« TicketBastards (TicketMaster Sucks) | Main

October 09, 2006

Columbus Day: A Critique of Celebrating Colonialism

This is the introduction to Chapter 7 on Victims and Victimology of the Class, Race, Gender and Crime book I co-authored (available at the end of this month).

Because the deprivations of some minorities have been so extensive and/or are so profound, some argue that these social relations or conditions amount to “genocide,” a powerful word used to describe extreme cases of mass violence and victimization whose derivation comes from the Latin cide (kill) and the Greek genos (race or tribe). The underlying concept of genocide involves an attempt to exterminate a group that shares common characteristics and a common identity. Hence, charging genocide is claiming great harm and victimization that not only indicts a group for committing and/or standing by in the face of mass violence, but it also confers a moral authority on the victims to be heard and to demand change.


The study of genocide has been confounded by a long and pervasive history of denial (Chalk and Jonassohn 1990). For example, traditional criminology takes great interest in serial killers and mass murderers but typically ignores or excludes genocide and other violations of human rights as part of the accepted disciplinary areas of examination (there’s even little interest in understanding a political mass murderer like bin Laden). In the context of victimology and victimization, the denial and exclusion are good reasons to review the claims that the majority population of the U.S. has committed genocide involving both Native Americans and African Americans.

Many citizens of the U.S. consider charges of genocide made by minority populations to be overstated at best. They tend to associate genocide with the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, which creates a distorted standard because it is an extreme case rather than a more typical one. The core concept, however, is “an attempt to exterminate a racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, or political group, either directly through murder or indirectly by creating conditions that lead to the group’s destruction” (Staub 1989, p. 8). Such destruction encompasses “not only killing but creation of conditions that materially or psychologically destroy or diminish people’s dignity, happiness, and capacity to fulfill basic material needs” (Staub 1989, p. 25).

Every year on Columbus Day readers might notice signs protesting “500 years of genocide.” Like many claims of genocide, this one is met with much denial. Indeed, for the 500th anniversary of Columbus arriving in North America, the National Endowment for the Humanities refused to fund any film that “proposed to use the word ‘genocide,’ even in passing to explain the subsequent liquidation of America’s indigenous population” (Churchill 1997, p. 5). Similar thinking has precluded much discussion about charges that Columbus himself was an “agent of genocide” and that the colonization process he set in motion has resulted in genocidal processes.

In fact, Columbus understood his own life “in apocalyptic terms” and even “announced that he himself was the Messiah prophesied by Joachim, a twelfth-century Italian mystic” (Lamy 1996, p. 46). Diaries and letters of Columbus show that he was expecting to encounter wealth belonging to others, and his stated purpose was “to seize this wealth, by whatever means necessary and available, in order to enrich both his sponsors and himself” (Churchill 1997, p. 85). In sum, Columbus “not only symbolizes the process of conquest and genocide which eventually consumed the indigenous people in America, but bears the personal responsibility of having participated in it” (ibid).

Whether genocide is a fair characterization of the next 500 years revolves around Staub’s definition of genocide as involving the indirect murder through the creation of conditions leading to the group’s social destruction. Lemkin, the man who coined the term genocide, understood genocide to be in the “destruction of the essential foundations of the life” of the group and undermining the integrity of the group’s basic institutions, which produces the “destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups” (in Kuper 1985, p. 9). Moreover, very few instances of mass murder that have been acknowledged to be genocide involve the actual elimination of a group. Thus, the state of Israel and the presence of Jews worldwide today do not undermine a claim that the Holocaust was genocide.

With Native Americans, the low point of the population was down 90 percent from the level before the time Columbus arrived (Churchill 1997). Some population fluctuation was inevitable, but the drastic decline here is related to a number of practices that involved direct murder as well as indirect attacks on the well-being and cultural integrity of Native Americans. Consider, for instance, the aggressive appropriation (theft) of land that included forced marches—such as the Trail of Tears—that had a high death toll because hunger, exhaustion, and exposure to inclement weather killed many women, children, and the elderly.

The removal of Native Americans from land that was sacred and had cultural significance eroded their cultural integrity, and their placement on desolate land further undermined the essential foundations of life. This process of forced relocation recurred multiple times with the expansion in the population of white settlers or the discovery of mineral wealth on what was thought to be wasteland given to Native Americans (Lazarus 1991; Weyler 1992). Today, there are still substantial problems with reservations being located on inhospitable land, which can also be a site for toxic and radioactive materials (Eichstaedt 1994).

For more information, see Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee 

To control the Native American population in the 1800s, settlers intentionally gave them disease-infested blankets that would kill large numbers who did not have immunity to European diseases. In addition, children were taken—sometimes at gunpoint—and put into boarding and reform schools where they were deprived of access to their culture and native language. Indeed, these children were punished for doing anything “Indian” and were taught to be ashamed of their heritage. Even today, many Native Americans in prison are denied access to culturally appropriate practices such as the sweat lodge and are coerced into programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous that have Christian foundations, thus further eroding their cultural integrity (Little Rock 1989 16p .pdf via Journal of Prisoners on Prisons).

The U.S government—the representative of the American people—has broken every treaty it has made with the Native Americans (Lazarus 1991). The refusal to honor treaties negotiated in good faith by the native peoples has denied them rights to land, resources, and sovereignty in many ways that have imposed, both historically and currently, hardship and have destroyed their personal security, liberty, health, and dignity. Although several cases involving broken treaties have resulted in symbolic reparations for Native Americans, the ongoing problems remain.

