“I fought for the poor people of Chicago, not for the millionaires,” he told the [Tribune].
Author Archives: radicalisrelative
Friends of the Parks (FOTP), a Chicago non-profit and an opponent of the Lucas Museum’s occupation of lakefront space, released the following statement on Facebook on June 24th, 2016:
“It is unfortunate that the Lucas Museum has made the decision to leave Chicago rather than locate the museum on one of several alternative sites that is not on Chicago’s lakefront. That would have been the true win-win,” said Friends of the Parks Executive Director Juanita Irizarry and Board Chair Lauren Moltz.
At the time of this writing, they have received over 830 comments on their post. Mostly negative to put it mildly.
I see the FOTP as a continuation of A. Montgomery Ward’s life’s work to keep the Chicago lake front as “Forever Open, Clear, and Free.”
Ward fought to prevent the elite Chicago leaders of his time from encroaching on the lakefront, leaving all the future generations a priceless legacy that FOTP and its supporters continue to protect. The Tribune was one of his vanquished opponents.
Despite his 1909 victory in the Illinois Supreme Court, Ward was “embittered by his struggle.”
“Here is park frontage on the lake, comparing favorably with the Bay of Naples, which city officials would crowd with buildings, transforming the breathing spot for the poor into a showground of the educated rich. I do not think it is right.
“Perhaps I may yet see the public appreciate my efforts. But I doubt it.”
Past is prologue. History has been grateful for Ward’s efforts that were nearly thankless in his lifetime. Similarly, history will be kind to FOTP and US District Court Judge John Darrah. Its critics clinically congratulate the heroes of this story on their preservation of “a parking lot”. Future generations will find it far more feasible to transform the parking lot back into a “breathing spot for the poor” than they would a museum showground for Chicago’s 2010s era elite.
How do you go forward when you know that just like the majority of every generation before ours, the majority of this generation is also going to act like a bunch of stubborn mules holding up the status quo of racism, oppression, and colonialism with their willful ignorance and silence in the face of injustice.
If this generation was born in the 1880s instead of the 1980s, they’d all be sitting on the sidelines while a few “radicals” demanded women have the right to vote. If this generation was born in the 1940s, they’d all be sitting back while “troublemakers” got ketchup and mustard dumped on them at segregated lunch counters.
Bystanders enjoying the fruits of the radicals who came before them.
Reading “Brave New World Revisited” by Huxley. This passage seemed worthy of quoting here.
We see, then, that modern technology has led to the concentration of economic and political power, and to the development of a society controlled (ruthlessly in the totalitarian states, politely and inconspicuously in the democracies) by Big Business and Big Government. But societies are composed of individuals and are good only insofar as they help individuals to realize their potentialities and to lead a happy and creative life. How have individuals been affected by the technological advances of recent years? Here is the answer to this question given by a philosopher-psychiatrist, Dr. Erich Fromm:
Our contemporary Western society, in spite of its material, intellectual and political progress, is increasingly less conducive to mental health, and tends to undermine the inner security, happiness, reason and the capacity for love in the individual; it tends to turn him into an automaton who pays for his human failure with increasing mental sickness, and with despair hidden under a frantic drive for work and so-called pleasure.
Our “increasing mental sickness” may find expression in neurotic symptoms. These symptoms are conspicuous and extremely distressing. But “let us beware,” says Dr. Fromm, “of defining mental hygiene as the prevention of symptoms. Symptoms as such are not our enemy, but our friend; where there are symptoms there is conflict, and conflict always indicates that the forces of life which strive for integration and happiness are still fighting.” The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. “Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does.” They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted, still cherish “the illusion of individuality,” but in fact they have been to a great extent deindividualized. Their conformity is developing into something like uniformity. But “uniformity and freedom are incompatible. Uniformity and mental health are incompatible too. . . . Man is not made to be an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed.”‘
Susan B. Anthony was a radical, as was Martin Luther King and other progressive American heroes. One of the many things she was radical about was her faith in that she had none in god. She famously said, “I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows.” By the end of her life, she was agnostic.
It is funny that next to her face on the coin that bears her likeness, it states, “in God we Trust.” No, we don’t.
As I continue on with my classes in public health subject areas, I have become more wary of the cocktail of chemicals in our foods and personal care products. One area I hadn’t looked into too deeply was genetically modified foods, until a presentation where I chose them as my subject.
A food product that is genetically engineered is a product “in which the crop DNA is changed using the gene-insertion techniques of molecular biology.”
Genetically engineering crops is just one of many methods that are used to increase production. Others include: crop breeding; chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; crop rotation; and organic methods.
The advocates of GMOs promise the following:
- GMOs are just a more precise way of breeding plants, a time tested and safe practice.
- Nutrition can be improved in developing world.
- Higher yield will feed the world on less land with economic benefits for farmers and consumers.
- Less pesticide/herbicide application and fewer environmental impacts.
Norman Borlaug, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and Presidential Medal of Freedom have criticized the critics of GMOs as anti-science and elitists ignoring the food needs of the developing world.
