old people, children, and prisoners in China and elsewhere, including right here in the U.S., who make our shoes for pennies a day, we would have to pay for those shoes what they are really worth. And then we would have to take really good care of them because we could not afford to casually toss them and buy new ones. I try to buy next to nothing, at least when it comes to clothes, electronics, and other personal-use stuff, and to buy used stuff. [Which, it turns out, was not a good strategy for buying a boom box. Apparently someone had left it at the repair shop I got it from because it actually didn't work. Go figure!] Food is another story. I can't go without food, obviously. I should follow my own advice and go get food out of the dumpster, but I don't. [The stores in my neighborhood have produce on their shelves that is so awful I would not retrieve it out of the garbage.] It's doubtful that I could get all my food that way, but I could make a significant dent. When I was a Food Not Bombs volunteer, we sometimes got our raw ingredients [veggies] by dumpstering - on the occasions when donations did not come through - and we could fairly easily get enough produce to serve small portions of vegetable soup to about forty or fifty people. Supermarkets have the most variety and best prices, I think, but they are not a positive force in society. There's not a lot of backlash against large grocery chains in the U.S., except when it comes to the food outlets that are owned by Wal-Mart, but in the U.K. there is quite a lot of public awareness about the drawbacks of giant food retailers. [I'll save the diatribe against large grocery store chains for another time. In the meantime, I'll continue to shop there....] -------------------------------- These are some of the people in China who make stuff for the U.S. market and some of the places where they live and work. FUBU sneaker factory flanked by guard towers. Car stereos being made for thirty five cents an hour. Workers' dorms: nine to twelve people share one room. Leaving dorms for work. <||><||><||><||><||> ^^^ August 18, 2003         Brazilian Landless Workers Fight for Land-Use Reform [asfo_del] On August 16, thousands demonstrated in the town of São Gabriel in southern Brazil to demand rural land-use reform, which legally provides for thousands of acres of land holdings - owned by a wealthy few - to be turned over to landless workers if they are not being productively used. Only 27,000 Brazilian landowners control 178 million hectares, half of which are not cultivated. In Brazil, 90% of the land is owned by 20% of the population while the poorest 40% own only 1% of the land. Landless peasants have so far taken over 120 ranches in 23 states throughout Brazil, but the going has been far from easy. Landowners have reacted to many of the takeovers with violence, including murder. Brazil's socialist president, Lula, has promised support, but the MST (Landless Workers' Movement) is skeptical. This latest demonstration, which culminated in São Gabriel after a two-month-long march, was organized to protest the suspension of the planned disappropriation and re-distribution to landless workers of a 13,000 hectare farm near São Gabriel. However, the workers were dealt a setback by a federal court, which handed down a decision on August 15 to permanently cancel the disappropriation. The court did not question the fact that the land in question is not currently productive, stating only as the reason for its decision that the owner did not receive proper notification. The MST expressed its disappointment and outrage in a communique and vowed to carry on its struggle for land rights. Land use is one of the most vital issues in the eradication of worldwide poverty. In the U.S. the talk about attempting to help impoverished peoples in the global south usually deals with charity and handouts, when what people really need for self-sufficiency is access to productive land - land which in many cases has been taken from them through violent and illegitimate means by the wealthy few, who are in fact the root cause of their poverty, not an agent for its solution. Many of those who are desperately poor today were made that way by the knowing and intentional disappropriation of their land, starting from colonial times and continuing to this day, land which often had been cultivated by their ancestors for centuries. Photos of the march and demo in São Gabriel from Brazil Indymedia: Photos #1: Play it!, Chilly, Accordion player, Supporters, People arriving, Police Photos #2: Encampment, Encampment, Lunch, Bathrooms, "Guri", Movement of Women Farm Workers Photos #3: Encampment, Demo, Demo, Arrival of the march (Sign reads: Brazil Without Hunger: Land, Work, and Social Rights), Interview, "Guria" Photos #4: The march         The encampment, the march. <>-#-<>-#-<>-#-<>-#-<>-#-<> ^^^ August 15, 2003        Blackout [Richard] Well, I guess this was an event worth recording in the journal. The lights were out in my Staten Island neighborhood for 11 1/2 hours -- went out about 4:30 pm, went back on at about 4:00 