Indeed, most tribes, even on reservations, have little in the way of sovereignty and are subject to state and federal control. The tribal decision-making bodies recognized by tribal members are often not the same as the leaders officially recognized by the federal government. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has come under scathing criticism for being corrupt and not having the best interest of Native Americans at heart in administering their affairs (Lazarus 1991; Weyler 1992).  In the latter part of the 20th century, activism on the part of Native Americans, such as the American Indian Movement (AIM), was met with illegal surveillance and at times violent repression by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies (Churchill and Wall 1990a, 1990b - see also 2002 audio CD).

Although most of the direct killing of Native Americans is part of the past, the place accorded them by the white majority is one that destroys the essential foundations of their life. While the ongoing effort to undermine the integrity of Native American’s basic institutions has occasionally met with spirited and creative acts of resistance to domination and colonization, these demonstrations have failed because of the unaltered structural relations of inequality between the majority of whites and marginalized minorities. What the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder noted about inner-city ghettos applies equally well to reservations:

What white Americans have never fully understood— but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it (quoted in Pinkney 1984, p.78).

In each case, whatever the intentions or consciousness of white society, both the inner city and reservations are places of extreme social deprivation and violence. Indeed, as Wilhelm (1970, p. 334) noted, “as the races pull apart into lifestyles with greater polarity, the Black ghetto evolves into the equivalent of the Indian reservation.” Obvious questions thus arise as to whether the history or current conditions of blacks can be described as genocide as well.

For more information, see

Transform Columbus Day

My earlier blog entry Judge Removed for Indian Trust Case for Saying Dept of Interior Is Racist  (12 July 2006)

More history on the Indian Trust case 


Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself - and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty.

-Chief Joseph (Nez Perce)

quoted in Russell Means, Where White Men Fear to Tread

« TicketBastards (TicketMaster Sucks) | Main

« Terrorism: No Good News | Main | Columbus Day: A Critique of Celebrating Colonialism »

October 04, 2006

TicketBastards (TicketMaster Sucks)

While reading the Big Picture Blog's Linkfest, I saw a headline "Concert Giant Sees Cutting prices as Ticket to Success" (LA Times, 9/26/2006).

Right on. (Well, maybe; it doesn't look quite as good as you keep reading)

The article notes that average concert prices are now $57 per ticket, and some people feel this is causing people to attend fewer concerts or skip them all together. LiveNation, Inc CEO Rapino wants to lower prices and is battling TicketMaster to do that.  

But to make good on his promise, Rapino must wrest power from Ticketmaster, a near-monopoly that built its empire locking up exclusive rights to sell admissions to major concerts and other live events. Last year, Ticketmaster reaped nearly $1 billion in fees and surcharges. (emphasis mine)

Like anone who has bought through TicketMaster - just about everyone since they have a near monopoly - I've found the fees painful. Yes, we've also decided to not drive into Detroit for some shows that were a bit on the pricey side before the TicketBastard fees, and prohibitively expensive after figuring them in. Now there's a $2.50 fee to print the tickets off yourself! They email them to you, and print them on your paper, with your ink, and still pay a convenience fee? That's a sure sign of a monopoly abusing its power.

I was playing around in some Securities and Exchange Commission Documents as part of some private prison research, and looked up InterActiveCorp, which owns TicketMaster.  Their 2005 Annual Report has a few items of interest:

Revenues.  Ticketing revenue is generated primarily from convenience charges and order processing fees received by Ticketmaster for each ticket sold by Ticketmaster on behalf of its clients. These charges are negotiated and included in Ticketmaster's contracts with its clients. Pursuant to its contracts with clients, Ticketmaster is granted the right to collect from ticket purchasers a per ticket convenience charge on all tickets sold through www.ticketmaster.com , by telephone and through retail sales outlets and other media. There is an additional per order "order processing" fee on all ticket orders sold by Ticketmaster, other than at retail sales outlets. Generally, the amount of the convenience charge is determined during the contract negotiation process, and typically varies based upon numerous factors, including the services to be rendered to the client, the amount and cost of equipment to be installed at the client's box office and the amount of advertising and/or promotional allowances to be provided, as well as the type of event and whether the ticket is purchased through www.ticketmaster.com , by telephone, through a remote sales outlet or other media. Any deviations from those amounts for any event are negotiated and agreed upon by Ticketmaster and its client prior to the commencement of ticket sales. Generally, the agreement between Ticketmaster and a client will also establish the amounts and frequency of any increases in the convenience charge and order processing fees during the term of the agreement. In many cases, clients participate in the convenience charges and/or order processing fees paid by ticket purchasers for tickets bought through Ticketmaster for their events. The amount of such participation, if any, is determined by negotiation between Ticketmaster and the client. In some cases, maximum charges on tickets are established and regulated by state and local law. See "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Changing Laws, Rules and Regulations." (2005, form 10-k, p 8)

So, while TicketMaster is part of the problem, all the local venues where we see concerts have to sign off on the 'convenience fees.' That mean, you can lodge complaints with the management of where you see the concert. If they try to tell you they don't have any control over, you'll know better. Refer them to the SEC filing and continue to give them hell.

