Tuesday, September 29, 2020

 

David King—the graphic designer who printed his mark on the left

Yuri Prasad rates a new compilation of David King’s work which shows how he influenced the revolutionary left—and the commercial world beyond it


An Anti Nazi League poster from the 1970s, designed by David King


David King, the designer, photographer and researcher, gave the British radical left its graphical language.

His style mixed bold sans serif headlines, with blocks of red placed at angles, and super tight picture cropping. It became a defining feature of many publications and posters in the era that followed the revolutionary year of 1968.

In the mainstream too, King’s style felt new and fresh, especially when he was working for the Sunday Times magazine during its ten-year heyday from the mid-1960s.

His juxtapositions of oppressed and oppressors, and causes and consequences, combined well with others with a similar inclination, including photographer Don McCullen and writer Francis Wyndam.

It apparently played less well with the magazine’s marketing department who wanted something easier on the eyes.

Perhaps that’s why King’s work really came into its own in the service of the revolutionary left.

He designed the red arrow logo of the Anti Nazi League that speared the far right and the carnival posters of Rock Against Racism.

He produced brilliantly dynamic graphics for the anti-apartheid movement.

Part of his skill was to understand what the left needed by virtue of being part of its extended family. Anti-racism and revolution were hardwired into him.

An interview with David King: Why Trotsky’s picture lay hidden for 70 years
An interview with David King
  Read More

He also knew that his posters would be printed on low tech, older machines. So he devised work that stretched our printers to the limit, but not beyond them. He often used coarse printing screens so that images were rendered in large dots. And he combined black and red inks to colourise images and give them depth.

In his design work, King freely acknowledged his debt to the Russian Constructivist School that emerged from the 1917 revolution. It was fascination with the revolution—and of its hero, Trotsky—that drove him on.

King and Wyndam produced the first pictorial biography of Trotsky in 1972. It charted him from a child thorough the years of repression in pre-revolutionary Russia, to his life as head of the Red Army, and finally into exile.

Many of the images had never been seen before, and curated this way, were a challenge to then the still-dominant Stalinism on the left.

He collected thousands of photographs and paintings from Russia in the 1920s and 30s and compiled them into indispensable books of documentary.

His book The Commissar Vanishes is a forensic demolition of Stalin’s attempt to air-brush out leading Bolsheviks from the revolution’s pictorial history.

King places original and doctored images side by side and recounts in terrible detail the comrade’s fate.

Later books explored the art of the revolution and led to major exhibitions at Tate Modern.

At the opening of one that I was at, he told the audience that he needed to be careful of what he said because “the boss is watching”.

He then pointed to a 1923 portrait of Trotsky by Sergei Pichugin that for generations had laid hidden from Stalin deep in the walls of the artist’s house.

This new book is a vital addition to the King collection, assembling for the first time work from across his fields. It is a link, through the artist and archivist, to a history that continues to inspire today.

David King: Designer, Activist, Visual Historian by Rick Poynor. Published by Yale University Press, £30. Available from bookmarksbookshop.co.uk

David King—reclaiming the Russian Revolution of 1917

by Jackie Shellard

David King, the photographer and designer who died last week, was best known for his collections of posters, images and artefacts from the Russian Revolution.

King’s interest in the Russian Revolution was not purely academic.

As art editor of the Sunday Times magazine, he went to Russia in 1970 to research an article on the centenary of Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin’s birth.

He soon found that a lot of the material he collected there had been doctored or falsified.

Leon Trotsky and other leading revolutionaries central to the 1917 Russian Revolution had effectively been removed from history.

Much of his work from this point was dedicated to reclaiming the revolution and recreating a world that was lost when Joseph Stalin rewrote the history books.

Records

King’s books are not simply photographic records, but are designed to guide the reader to a true understanding of the period.

In The Commissar Vanishes—the Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin’s Russia, he reveals how photographs were retouched in an attempt to change history.

For instance, he placed a 1918 photograph of the Council of People’s Commissars—the revolutionary cabinet—beside a 1970 version of the same photo.

The original 33 members have been reduced to 4 as many of these commissars, including the revolutionary leader Trotsky, were murdered during the Stalinist period.

Although the design of his beautifully produced books is integral to them, King was interested in content far more than in form.

In oppressive regimes, he said, “design doesn’t much matter. The horrors of the regime are what matter”.

So with Nazi films he argued, “I don’t care how well it’s filmed or what the lighting’s like. It’s a disgusting Nazi rally”.

In the 1970s King designed anti-apartheid posters and posters and logos for the Anti Nazi League.

Political

He produced some of the most iconic political posters of the period.

His final book, John Heartfield—Laughter is a Devastating Weapon, is a collection of works by the radical German artist.

Heartfield used art as a weapon against the Nazis in his political montages of the 1930s.

A 1970 reproduction of a 1918 photograph of the Council of People’s Commisars (below).