am. When the lights came back on, I was in the midst of a long and leisurely catch-up phone conversation with a friend, Pete, from the Staten Island Greens (obviously someone else who doesn't have a day job). As soon as the power came back on, we both expressed immediate disappointment that civilization had returned (though I was also tremendously relieved that I could get back to my work on the computer). Anyway, for the biggest blackout in U.S. history, this seemed particularly mellow and uneventful. Personally speaking, it turned out to be a pretty pleasant time. I hung out on the porch for hours with both the couple upstairs and Erik (a friend of mine who happens to live in the front half of my apartment, who also tables with the Common Wheel Collective sometimes). This kind of relaxed, neighborly gathering would never have happened among the four of us this way had the lights not gone out -- and I think we were all the better for it. I also took a short walk down the darkening streets, imagining I was off on a vacation in rural Vermont, which is almost what it felt like without any lights around, with the moon and even some stars becoming visible. I didn't have to deal with the temp work tonight; I lost a chance for work on a night that I'd been told earlier would be very busy -- not very good (I guess) for my poverty situation but actually very nice for my mood last night. And despite initial anxiety, I ended up truly enjoying the break from civilization for an evening. The past week has greatly increased my ambivalence about technology. I've had a host of minor problems with my computer (this time it was me, not asfo_del), which took a good chunk of time trying to resolve. I've also obviously really needed a chance to relax a little -- and the big blackout, ironically, gave me that. So, who knows, maybe I'll progress even further in my descent into primitivism. Of course, I know that overall this was not a good thing. The blackout must have caused some hardship for a number of people. And as one of my upstairs neighbors pointed out, if so little can have such a big effect, we're obviously ill prepared for anything. This is the third major, historic blackout that I've been through during my life in New York City. I don't have much memory of the 1965 blackout (when I was 3 or 4); I have some vague memory of relative fun and neighborliness, but that probably came more from the overheard legend that developed later -- this was the peace and love blackout. The one in '77 was quite something. The night itself wasn't that eventful for me -- I was stuck in a hot apartment with my father, listening to news of rampant looting on the transistor radio. (I think my mother was off to England at the time; my sister was going to Reading University through some exchange program she'd gotten into through CUNY; I would be meeting them both in London in a month, for my first and only trip overseas -- which would only exacerbate my deepening adolescent infatuation with punk rock). The next day, as I recall, most of The Bronx looked as though a war had hit it. Yet, this time around, 26 years later, for whatever reason (increased police state? disaster and violence weariness?) there obviously has been no such unrest...which I suppose is a good thing. I want to see unrest in a sense -- I want to see people acting justifiably angry at what's happening to our cities, our economy, our civil liberties...but it probably is much better if that happens some other time, in a well coordinated and constructively planned way, without the destruction of small, struggling businesses or the trashing of poor neighborhoods. So...those are my quick thoughts at the close of the great big (but actually not very interesting) blackout of 2003. And I'm getting to feel now as though it's about the right time to turn off all the lights and go to sleep. [Postcript: "Official" news reports say lights had gone out everywhere at 4:11 pm -- that makes sense; I have a battery-operated clock on my wall that's at least 15 minutes fast. Much of Manhattan remains out of power (hours and hours later), so the news says. I'll defer to the news reports from this point; I think/hope we can trust them to be accurate at least for this sort of stuff.] =`=`=`=`=`=`=`=`=`=`=` ^^^ August 14, 2003         Urban Garden! [asfo_del] I'm getting excited about my garden now because it's actually producing. Okay, so it's very small: just a few old buckets. A few nights ago we actually ate two of my zucchini. One of them was huge: it happened to mature while I was away for a week, and Mike, who took care of the plants in my absence, didn't know you're not supposed to let them get a foot long and three inches across [!!]