More from the filing: 

Other companies compete with Ticketmaster by selling stand-alone automated ticketing systems to enable facilities to do their own ticketing. Several of Ticketmaster's competitors have operations in multiple locations, while others compete principally in one specific geographic location. Ticketmaster experiences substantial competition for potential client accounts and renewals of contracts on a regular basis. See "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Third Party Relationships—Services—Ticketing." Ticketmaster competes on the basis of products and services provided, capability of its ticketing system and distribution network, reliability and price.  (emphasis added, p 9)

Competition is where the original article came in, with the attempt to break some of TicketMaster's exclusive contracts.  Earlier, TicketMaster gave promoters and concert venues "a powerful network of retail stores and phone banks that were too expensive for any one promoter to replicate. Last year, Ticketmaster sold tickets worth about $6 billion through the company's Internet sites, 3,500 retail outlets and 19 international call centers."

There's a hope that technology will lower barriers to entry and more venues or  regional firms will be able to distribute tickets. One LiveNation exec commentd: "There is an impression that Ticketmaster has gotten too comfortable and arrogant. You have to be more responsive to fans nowadays." While that sounds encouraging, the article notes: "People close to Ticketmaster say that other concert companies have made similar comments about the ticketing company, only to sign new Ticketmaster deals once they got the terms and upfront payments they demanded." [More upfront payments to promoters and venues that need to be recouped from those convenience fees. Guess everyone has a hand in the trough.]

In the end, there are many caveats. It will be two years before the Livenation contract with TicketMaster ends, and LiveNation (a spinoff from the evil corporate radion behemoth ClearChannel) may want to keep for itself all the fees instead of having them go to TicketMaster.  

There's also a disturbing discussion of information that these places like to keep:  "'When a fan buys a ticket, we learn an enormous amount about them: What bands they like, where they live, how much they are willing to spend,' Rapino said.'Someday, a fan will be sitting in a bar and his cellphone will text message 'Sonic Youth are playing tonight. Do you want to go?' He'll buy his ticket over the phone and walk to the concert.'" Convenient maybe, scary also. But then I'm not very trusting of big companies making it convenient for me to open my wallet.

One more faint glimmer of hope: 

For example, Ticketmaster has structured its business, operations and client relationships in ways to ensure compliance with certain state and local regulations in several states that establish maximum charges on tickets. Other legislation that could further regulate convenience charges and order-processing fees is introduced from time to time in federal, state and local legislative bodies in the United States and abroad. Changes in existing, or the promulgation of new, laws, rules and regulations of this nature could require Ticketmaster to change certain aspects of its business, operations and client relationships to ensure compliance. Ticketmaster is unable to predict whether any such legislation will be adopted and, if so, the effect on its business and results of operations (p 25-6, emphasis added)

In this day and age, the chance of real consumer-interest legislation passing in opposition to lobbying by industry is small. It's almost quaint to believe that Congress people will do the right thing by us and ignore big$ from lobbyists. But for the pissed off activists out there, maybe there's a way to build on the model from other states?

It was also good to see in the Annual Report a long list of pending class action suits against TicketMaster (see p 29-30).

For those looking for some additional history, check out Trash City's Why TicketMaster Sucks, which has the history from Pearl Jam's battle with Ticketmaster on.  They also have some good additional reading links at the bottom of the page.

For more, just Google "TicketMaster Sucks"

UPDATE:  Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post writes a column today "Internet Relaigns Market for Tickets" (Oct 6, 2006, p D1). He talsk about new forms of ticket pricing (dynamic and auction models) as well as secondary markets for reselling tickets. His conclusion:

While it's unclear how all this will shake out, my guess is that sports teams, promoters and venues will wind up the winners. Without the old constraints, they will be able to sell the best tickets to the hottest events for many times the old fixed price, both directly and through the secondary market. This windfall should be more than enough to cover the inevitable decline in the average price for less desirable tickets.

For consumers, the change will be a mixed blessing. Less desirable tickets will be cheaper, while hot ones will be more expensive but easier to come by if you're willing to pay the price. Season and series ticket-holders will find it easier to unload the tickets they never wanted anyway, or find someone to buy their ticket when the Yo-Yo Ma concert turns out to conflict with back-to-school night.

But the biggest winner of all may turn out to be Ticketmaster. That giant already boasts operating margins of 25 percent from the original sale of tickets. Now it will have the opportunity to take another, even-more-profitable bite of the apple when tickets change hands. Not surprisingly, Ticketmaster is pushing legislation to make it illegal to buy or sell a ticket through any online marketplace not authorized by the original seller. Even without such legislation, Ticketmaster has begun to "turn off" tickets resold elsewhere by invalidating the bar codes.


« Terrorism: No Good News | Main | Columbus Day: A Critique of Celebrating Colonialism »

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 12) | Main | TicketBastards (TicketMaster Sucks) »

September 30, 2006

Terrorism: No Good News

One of the many frustrations and disappointments related to the recent contract negotiations I've written about so much here recently is that on Sept 11, I was in negotiations for about 21 hours. As a result, I really didn't have time to post anything related to the anniversay of the terrorist attacks or about terrorism. As a criminologist, I studied terrorism before 9/11 and I have been trying to expand my understanding of the challenge of terrorism to the free societies in the global village.