A 1970 reproduction of a 1918 photograph of the Council of People’s Commisars (below).

In Red Star Over Russia—a Visual History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Death of Stalin, King writes, “Even as a child I detested capitalism.

“When my uncle, who was a socialist, taught me about the true nature of the ruling class I agreed with him that it clearly had to be overthrown.

“I used to dream, like all children, how life would be in the 21st century.

 
 

“If anyone had told me that there would still be inequality, racism, kings, queens and religious maniacs stalking the planet I would have considered them crazy.”

King’s books and exhibitions stand as clear expressions of his political commitment.

 



How Trump and privatised health care left US exposed

The US is the richest country in the world, but has one of the worst responses to coronavirus. Sarah Bates looks at how a a broken system killed over 200,000


A testing site in Glenn Island Park, New York (Pic: New York National Guard)

Donald Trump promised on 26 February that the handful of US coronavirus patients were about to get better.

At least 205,000 deaths and 6.9 million cases later, he could not have been proven more wrong.

The US has just 4 percent of the world’s population but around 20 percent of confirmed Covid-19 cases. Led by a right wing administration intent on playing down the ­pandemic, it missed every opportunity to halt the spread.

Sheila Davis, CEO of the Partners in Health non-profit organisation, describes the approach as, “Get hospitals ready and wait for sick people to show.”

“Especially in the beginning, we catered our entire Covid-19 response to the 20 percent of people who required hospitalisation, rather than preventing transmission in the community,” she said.

Opioids in the US - a crisis prescribed by profit
Read More

The US is the richest country in the world.

Yet people are left queuing for hours in the baking sun to take a test and health workers are scrambling to get their hands on PPE protective kit.

“The number of people testing in Oregon is really low,” explained Sean Cummings, a socialist and Marx21 member in the state’s biggest city Portland. “To get a test you have to have a car or queue up for three hours.

“The rich will get tested but the poor won’t. You can see that in who’s dying, who it’s affecting the most—it’s working class people, it’s bus drivers, postal workers, health care workers and so on.”

The pandemic has smashed through a privatised health system that lets millions of people die every year while pharmacy fat cats and bloated providers count their profits.



The just-in-time delivery ­methods that led to empty supermarket shelves weren’t sufficient to keep hospital store cupboards stocked with masks and gloves either.

Poor planning on a federal level was also partly to blame. It was discovered too late that the Strategic National Stockpile, which is supposed to provide for just this type of emergency, was 100 million respirators and masks short.

They were used in the 2009 flu pandemic and simply never replaced.

In the US, people have to pay for their healthcare, usually through an employment-based insurance programme. And with 26 million people in the US now claiming unemployment benefits, even fewer people will have access to limited coverage.

Those who have suffered from coronavirus face eye-watering hospital bills. Michael Flor, a 70 year old Covid-19 patient who spent 62 days in hospital, was charged more than $1.1 million for his treatment.

“I feel guilty about surviving,” he said. “There’s a sense of ‘Why me? Why did I deserve all this?’ Looking at the incredible cost of it all definitely adds to that survivor’s guilt.”
Neither Republicans nor Democrats want change

Despite coronavirus cases rising in 21 US states and around 40,000 new cases every day, Donald Trump is refusing to accept reality.

In full electioneering mode ahead of the November’s presidential vote, he told supporters last week, “We have done a very good job.”

Trump isn’t solely responsible, but his failure to act is central to the high death rates and widespread misery.

And it’s hardly surprising that he’s ruled over the coronavirus crisis in this way.

In 2018 Trump disbanded the national pandemic response office.

He squandered any head start the US had and refused to build

extra capacity into the system by developing tests and manufacturing PPE. 


Joe Biden’s coronation will not bring real change
Read More

Instead, Trump banned people from entering the US from China.

It was an act of political theatre to appeal to his right wing base, rather than a serious attempt at halting Covid-19’s spread.

Since then he’s poured scorn on the science, joined calls for state governments to lift local lockdowns and rejected demands for a national approach to quashing the virus.

Yet Trump has faced little opposition from the Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

Despite occasionally blasting Trump’s “lies and incompetence” Biden has put forward little on how to tackle the crisis.

Neither has the track record or the inclination to truly challenge the broken system.

But that doesn’t mean that ordinary people won’t. Beth Redbird is a sociologist who has conducted studies in how people were applying social distancing measures.

She pointed out that times of crisis lead to people questioning everything.

“Times of big social disruption call into question things we thought were normal and standard,” she said.

“If our institutions fail us here, in what ways are they failing elsewhere?

“And whom are they failing most?”

Double trouble as flu season looms

Health care workers in the US are gearing up for the winter flu season that could see an additional 500,000 people hospitalised.

“We have two pandemics coming at the same time and only one vaccine—for seasonal flu—guaranteed,” said Daniel Salmon.