The promises of GMOs have not been fulfilled since GMOs were introduced in mass to US agriculture in 1996. Instead, food allergies have skyrocketed along with rates of obesity and other health ailments. The food companies have been unable to prove that their products are unconnected to the rise in food allergies. Its time to just label it.
Hit the jump to address the promises of GMO foods…
This past weekend, estimates say 175 people were arrested at Congress and Michigan in Chicago as part of the Occupy Chicago movement. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has stated that the arrests were called for because protesters were violating a park curfew ordinance.
According to the First Amendment Center, “the right to free association extends beyond intimate relationships. Groups peaceably joined to engage in First Amendment activities also enjoy protection from government interference. To constitute “expressive association,” such interaction must be defined by common political, cultural or economic activism. Social gatherings that are intended for leisure and diversion do not qualify and may be regulated by the government for any rational purpose.”
But then today, the same organization had this to say about Occupy Wall Street:
“Courts have traditionally upheld the right of governments to manage and supervise public property. As long as there’s a rational basis for the rules and no point of view is being discriminated against, there’s no First Amendment violation. If the left and right alike are being told to go home at 9 so that the city can clean the park, our constitutional rights are intact.
“Allowing [24/7 occupation] would require courts to say this kind of protest trumps cities’ basic administrative rights and their responsibilities to local taxpayers. That’s not very likely to happen.
Do you see a contradiction there? In both excerpts, the right of a municipality to maintain reasonable rules about access to public areas is not challenged. But in the first part, it is clear that in cases of “expressive association,” participants should be protected from government interference.
It is not a matter of barring left and right. Only one group feels a need to make this political expression and so by barring the only group that wants to use the park for this purpose, they are by default, excluding a group with a particular viewpoint and chosen tactic.
So wouldn’t the Grant Park’s ordinance closing at 11 only apply for LEISURE purposes? If people are utilizing a public park for “expressive association” as the occupy movement clearly is, then wouldn’t the restrictions on that activity be unconstitutional? I don’t think the constitution has any time limit on the free assembly of people and so if the assembly should last longer than a day, people can be expected to nap and have shelter where they are assembling for expressive association.
On the NH Civil Liberties Union website, the following case seem to back up my conclusions:
1939 Hague v. CIO
Invalidating the repressive actions of Jersey City’s anti-union Mayor, “Boss” Hague, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of assembly applies to public forums, such as “streets and parks.”
Upon further reading of the case, it is clear Hague targeted CIO. Other groups were doing similar activities in this area.
The following parts did stand out as relevant to Occupy Chicago’s plight:
The ordinance there in question apparently had a different purpose from that of the one here challenged, for it was not directed solely at the exercise of the right of speech and assembly, but was addressed as well to other activities, not in the nature of civil rights, which doubtless might be regulated or prohibited as respects their enjoyment in parks. In the instant case the ordinance deals only with the exercise of the right of assembly for the purpose of communicating views entertained by speakers, and is not a general measure to promote the public convenience in the use of the streets or parks.
Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to usethe [307 U.S. 496, 516] streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.
This article regarding Christian Legal Society v. Martinez states the following:
“The State may not exclude speech where its distinction is not reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum…”
Occupy Chicago voted tonight, by super majority vote, to assert this coming Saturday night that first amendment rights apply 24/7 on public property. I could not agree more.
“The best chance of successes in [fighting governmental abuses] will come from a multifaceted approach, including working with Members of Congress in the legislative front, going to court when appropriate, organizing political efforts, especially around elections and the societal effort whenever possible that gives real human examples of the problems that occur when our constitutional rights and freedoms are attacked. I don’t suggest that it’ll be easy, I don’t suggest that it’ll be quick, but I am entirely persuaded that if we can make the case to the American people, as is often the circumstance, our political leaders will follow the people’s lead. And we can win the fights that start out as lonely ones.” – Russ Feingold
Learn more about Progressives United and support the cause.
The Somali Pirates have a one sided portrayal in American news media – murderers and thieves that are making a mess of international shipping. Of course, the vast majority of people then get the impression that the world is full of black and white – bad pirates and innocent ship workers just trying to make an honest buck.
Like all stories, the players are far more nuanced. Somalia currently lacks a functioning government. This is an opportunity for international fishers and polluters to overfish the waters and dump toxic waste that destroys the shoreline. “The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reported the tsunami had washed up rusting containers of toxic waste on the shores of Puntland.” (1) Many of these pirates were originally fishermen and other people who made a living from the water. “Since the containers came ashore, hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments.” (1)
So what does the United States and other nations do? Cut off the incentives for most of the impoverished people to become pirates by aiding the Somali people in protecting their environment and livelihood? Of course not. The international community suggests ships hire more mercenaries and do nothing to stop vessels using the water to violate international environmental standards. Very conducive to a safe and sustainable world.
Its the same problem with terrorism. Why to people become “terrorists?” Most do it because they are illiterate, poor, and easily manipulated into taking their anger out on who ever they believe to be the cause of their family’s suffering. The U.S. coming in an trying to stop terrorism with guns would be laughable if it wasn’t tragically devastating for all parties. This Onion headline sums it up nicely: link to article.