I'd like to write a little bit about the recent National Intelligence Estimate as part of my efforts to clarify the bigger picture, especially since  the NIE has become fodder for the political debate narrowly centered around whether Bush's war in Iraq has made us safer. In particular, the aspects of the NIE that mention jihadists in greater number and geographical dispursion is troubling in the larger context of 4th generation warfare (discussed and defined below).

First, the NIE statements, via Juan Cole - who, as always, has excellent detail and context. The "Key Judgements" from Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006:

  • United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement — which includes al- Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells — is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
  • Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
  • We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti- American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
  • We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
  • We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
  • Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit.
  • We judge that most jihadist groups, both well-known and newly formed, will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
  • CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups, While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.
  • Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

[For those still in doubt, Cole has other posts with links to items noting that the UN has also issued a report on Iraq as a major generator of anti-Western terrorism, and a British Ministry of Defense think tank study called the Iraq war a 'recruiting sergeant' for extremists.]

From Kyoto Kiyomizu Temple, Japan. People write prayers on the wood, which is then burned and carried up to the Gods. I thought this was great, both for the overall spirit and the note about the 'travesty in Iraq.' Seems as valid today as it was in June of 2004. (click for a larger version)

Key take away points: (1) while many people think terrorists are irrational, their ideology is spreading and they are proving adept at evolving strategies to counter our conter-terrorism efforts (2) while the anti-US ideology is not only about Iraq, US involvement there serves as a visible example of a larger litany of complaints and grievances (3) Iraq is serving as a radicalizing event - which we know is a key ingedient in the making of an extremist - as well as providing opertional training (4) ideology and instructions are easily passed on, increasing the threat from diffuse cells wanting to attack soft targets in urban areas, while more centralized groups pursue more serious CBRN attacks.

Implications: 4th Generation Warfare & Open Source War

There's a great deal of thoughtful writing on fourth generation warfare and I'll link to some sources. But the very basic idea is that wrs are no longer about national armies standing in lines or defending fronts. On article from the Marine Corps Gazette (1989) noted:

In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity.

The Defense and the National Interest site has a section devoted to Fourth Generation warfare that's worth a read. They try to distinguish between terrorism, guerrilla warfare and when those two use principles of fourth generation warfare.  Ultimately, "Unlike Clausewitzian warfare, which envisions war as an act of policy in a contest between states, 4GW more resembles a boxer versus a viral infection." (Of course, "Fourth generation war will not replace second and third generation conflict but will co-exist alongside it.") While they do not have a specific comment on Iraq, they note:

A coherent "grand strategy" is needed to ensure that military (destructive) actions harmonize with our overall objectives and do not undermine the public support needed to prosecute a fourth generation war to its successful conclusion.  

I'm highlighting this idea, and perhaps doing clumsy job as I am still learning these ideas, because I think the conflict in Iraq is hastening trend that were already in place regarding US military power and jihadist terrorism. As I have noted elsewhere, Islamic militants see the Crusades not as an historic event, but an ongoing struggle. Iraq - with Abu Ghraib, the manhandling of Muslim women by US soldiers,  even the rape and muder of young Muslim women - provides ample fuel to the fire.

With the growing and diffuse nature of jihadists, the discussion from Global Guerrillas about Open Source War is also important.  He notes that in Open Source wars, guerrillas "don't have a center of gravity (a unifying ideology). In open source war, the guerrillas aren't loyal to a single group but rather dozens of different groups, each with their own motivations for fighting. The benefits of this organizational type, once it reaches critical mass, are numerous (and once it is entrenched, it is almost impossible to defeat)."

Luckily, it is difficult to achieve because it involves "sharing, trading, collaboration, and coordination with groups that are willing to participate but do not share the same motivations or loyalties as the initiating group." But bin Laden has done a good job providing an overarching ideology and momentum because of his successes (getting the Russians out of Afghanitan, attacks on US embassies, the US Cole, 9/11, Madrid, London, etc).  Luckily, as the National Intelligence Estimate notes, his 'solution' of a strick Islamic state does not have wide appeal.

But we are left with a spreading anti-American ideology; the NIE notes some declining favorable perceptions of the US even among our allies. The means to spread the ideology is in place in the form of books, tapes, radical clerics and some schools. From there, Iraq serves as a radicalizing event for many (and people watching Mid East media see much more fo the horror of Iraq than we do). Potential recruits are identified and sent off to training camps, and there are enough conflicts to provide operational experience.

Nuclear Attack on the Port of Los Angeles? (As if this post wasn't depressing enough...)

Remember that part of the NIE was about terrorists' interests in acquiring Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and Radiological weapons. We've already seen anthrax attacks, which allow for some debriefing and better preparation for when (not if) they're used in the future. Now, thanks to RAND, we have an outline for a simulated attack based on a 10 megaton nuclear weapon in a shipping container sent to the port of Los Angeles (pdf/72 pages).

Personally, I think we'll see a radiological attack first - something that uses radioactive materials like hospital waste combined with conventional explosive. The panic from radiation and the expense of cleaning it up would be significant and easier to pull off than a nuclear weapon. (Think about news that a radioactive bomb was detonated outside a terminal of Los Angeles International Airport.)

I'll be in LA in November for a criminology conference, so I don't use this example lightly, but al Quaida has targeted LAX before adn the do try again on targets (like the World Trade Center). bin Laden frequently talks about the Zionist-Crusader alliance, indicating anti-semitism and well as anti-Americanism. Attacking NY was thus strategic given the heavily Jewish population, esp in the financial businesses in the WTC; Los Angels has what bin Laden and others see as the Jewish-run decadent Western media personified by Hollywood.