. But after having eaten it I say he was right to let it get that big: it was great. Not fibrous or overly seedy at all. [Perhaps allowing one fruit to become colossal stunted the growth of future ones? I really know nothing about these matters.] What's awesome to me are the bell peppers, which I grew from seeds saved from peppers bought at the supermarket and the local meat market on the corner. They're not ready to pick yet, but the biggest one is more than two inches long and about a dozen others are between an inch and a quarter inch long. I don't want to count them [my chickens] before they've actually made it to our table, but.... Peppers are supposed to be hard to grow, especially in cooler climates like New York City, so I thought they would fail for sure, since they had so many strikes against them. Besides the fact of the seeds having come from store-bought specimens instead of seed packets, I read that peppers need to be started indoors and kept under warm conditions, preferably under growing lamps, for like two months before you plant them outside. The book in question said it really wasn't even worth the trouble unless you wanted to grow special varieties. I did buy potting soil in which to sow the seeds, since I read that ordinary soil contains funguses that can kill tiny plants, but my apartment in April was far from warm. We keep our thermostat between 50 [at night] and 55 [during the day]. For a long time the seeds just sat, unmoved, in their little pan of store-bought potting soil. I was amazed when they actually poked out. They stayed teeny for a long time. I think the moral of this story is that greenhorns like me should only take gardening advice form other hapless fools like ourselves, or we would be too discouraged to even try. Take my compost pile: a pathetic little mound in the back yard. No tumbler, no proper ratios of grass clippings to leaves to kitchen scraps, no turning over, and certainly not adequate in size [at least three feet by three feet by three feet, according to the books] to generate the proper heat for ideal composting, but, hey, it's okay. What I put in there [all my vegetable and fruit kitchen scraps plus a few leaves and mulberries, with the occasional shovelful of dirt] did turn into a humus of sorts, and the plants seem to like it. Last year I planted okra, which died immediately. Too cold I think. The carrots I sowed in the back yard, which is very shady, never showed. But snow peas, lettuce, peppers, zucchini, basil, parsley, cilantro, and my neighbor's tomatoes, which have been entrusted in my care, all did pretty darn well, even in old buckets and other scavenged or improvised containers. ::"::"::"::"::"::":: ^^^ August 13, 2003         [Meager] Options for Low-Income Health Insurance [asfo_del] If you live in New York State, here is some information on [possibly - and that is the big question, of course, otherwise we would have universal coverage instead of trying to cover ourselves, health-care-wise, with a patchwork quilt that is full of holes!] obtaining health insurance. Please do not take my word for any of this info! New York State Medicaid The rules for Medicaid eligibility are different in every state. I was surprised [and pleasantly so, if it's true] to read on this web site that a single person making up to $642 a month can receive Medicaid in New York. I had been told the income cutoff was $350 a month by an official source, and I still believe that to be the accurate figure. In addition, a pregnant woman can get temporary Medicaid if her income does not exceed $1497 a month, even if she plans to terminate her pregnancy. [National info on Medicaid] Pre-screen yourself for public health insurance in New York. Family Health Plus, NY State As a single individual, if your income is up to $749 a month, you may be eligible for Family Health Plus, a program administered by the state of New York, whereby you are covered through an HMO but pay no premium. Child Health Plus, NY State Almost all children in NY are eligible for Child Health Plus, though people above a certain income level don't have discounted premiums. The premium depends on the parent's income and starts at zero. [National info on health coverage for children.] Healthy NY Healthy NY offers individual health insurance at group rates to people who meet the income requirements and don't already have health insurance. A single person who makes up to $1,882 a month may be eligible [depending on some other factors]. The premiums, however, are not that cheap. The least expensive plan available in my county, for example, costs $160 a month to insure one person. Freelancers' Union Qualifications for this coverage are not clear, but it appears that if you are a freelancer working at least 20 hours a week you may qualify. The monthly premium is a whopping $286.88 for a lone individual. If someone cannot qualify under any of these low-income programs, she can buy private health insurance at market rates, which, as far as I know, are upwards of $300 a month. At these prices, no wonder there are at least 41 million people who have no insurance! Who could possibly afford it? [The figures may actually be much worse: nearly 1 out of 3 non-elderly Americans were uninsured for all or part of 2001-2002.] There's another possibility for people who can't afford any health insurance: some public hospitals, including Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City, offer a sliding scale of fees, based