He is director of the institute for vaccine safety at Johns Hopkins University.

“We need a national campaign with clear and consistent messaging about the community benefits,” he said.

Unless flu is treated like the oncoming emergency it is, US health care workers will shortly be battling a dual crisis.
No PPE for health staff

PPE protective kit guidelines aren’t based on science, but on chaotic and sustained shortages.

In March, federal officials advised healthcare workers to stop using the N95 respirator face masks and use looser paper surgical ones.

And, because they don’t have enough, some hospital managers lock up the N95 masks.

So healthcare workers are struggling to get hold of them in emergency situations.

As many as 58 percent of health workers who were surveyed said they didn’t have enough PPE.

Rich hospitals are coping with the inflated cost of supplying PPE.

But cash-strapped ones, invariably serving poor multiracial communities, are running out of masks and money.

This is having stark impacts.

As of early July, the coronavirus death rate for black people is more than twice that of whites


Sun 27 Sep 2020,Issue No. 2724




Women at risk in Trump’s migrant camps 
by Sophie Squire SWP

Protesters demanding an end to Trump's regime of deportations in 2019 (Pic: Charles Edward Miller/Flickr)


Are women held in a US immigration detention centre in Georgia being forced to have unnecessary hysterectomies?

That’s the question many are asking after a nurse from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centre blew the whistle about terrible health conditions there.

Dawn Wooten, who worked at the Irwin county detention centre (ICDC), gave evidence to a 27-page report by the Project South organisation.

It details many cases of “jarring medical neglect”.

The part of the report that’s particularly alarmed ­anti‑­racists is the passage that “raises red flags regarding the rate at which hysterectomies are performed on immigrant women under ICE custody at ICDC”.

Project South says hysterectomies were carried out at “high rates” and that women who underwent the procedures “didn’t fully ­understand why they had to get a hysterectomy”.

At the very least this raises a question of whether patients gave “informed consent”.

Wooten’s account is backed by number of women detainees who have come forward to say they were subjected to forced hysterectomies.

Operated

A lawyer representing one of the women operated on spoke to the US news network NBC.

He said his client was told by a doctor that she had an ovarian cyst, but a biopsy to confirm this was never carried out. A hysterectomy was then performed on her. 

In 2019, Pauline Binam began having irregular periods.

She was 29 at the time and had spent the past two years in custody, awaiting deportation to Cameroon.

Resisting the US’s racist president
Read More

The detention centre’s gynaecologist said he would treat a cyst on her ovaries by removing tissue from her uterus, a fairly standard procedure.

But when she woke up from anesthesia, the doctor told her he had removed one of her fallopian tubes due to a clog and that she was now likely infertile.

In this privately-owned detention centre, a large number of hysterectomy procedures are said to have been performed by one doctor, Mehendra Amin.

Some women at the detention centre describe him as the “uterus collector”.

In response to these allegations, a group of angry protesters blocked the road in New York.

In a video shared on social media, the police kettled the 50 to 60 activists and arrested eight of them.

During the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has stepped up his hard line on migration. 

Those inside ICE detention centres report cramped conditions, no access to healthcare and some even say they have no access to water.

Wooten also wrote in her complaint that Irwin county detention centre had purposely under-reported Covid-19 cases, leaving detainees and staff at risk. 

The horrifying treatment of those trapped in ICE detention centres is part of a racist system that seeks to blame migrants for America’s growing economic crisis. 

Article Information International
Mon 21 Sep 2020 Issue No. 2723
Click here to download this weeks paper in PDF format, plain text format

Mexico asks U.S. to "clarify" alleged hysterectomies on migrant women

CBSNews

Whistleblower says ICE detainees were subjected to unwanted medical procedures


Mexico City — Mexico said Monday it had requested more information from the U.S. on medical procedures given to migrants in detention centers, after allegations that detained Mexican women were sterilized without their consent. Rights campaigners alleged two weeks ago that a number of hysterectomies had been carried out at a privately run detention center in Georgia.

The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it sent a diplomatic note, asking the U.S. government "to clarify the situation, requesting information on the medical attention that Mexican citizens receive" at the Irwin County Detention Center.
Nearly 9,000 migrant kids expelled under pandemic border policy

The ministry said that consulate personnel had interviewed 18 Mexican women who are or were detained at the center, none of whom "claimed to have undergone a hysterectomy," an operation involving the removal of all or part of the uterus.
© Provided by CBS News 2020 election to impact U.S. immigration for ... 07:33

The department added that seven of the women interviewed had been treated by the doctor accused of performing the sterilizations. Another of the women said she had undergone a gynecological operation, although there was nothing in her file to support that she consented to the procedure.

The women interviewed did not deny that they had been "victims of bad practices for different reasons," the foreign ministry said.