RAND doesn't give their rational for picking LA, so the above is my speculation. Their report, Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack, does note the background

In our scenario, terrorists conceal a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb in a shipping container and ship it to the Port of Long Beach. Unloaded onto a pier, it explodes shortly thereafter. This is referred to as a “ground-burst” as opposed to an “airburst” explosion. We used this scenario because analysts consider it feasible, it is highly likely to have a catastrophic effect, and the target is both a key part of the U.S. economic infrastructure and a critical global shipping center.

This scenario was 'feasible' because each day, 20,000 shipping containers arrive from ports all over the world. Also, "we have very little capability to reliably detect hidden weapons before they reach our shores." And, finally, "We chose a 10-kiloton explosion because it is possible to obtain such a yield with a relatively crude unboosted design." 

So, the consequences, starting with the first 72 hours:

  • Sixty thousand people might die instantly from the blast itself or quickly thereafter from radiation poisoning.
  • One-hundred-fifty thousand more might be exposed to hazardous levels of radioactive
  • water and sediment from the port, requiring emergency medical treatment.
  • The blast and subsequent fires might completely destroy the entire infrastructure and all ships in the Port of Long Beach and the adjoining Port of Los Angeles.
  • Six million people might try to evacuate the Los Angeles region.
  • Two to three million people might need relocation because fallout will have contaminated a 500-km2 area.
  • Gasoline supplies might run critically short across the entire region because of the loss of Long Beach’s refineries—responsible for one-third of the gas west of the Rockies.

In the slightly longer term, there is a conflict between those who would want to close the all ports to prevent another atatck, and businesses which would want to reopen as soon as possible because US ports carry out 7.5% of global trade activity. So, "all U.S. ports would likely close indefinitely or operate at a substantially reduced level following the attack. This would severely disrupt the availability of basic goods and petroleum throughout the country."

Further economic consequences result from a crippled insurance industry and the default of many business loans and mortgages in the area. Many insurance policies do not include coverage of nuclear effects, but there would still be indirect losses so insurance companies would be on the hook for some part of the immediate losses that  exceed $1 trillion.

Check out the full report for a fascinating detailed view of how the scenario unfolds. They also have details of how they ran the simulation, giving participants some information on which to make decisions, then telling them the next series of events and again asking them for decisions.  


This isn't a fun subject, and I'm sure media attention will be focused on the immediate impact on the mid-term election of the NIE and Woodward's new book on Iraq, State of Denial. But my point in writing this is to emphasize how serious these matters are. While I'm anti-Bush, my point is that I'm not sure the Democrats get it either.

I'm hoping that if you're still reading, you have a better sense of what's at stake here and that we can ill afford anyone's simple-minded rhetoric.

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 12) | Main | TicketBastards (TicketMaster Sucks) »

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 11) | Main | Terrorism: No Good News »

September 16, 2006

On Strike for Labor Day (Part 12)

In the last post, the administration was negotiating again, and we were about 20 hours into the session. Our team was waiting for a final offer to take back to the faculty.

The offer that came through was poor. More accurately, it was the same poor offer they put on the table on Sept 5 before they walked out. Basically, they spent more than 20 hours repackaging it and trying to dress it up. But shifting money from one category to the other (or from one pocket to another in the same pair of your jeans) doesn't change anything, even though it the final offer might make for a better press release.

We left the table about 5:30am after starting at 9:30am the previous day. The total increase int he administration's offer was about $20,000, which you'd need to spread across 650 faculty members over 3 years. (And you thought I was exaggerating they they just shifted it around!)

By the time we broke down the room, the 6am faculty vigil was starting. As exhausted as I was, it was actually nice to see people there, to go and talk and share some of the experience. But after 30 or 45 minutes, I had to go home and crash and before the noon faculty meeting where we'd get a sense fo the group on what to do next.

reject last best offer

I love the 'last best offer' and garbage can! From the picketing in front of the President's house last week 

To no one's suprise, the overwhelming sentiment was to reject the administration's offer. The quention was whether to return to strike or seek fact-finding under the state labor law. For the good of the students and university, we chose the latter path. This involves both sides submitting reports to a neutral party, who will then make recommendations on how to resolve the dispute. It's advisory, and we fully expect that the administration will ignore recommendations favorable to us. Obviously, that wouldn't be good, and a part of our strategy will be to put pressure on them to accept the recommendations in their entirety.

Because this process can take from two to six months, this series will continue as we wind through the process. I do intend to use the blog for other topics in between. But having started this account, it makes sense to follow the story through to the end. (I'll try to make a link or page that collects all the various parts for easy reference.)

For the mement, we're organizing for the next stages: getting the report ready, an organizing committee, and a communications committee that I'll be pulling together. So far we have a number of enthusiastic volunteers. While that's good for us, it's also bad in that many faculty have seen the dark side of the administration: they've seen the stonewalling, the screwed up press releases trying to paint us in a bad light, and the final day of bargaining wasting our time.