on proof of income. Sometimes the financial repercussions of not having insurance can be even more frightening than the possibility of being unable to receive proper care. People will forego visiting the doctor or emergency room for fear of the bills! And with good reason. Medical bills can be astronomical, and they are often turned over to ruthless collection agencies if left unpaid. [In my experience, sometimes bills will disappear, apparently forgiven, but one can't predict when that might happen.] Medical bills are responsible for about half of all bankruptcy filings. In addition, in a bizarre ironic twist, uninsured people are actually charged more for services and medications than insurance companies, who are able to negotiate favorable rates. Regular folks are the only ones who are charged full price for medical services! ----------------------- -Why Hospitals Overcharge The Uninsured -New report challenges myth of free health care for the uninsured -Consequences of Being Uninsured ----------------------- [Health care is the only business where you can be billed for a service that you did not request, did not authorize, were not informed about before it was performed, and about whose cost you were given absolutely no information in advance.] <+><+><+><+><+><+> ^^^ August 10, 2003       Health Insurance?! [Richard] Count me among the many Americans who have no health insurance. I've been in this situation for two and a half years, although I did technically have health insurance briefly last year at the "permanent" job from which I was laid off after a month. I went to a doctor shortly after that "termination," after having been told by my HMO that I would still be covered, but that issue turned out to be rather questionable (though forutnately no one has sent me any bills so far). During the two and a half years since my last regular, semi-lasting full-time job, I've been a little slow in finding out how or when I might be able to get special low-cost health insurance, register with a clinic, or find some other way to end this slightly scary situation. The circumstance varies because, as a temp worker, my income also varies, and many of these plans and social services are based on past-month's income...and some months I have virtually no income at all, other months I qualify as working poor, and one or two months out of the year, I've been almost middle class. (Additionally, it's not so easy for a not-so-organized person like myself to keep track of three or four different temp agencies' pay stubs). In any event, it's all seemed a bit complicated and overwhelming, and judging from my experiences with Unemployment, I imagine the first bureaucratic hurdles will be far from the last. (Unemployment insurance has been a nightmare for me. The government has found reasons to pay me almost nothing the last time around. And now they're after me to file taxes (and presumably pay them?!) for two years ago, when my Unemployment payments were much higher and I was far less poor than I am today.) In any event, lest I go on much longer, suffice to say that I actually did try to type up an explanation of all the bureaucratic complications involved in trying to get some kind of poor person's subsidized health coverage or even figuring out what's available...and the explanation was so long and dreary, I deleted it all, figuring no one could stand reading it. Bureaucracy is one way the government discourages people from getting the measly, scattered benefits to which they're supposedly entitled. Bureaucracy is also a good sign of how far you've sunk down the economic ladder -- the poorer you are, the more wretched bureaucracy you have to deal with if you want any assistance in trying to survive. But insecurity is an even bigger measure of personal economic decline. The lack of insurance is almost just a metaphor for the decline in security that you must face as you descend into the world of contingent work....which itself is just one aspect of the overriding insecurity that goes along with poverty. As I've said before, I sometimes am quite grateful for not having a stifling daily work routine. However, it's hard to tell how much longer I can stand not knowing whether I'll be working from one day to the next and not knowing until an hour and a half before a work shift whether I'll be working that night. Since I have absolutely no savings, this leaves me wondering from week to week when or how I'll be able to pay for utilities or rent. Fortunately, with a little occasional help from family and (much more so) friends (including some right in the Common Wheel Collective), I've sort of been managing to scrape by in the nick of time every time. (It also helps, I suppose, to have that old credit card to fall back on, at least for a thousand or so more dollars before I "max out.") However, I think it would be heaven at this point not to go through another month of this uncertainty. The capitalist system itself is characterized, at least for workers, by constant insecurity. While all the propaganda tells us how wonderful it is that people have a