Worse still, it's sinking in that they have hired a high-priced law firm to run negotiations and keep us from making gains, a high-priced lansing lobbying/PR firm to make faculty look bad, and now they'll be hiring another outside firm to do the fact-finding report.  Seems pretty obvious they spent more trying to keep us down than what it would have cost to just settle the contract and give us a pay increase consistent with the average in the state. That's all we wanted. And they say the respect us, but they'd rather pay more to people keep an average settlement from us and make us look bad for asking.

president fallon - respect faculty!!

They probably still don't understand it's about respect. Sigh. From picketing in front of President Fallon's house last week.  

We have some key questions about how this will play out - what kind of attitude will the faculty have down the road? Will it be a return to normal, or will the frustration, anger and disappointment at the administration continue? We also have some questions about how the fact-finding process will unfold that I'll have to write about. Plus, I need to debrief on some topics I on which I had to be silent earlier. 

Meanwhile, it does seem funny to be back to a more regular life and all the hours of stress, strategy and negotiations. I think the trick will be to quickly move forward with the next phase. So far, we have put up a good fight against an adminsitration more determined than we imagined to screw us. We maintained a strike for 11 days, and faculty were getting up at 4:30am to jump in front of trucks to stop deliveries.  After nine days of strike and picketing, more than 125 showed up to picket the President's house on a Sunday afternoon. We didn't get the contract we wanted - yet! - but they didn't break the union, we didn't self-destruct, and we've emerged through an intense labor strife with a high degree of solidarity and commitement to move forward.

So, the story - and the fight - ain't over. Stay tuned.  

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 11) | Main | Terrorism: No Good News »

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 10) | Main | On Strike for Labor Day (Part 12) »

September 12, 2006

On Strike for Labor Day (Part 11)

It's going on 1am and we've been negotiating since 9:30 am. No end in sight at the moment.

Since my last post, the big change in the status of our labor dispute is that we are actually negotiating again. Remember the administration walked out on Sept 5, and after a few days where both sides had no direct contact, on Sunday we started some direct off the record conversations about how to get back to negotiating.

When I say 'some conversations,' it really understates the intensity of the effort. We put together a number of ideas about conditions under which both sides would return, prioritized them, and of course tried to balance that against what we were achieving and risking through a prolonged strike.

After negotiating most of the day Sunday and all day Monday, we achieved a 7 paragraph  memorandum of understanding about suspending the strike for 24 hours in order to negotiate some more. Then, we spent two hours negotiating where to meet. (No shit) We started that time period at 9:30am.

Of course, if it takes 2 hours to negotiate a place - with some seriously intense conversation and raised voices - figuring out health care and compensation isn't going to be easy. [If I was more awake, I'd figure out an appropriate comment about new insights into Mid East problems.]

Today has been

tensions, tension, anger, anger, tension, boredom, boredom, boredom, tension, anger, anger, tension, boredom, tension, boredom, boredom, etc

A not so careful read reveals there's no joy or happiness - not even satisfaction or relief. Of course at 1:30am, it's still on the early side. I'm not especially optimistic, but I also know that one tactic is to induce frustration and despair on the other side, so small movement is more warmly received. But several of have been here before, and we're more on the annoyed side than the desperate side.

But we are setting up an interesting day tomorrow today, with a faculty meeting at noon. We'll have to make some decisions that will include the option of returning to a strike. You'll hate me, but I'll have to leave that as the cliff-hanger, so you'll stop back for Part 12.

For further reading, check out Cary Nelson's piece "Solidarity" in Inside Higher Ed. He's the Predsident of the national AAUP, and he was out here earlier for a few days. (Scroll back a few posts) Here's a meaty excerpt:

What I had not calculated was how an extraordinary level of faculty solidarity would mesh with new technology. My previous experience with multiple picket sites had involved quite a bit of sending messengers running back and forth across campus. Now there were people with cell phones at every site. This was especially helpful when particular locations required additional troops, as when people needed to work at turning away delivery trucks. On one occasion I persuaded a Teamster member delivering hamburger buns to call his office, which agreed to cancel the rest of the week’s deliveries. At a major university construction site, the concrete trucks had nonunion drivers. A cell phone call reached the concrete supplier, whose union loaders agreed not to load more concrete trucks. Other activists were taking cell phone messages in their cars and delivering water, picket signs, and modest edible treats as needed. Several retired professors took particular pleasure in running these on-demand delivery services.

I spent several hours on Tuesday morning visiting picket sites, introducing myself and talking with faculty, students, and university workers. The faculty were unvaryingly determined, though also anxious. False rumors abounded, as usual, but cell phone calls kept them under control. I hadn’t thought of cell phones as rumor control devices, but they enable members involved in job actions to make rapid contact with the leadership. The deeper anxiety was centered on the disruption of their faculty identities. They wanted to meet their classes on Wednesday. Most simply asked to be treated the same way other Michigan employees were being treated. A few said they’d settle for any offer that wasn’t blatantly insulting. But because they were faculty they could not just picket; they had to talk these issues through. Happily, it was a bright Midwestern day. Spirits overall were more than high; they were stratospheric. Professors of English and engineering were one; they had shed their disciplinary skins. They were now part of that universal faculty that now and again focuses on their common destiny and mission.