chance to move up, the threat and actual existence of downward mobility are probably much more significant factors. For much of the middle class, the threat of downward mobility becomes frightening and stifling enough to limit any genuine social ambitions or higher aspirations, basically keeping people in line. And for those of us who've already had the carpet pulled out from under us, the increasing daily economic insecurities become another, particularly special kind of economic oppression, complementary to, but separate from, the normal restrictions of poverty. Often, the downwardly mobile are driven enough by economic insecurity to desperately search for any full-time job that might be available, even if it means collecting one third of their former wages or simply minimum wage (if not less). This is a choice that's presented itself to me on occasion, though many lower-paying jobs for which I've applied have rejected me for being overqualified. I suppose I also benefit from a quality that might be characterized as either courage or denial. At least judging by some middle-class acquaintances and relatives, I’m not reacting nearly as desperately as I should. And some people I know who've spent all their lives with regular income, good backup spousal or parental assistance, and/or steady health insurance never hesitate to ask their pointed questions: "How can you live that way?" "What if you get sick?" "How long have you been living in this crisis?" Unfortunately, I don't hear much in the way of solutions from either the middle-class panickers or the champions of the working class. (In case anybody hasn't noticed, trade unions for the most part won't go near most contingent workers or the unemployed. And I'm afraid the great little "revolutionary" "workers'" groups that I've encountered haven't been of much help either (if you'll pardon the understatement).) It would be nice if this country had a movement of contingent workers and the unemployed. Places in Europe, such as France, have had very interesting unemployment movements in recent memory. But the United States does not have as strong a tradition of protest by any means. Part of the reason people don't take to the streets to help themselves collectively is that our society has successfully discouraged even the thought of collective action. Within the United States (and here actual nationality does make a difference), capitalist individualism is so ingrained in the collective psyche, that many economically disenfranchised people will only think about individual ways to address their condition -- how can they pull themselves out poverty, or what else can they do to get by? -- rather than thinking that anything can be accomplished by banding together in some way. Moreover (as asfo_del pointed out to me in a recent conversation), when people do protest in this country, they are quite severely discouraged and repressed, at least as compared to Western Europe, with its healthier traditions of dissent (not counting periods of rampant fascism). I guess this lack of collective action is one reason all of us in this collective can agree that it is important to help one another live more wisely and frugally. Rejecting consumerism takes on a special significance when you realize that you’re flat broke. As for the insecurity, until people band together and take to the streets en masse to demand health coverage and greater unemployment benefits and possibly more extensive, radical changes in the system, it seems that the best thing to do is just thicken one's psychological skin and not let the pressures crush you. Last year I had some nice deep conversations with a neighbor who I would guess to be my age (not sure where she moved to -- wish we'd kept in touch)… Sometimes the conversation turned to our similar experiences with economic insecurity. She did a bunch of waitressing and catering, as I recall. It's funny, because a lot of radicals I know, especially the women, do catering these days… In any event, I remember one night I brought up the subject of health insurance and she looked at me as though I'd just mentioned some alien concept, laughed and said something like, "Health insurance?! Wow, that’s a thought!" In times of trouble, I recall that conversation -- and that just about perfect attitude -- for inspiration to carry on. ~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~ ^^^ August 7, 2003         Apathy and Self-Interest [asfo_del] Richard and I are friends. In many respects we have similar views, but it may well be that our respective motivations for wanting to see a better and more just world are quite a bit different. I myself am not particularly swayed by political ideologies, partly because I have met quite a few ideologues [and Richard is not among these] who proclaim great interest in the cause of justice and equality but who treat their own fellow humans, the ones with whom they actually come in contact, with profound contempt and disgust. I am more interested in our collective humanity. Most of us would not willingly refuse to respond to a need that is right