At lunch time I made my way back to the negotiating room where I had first arrived the day before. It was a busy space. The union had been asking the administration for health care statistics for a year to no avail. Suddenly, at the penultimate moment, the data had arrived. Ordinarily this would have been a disaster. In the past, interpreting the numbers with sufficient mastery so as to suggest alternative solutions would have taken weeks. But the chapter president is a business faculty member more than comfortable with spread sheets. What’s more, the days of the smoke filled bargaining hall had long disappeared. Each member of the bargaining team sat in front of a computer. A ten foot high projection screen let everyone see spreadsheet proposals.

Meanwhile it had been decided that a large campus auditorium was the right place to meet. PowerPoint demonstrations were being prepared. E-mail messages went out to faculty. A phone tree got to work. An hour later we walked into an auditorium packed with hundreds of faculty. Scores of red AAUP caps dotted the room. There was applause, laughter, cheers, and pointed questioning, all echoing sharply against brick walls. My own presentation was easy. I assured everyone of continuing support from the national AAUP, and I emphasized that they were not fighting for their own interests alone. A highly conservative governing board was seeking to deny faculty any influence over their terms of employment or working conditions. This was a battle we needed to win for the country as a whole. Over 40 years in the academy I have never seen a faculty so unified and determined. It was astonishing and exhilarating. Certainly the administration had a hand in inadvertently unifying the faculty. But constant communication between the leadership and the members helped turn anger into collective action.

The overwhelming majority of faculty contracts are, of course, negotiated without a strike. Both parties ordinarily prefer a solution and, despite competing financial aims, are willing to work toward one. The Eastern Michigan administration’s determination to break the faculty’s will is not unprecedented but surely atypical.

Boredom, tension, boredom, boredom, time for more coffee.

[UPDATE: boredom, boredom, boredom]

[UPDATE 2: boredom, fatigue, weariness, boredom]

Start 9:30am

now 1:50am  2:10am  2:30am  3:20am  3:44am  3:58  4:20am


« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 10) | Main | On Strike for Labor Day (Part 12) »

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 9) | Main | On Strike for Labor Day (Part 11) »

September 10, 2006

On Strike for Labor Day (Part 10)

Life has been exceedingly busy, although the basic situation has not changed. The administration walked out of contract negotiations Sept 5 and refuses to talk with us while we're on strike. We don't want to call of strike. Conversations are difficult with those positions.

I've been busy with some special projects. Saturday was a crash course in drupal to get ready for the online petition we've created. If you didn't see it on our website, please consider adding your signature. We tried to keep it simple:

Because talks were progressing with the faculty union, you should not have walked out on the collective bargaining process. You need to resume talks, respond to the faculty union's last proposal, and finish negotiating the last several issues.

The administration should be trying harder to negotiate rather than impose a contract on faculty. Do the right thing so classes can finally start.  

Once again, you can add your signature by clicking this link [link removed now that the petition is down]. It opens in a new window, so if you're not sure, you can read the other parts of this series and then sign the petition.  

The ad for the Ann Arbor news came out Sunday morning and will run again Monday, along with an ad in the Detroit Free Press. The latter has had it's own share of labor problems, so they have pretty much reported what has been in the administration's press releases. Their editorial wasn't very favorable to us, but they were quite willing to take our $.

The ad for the AA news basically looked like:

EMU-AAUP faculty negotiating team ready to finish discussing the contract, but the administration walked out of talks, stopping the collective bargaining process.

Eastern Michigan University Faculty

- Ready and willing to negotiate

- Wants to be teaching students

- Offered to submit to binding arbitration

- Believes in bargaining to a mutually acceptable result and refuses to have a contract imposed on them

For more information: http://www.emu-aaup.org

Not bad for short notice, I hope. Some of the media buys are difficult because of the lead time papers typically want. If you need 3 - 4  days, then do we make the buy (pay at time of placement) and assume the strike is on? As it turned out, there was some room available on shorter notice that we took, so we had a few hours to get the ad and photo together.
Today we demonstrated at University House, although the president was conveniently not in. I'll have pictures tomorrow, but there were about 150 faculty there at the peak and 200 over the several hours the demonstration went on. Given that we have about 670 faculty, that's impressive - especially since we've all been demonstrating and picketing frequently since Sept 1 when the strike.
What's also great to see is groups of faculty starting to come together to think about creative ideas. The grasssroots is working now, and pulling together their own ideas and projects. Even as some will no doubt wander back into the classroom Monday and next week, others are energized. Open source activism - gotta love it.  
Obviously this next week is the breaking point. One side will need to give, or we'll both find a compromise to end this and get back to business.  At some point, there's going to be some serious developments. It's difficult to see past On Strike for Labor Day (Part 15), although I'll confess that I never imagined it would get to part 10.
In the meantime, I need to go to bed. But a few snippets:
From the Moving Ideas Blog

The right of faculty union to negotiate for its contract is as important as any union's right to do so. And the thought that the administration walked out without responding to the faculty's proposal is disturbing.

This country is great because it was designed to make policy deliberatively. Whether in Congress or at the contract negotiating table, if there is no discussion and working together to solve problems there is little hope for an equitable solution.

To view the EMU AAUP's petition, visit: [link removed and petition down].

EMU student newspaper editorial: Faculty Union Has Right to Strike 

America has long had an ambiguous relationship with labor. While we celebrate it with a long weekend, that holiday was shifted by five months in order to avoid recalling the Haymarket riots that precipitated it. While eight-hour days and overtime pay are an entitlement for most workers, the unions that achieved those victories are deemphasized even as those protections are eroded.

And when regarding labor disputes, much of America sympathizes with the owners and management even as concessions wrung from unions undermine the wages and protections of average Americans. Too often, the concern is more the inconvenience of a delayed flight or a missed class than solidarity.

The administration has negotiated in bad faith, walking away from the bargaining table before the start of classes. The administration has refused to seriously consider the position of the faculty. Furthermore, the administration has misrepresented and sought to cloud the issues surrounding the strike, polarizing the students against the faculty.

While the administration charges that the faculty strike is illegal, it is important to consider this in the political context of labor relations. Under Governor Engler, state employees were barred from striking, a move intended to bust teachers' unions. But we should all remember that illegal does not equal immoral, and that the administration's moral arguments are virtually non-existent.

The morality of striking, even though it inconveniences students, is founded in the belief of freedom of association and in the belief that capitalism is best served by allowing groups to exercise their power collectively. While it may be illegal, in this case the law is against justice.

Nicely said. The rest is also good and it was difficult not to reproduce the whole piece here, but It's worth the read.  

We also got a mention in the AFL-CIO blog. It's mostly just a mention of this blog, but people interested in this issue may like to check out the labor blog.  

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 9) | Main | On Strike for Labor Day (Part 11) »

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 8) | Main | On Strike for Labor Day (Part 10) »

September 08, 2006

On Strike for Labor Day (Part 9)

Please see On Strike for Labor Day? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8 and additional background

Another day with no negotiations and no word from the administration about resuming contract talks. Still, it was a very busy day around the office.

back to the table to negotiate 

Much of what we're doing now revolves around multiple levels of strategy. Obviously much of this can't be disclosed here, but there are many short-term and longer terms (days ahead) to deal with. Most immediately is getting information produced: deciding on information for the daily flyers, and getting the paper, refreshments, and stickes (I Support My Faculty) up to compus in the right places.

When students moved in, we distributed thousands of flyers to get information to them early. We're still working on that, but fighting the problem that students go to EMU's website for information, because that's where they get email, register, etc. The administration also has access to listserves that we don't. We do get CCed on some very funny emails from students pushing back:

EMU can go piss up a rope with that "illegal strike" stuff, and ought better do some things at the bargaining table to reach an agreement with the professors, in order that the AAUP leadership may have a package worthy of recommending to their membership It's called "good faith bargaining", and that's what it takes to avoid labor disputes.  (I note EMU's record along these lines in past contracts is at best middling, often poor.) 


Your sending out an email of such tone to students like me serves no good purpose.  Be assured I'm never to show up for classes being run by rat instructors.  There are plenty of others like me too .... this is Michigan, and we're freedom-loving folks who believe in a fair day's pay for our work.  Get with what matters !  Helps reach an agreement, and enough with the mass Emails ....   


[Clarification: a sharp former student and now lecturer took the 'rat' comment to be bashing lecturers and adjuncts, and thus anti-feminist because women are more likely to hold those positions than tenure-track or tenured jobs. I'm not sure what the student meant, but I certainly don't regard the lecturers, grad students or contingent labor who taught to be rats or scabs; that term would be reserved for anyone who took the jobs or did the work of striking faculty and thus undermined the strike.]

And another (with a reference to a strike by public employees is prohibited under Michigan law):

The right to assemble and unionize is a civil right and a human right. It is Michigan's law that is illegal under US Constitutional law. Shame on you for sending these ridiculous emails. Stop sending propaganda and get back to the bargaining table with EMU-AAUP.
Well said. Thanks.

student rally to support striking faculty 

Obviously the larger issues deal with the strategy of getting back to the table to finish negotiating. We're exploring a number of avenues here that we'll talk about at the all faculty meeting later today. We're also trying to map out a range of options they might pursue, and developing our responses so we're ready to go. I realize that sounds vague and I apologize, but I think you can understand.

Part of what I can say is that our offer of binding arbitration was rejected, but they returned to offer fact-finding (which we knew was coming). To enter fact-finding, we would need to call off the strike, then the recommendation is advisory. So fact-finding would likely entail: calling off the strike, months of hearings, a recommendation the university would likely ignore or adopt small parts while they try to get us to accept the offer they had on the table last week. Returning to strike in December isn't really an option, so guess what happens?

We're returning an offer of binding fact-finding, which is also available under the state's labor law. We're willing to submit this to a binding decision by a neutral third party. Do you think they are? 

More generally, we are in touch with the lawyers, and frequent communication with the national AAUP. They have been amazingly supportive. There are not too many strikes in higher education, and the kind of walk out done here is unusal, although not unheard of). They're keeping a close on us and obviously want to make sure this doesn't become a trend.

I've heard a few comments from faculty about the involvement of the national AAUP. Let's be clear that they are giving advice and are very respcectful that it's ultimately our choice about what to do with it. They don't have a vote and would go withdraw if we wanted, but they have given great advice and we would be in a much more dire situation if it were not for their help.  

Some faculty are understandably nervous about being out on strike and rumors of the dire consequences circulate. But all the worst case scenarios are far-fetched. The practical impediments are great, and we have a number of promises of support in the unlikely case they materialize. Many of these would also make the university look bad, would hurt recruiting of new faculty and risk inflaming more people than they frighten.

Off to strategize and meet with faculty.  

« On Strike for Labor Day (Part 8) | Main | On Strike for Labor Day (Part 10) »