in front of us, so why turn away from terrible suffering just because of geographic distance? I agree with Richard, and I have said so in a previous entry, that we ourselves, whoever we may be, are personally affected by global injustice in large and small ways, so in attending to it there is certainly an element of self-interest. But I don't think that's enough. I believe an important reason why there is so much indifference to poverty among the denizens of rich nations, whether that poverty is right on the corner or around the globe, is that even those of us who are not well off, and who are in fact deeply oppressed by the unfair distribution of resources and many terrible laws, are doing well enough that we don't want our little world rattled. However, I do find it hard to understand the extent of the inaction and apathy of my compatriots. Even when it comes to self-interest. For instance, there are at least 41 million people in the U.S. without health insurance. Why are there not massive demonstrations against this on a daily basis? Even if only the uninsured themselves were involved in a campaign for universal health care, it would be a significantly large movement. [These are a very few quick thoughts. More on this later, probably(?).] --------------------------------- Numbers of Americans With and Without Health Insurance Rise, Census Bureau Reports Rolling the Dice on Our Nation's Health, by Holly Sklar One in four people with household incomes less than $25,000 is uninsured. One in six full-time workers is uninsured, including half the full-time workers with incomes below the official poverty line. The U.S. is No. 1 in healthcare spending per capita, but No. 34--tied with Malaysia--when it comes to child mortality rates under age five. The U.S. is No. 1 in healthcare spending, but the only major industrialized nation not to provide some form of universal coverage. ::"::"::"::"::"::":: ^^^ August 3, 2003       Magazine List In The Book List [Richard] I've added a list of magazines, with my own eccentric review comments, to my side of the book list. I would have added books if I'd been reading a lot of books, but most of the printed material that I've been reading has come from small magazines -- as is often the case. Maybe in the near future, we'll have a separate magazine list, but this should do for now. #@#@#@#@#@#@#@# ^^^ August 2, 2003       An Updated (Even Bleaker) Report on U.S. Poverty [Richard] It appears that some of the depressing and alarming statistics about poverty that we posted over the past couple of weeks -- especially with regard to this geographic region officially known as the "United States of America" -- might have understated the problem that presently exists. That is because some of our stats were a few years old, and things have gotten much worse. There is a very informative article currently out on the Net, "US Homelessness and Poverty Rates Skyrocket," by Jay Shaft, editor in the Coalition for Free Thought in Media. I found this excerpted on the newswire of infoshop.org, and I read the complete article at the Information Clearinghouse. I recommend that people go and read the entire article. For now, here a few illuminating excerpts: ************************** From the last counts and estimates nation wide, there has been at least a 35-45% increase in homelessness and poverty. The increases have come over the last two years with the biggest increases being in 2002 and especially in the first six months of 2003. ************************ There has been a 40% increase in the Berkeley, California homeless population over the last two years. New York City has reported a 42% increase over the last two years, Boston a 37% increase, Los Angeles, CA a 47% increase, San Diego, CA 41%, Washington, D.C. 39%, Seattle, WA. 43%, Portland, OR 36%, Chicago, IL 47%, St. Louis, MO 34%, Atlanta, GA 40%, Tampa, FL 46%, St. Petersburg, Fl 45%, Miami, FL 49%, New Orleans, LA 41%, Phoenix, AZ a staggering 56%, with most other major cities reporting at least a 25-30% increase over the last two years. ************************* America's Second Harvest's Hunger in America 2001 report found that 23.3 million people sought and received emergency hunger relief from the network of charities in 2001. 23 million people receiving emergency food assistance is equivalent to the combined populations of the 10 largest U.S. cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Detroit. ************************** America is bleeding money into foreign occupation, while cutting back on the programs that provide a safety net for America's poorest citizens. The military budget is expected to top $450 million for the fiscal year 2004.... If the US spent just three months' occupation costs, they could wipe out hunger and homelessness completely for ten years. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^^^ August 1, 2003         People in My Neighborhood [asfo_del] I live in a poor neighborhood. Just a couple of blocks away is a street where small groups of people spend all day and often all night hanging out in front of two convenience stores that are right across the street from each other. Some of these people are selling crack [I have actually seen a few especially careless dealers handling handfuls of tiny ziplock baggies, about a quarter inch square], but many of them appear just to be standing around, maybe with nothing better to do? I have to say that no one on this street has ever bothered me, except that in the beginning a few men asked me if I had a boyfriend - by now they have seen me with Mike many times. I have heard several acquaintances speak disparagingly about the people on this street, for instance worrying about the welfare of their car when parking near there, or commenting on the apparent carelessness and disregard manifested by the large amount of garbage strewn along the sidewalks. This struck me as a case of blaming the victim. I was a little surprised that people who are supposedly interested in social justice would think that way. We live in a society that considers whole categories of human beings to be throwaways. How would anyone react if relegated to that role? I very rarely go to one of the two convenience stores because there is always someone blocking the door, or several people blocking the aisles inside or the sidewalk outside. When I say excuse me, the response is usually polite enough, but the encounter is still rather annoying. On occasion, with Mike, they tell him that it's their turf. [I am a 40-year-old white woman; I don't know if that's the reason, but I have not been on the receiving end of any threatening remarks.] I find it somewhat sad and pathetic that someone would be in the doorway of a business he doesn't own, inside a building he doesn't own, overlooking a sidewalk that is owned by the city, where there are very often two cops stationed not twenty feet away who might take him away with very little excuse, and consider the spot to be his turf. It's almost childish, like building a cardboard fort in the back yard and declaring it sovereign territory. Of course, he certainly has the ability to hurt me and others, which is why it's unlikely he would get a lot of argument, but that may well be all that he has going for him, as far as backing up that claim. The only times I was treated with a rudeness that I found bizarre, coming as it did out of nowhere, it was not exactly on this street, and it came from women. Once, a group of three women started talking about me very loudly on a city bus. I said nothing but stared one of them down, which made her very uncomfortable, to my satisfaction. Then her friend tried to pick a fight with me. I ignored her, which made her even more infuriated. A while later I got off the bus at my stop. It was unpleasant for me, of course, but mostly it left me with a feeling of unease for these women who thought that being rude and aggressive, and trying to pick a pointless fight on a bus, was somehow a desirable way to act. It too was, more than anything, pathetic. While I've read sociological explanations as to why people who feel oppressed and abused may react with swagger and bravado, I still find some of the behaviors in the neighborhood hard to understand. Why throw garbage on the sidewalk? There is a lot of it, festooned all along the inner edge of the sidewalk, especially along chain-link fences: beer bottles and cans, candy and chip wrappers, plastic bags, takeout containers, soda bottles, sometimes even old tires, whole cardboard boxes, folding carts. And why block the sidewalks? Why stand in the way of the aisles or the register inside stores? Is all of it about turf? Why yell and guffaw loudly when you're talking to a group of people who are right around you on the bus? Why treat the store clerks/owners with unnecessary and pointless disrespect and rudeness? I think it is probably still part of the same need to display swagger and bravado, as in: I'm not going to let anyone tell me how to act. I'll do whatever I please. Therefore I won't engage in behaviors that those who think they are authority figures would try to impose on me. So I will not moderate my tone; I will not take my garbage over to the wastebasket; I will not step aside when someone wants to pass. But trashing our own neighborhood only hurts us. Acting rudely may be motivated simply by utter frustration and anger. I really don't know. What bothers me is that I want to contradict those who look down on my neighbors and speak unkindly of them, but I don't know what to say in my neighbors' defense. And how or why would I defend the women who insulted me on the bus? ------------------------------------- Here are two explanations. I'm not sure what to think of them. There's something patronizing about the tone of both, though the first one in particular seems to be very well-meaning. The second one seems to be downright tsk-tsking, though I can't quite place its tone or point of view. Working Partners: An Urban Youth Report on Risk, Stress, and Respect Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City, by Elijah Anderson [Table of Contents and Excerpt] <==><==><==><==><==> [Continue to July Archive]