In an article published Tuesday, The New York Times said it had spoken to 16 women with concerns over gynecological treatment they had received while in custody at the Irwin detention facility and asked five independent gynecologists to review the available medical files on each women.

The Times said the independent doctors concluded that the area gynecologist used by the center, Dr. Mahendra Amin, had "consistently overstated the size or risks associated with cysts or masses attached to his patients' reproductive organs."

The doctors who reviewed the medical files for The Times "noted that Dr. Amin seemed to consistently recommend surgical intervention, even when it did not seem medically necessary at the time and nonsurgical treatment options were available," the newspaper said.

Mexico announced last week it was investigating the allegations of sterilizations, warning that such operations would be "unacceptable."

The allegations came from a whistleblower, a nurse at the center, where some detainees are held under Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. The nurse said that detained women told her they did not fully understand why they had to get a hysterectomy.

Project South, the Georgia Detention Watch, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights and South Georgia Immigrant Support Network filed a complaint to the government on behalf of detained immigrants and the nurse.
© Provided by CBS News U.S. expels 8,800 migrant kids amid pandemic 

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal has called for an urgent investigation into allegations that at least 17 women were subjected to unnecessary gynecological procedures that she called "the most abhorrent of human rights violations."

ICE said when the lawsuit was filed that it does not comment on matters before the inspector general, but that it takes all allegations seriously.

"That said, in general, anonymous, unproven allegations, made without any fact-checkable specifics, should be treated with the appropriate skepticism they deserve," the agency said in a statement.

Dr. Ada Rivera, the top doctor at the agency, issued a statement saying the whistleblower accusations would be investigated by an independent office, "however, ICE vehemently disputes the implication that detainees are used for experimental medical procedures."

"All female ICE detainees receive routine, age-appropriate gynecological and obstetrical health care, consistent with recognized community guidelines for women's health services," Rivera said. Her statement also said that, according to ICE data, two detainees at Irwin County Detention Center had had hysterectomies since 2018.


 

https://socialistworker.co.uk/archive











QAnon conspiracy theorists are important for Trump—and they’re dangerous

by Simon Basketter SWP

A QAnon conspiracy theorist supporting Donald Trump (Pic: Marc Nozell/Wikimedia commons)


Followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory believe a lot of things.

Any apparent crisis or incompetence is actually cover to let Donald Trump expose thousands of paedophiles—including Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Tom Hanks. They’ll soon be under arrest, or perhaps they are already.

Their crimes? Torturing and murdering children, then harvesting a chemical from their blood.

Trump said, “I don’t know much about the movement other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate.”

He has promoted Twitter accounts pushing QAnon over 216 times.

Asked what he thought about the theory that he is saving the world from a satanic cult Trump replied, “I haven’t heard that, but is it supposed to be a bad thing or a good thing?”

Conspiracy theories don’t explain society’s problems
Conspiracy theories don’t explain society’s problems
  Read More

“The Storm” is the predicted great mass arrest event, in which over 100,000 people from the highest levels of power and entertainment face a day of reckoning. The Texas Republican Party sells “We are the Storm” T-shirts. 

It comes from a dinner in October 2017, which Trump said was “maybe the calm before the storm”.

The same month an anonymous user of online forums claiming to be a high-level government informant emerged.

Various cryptic messages followed. They did some name dropping of real conspiracies such as Operation Mockingbird, a 1970s CIA effort to blackmail journalists. But most of it was untrue, fantastical and right wing.

Some followers believe that Trump is Q—though others think it’s John F Kennedy Jr, who they believe faked his 1999 death (he didn’t).

Actor Tom Hanks is a child abuser because Q used the word “big” in several posts and Hanks starred in the 1988 film Big. It is that bad. QAnon is now an all-encompassing theory, one with dozens of offshoots and side plots.

Reactionary protest says no to Covid-19 safety measures
Reactionary protest says no to Covid-19 safety measures
  Read More

The coronavirus pandemic increased QAnon’s reach. Google searches for QAnon increased ten-fold from January to July. And the social media algorithms meant if you looked up what was wrong with wearing a mask you were going to hit a QAnon forum or video fairly soon.

Real-life wealthy sex abusers such as Jeffrey Epstein are given cover by powerful people.

So a movement focused on unmasking them and bringing them to justice can seem appealing.

That is part of the problem—the rich and the powerful really have covered up child abuse. They do conspire to keep their power and their secrets.

But as with other attempts to mobilise around this, such as paedo-hunting videos, they provide a crowd for fascist recruitment. Importantly many other right wing conspiracy theories fit neatly within QAnon—such as ones about Jewish bankers controlling the world.

Content

This summer saw the SaveOurChildren hashtag flood social media with content by QAnon followers.

It led to small protests around the world. There was one at Buckingham Palace about Prince Andrew.

There have been dozens of instances in the US of people in QAnon-related plots. In April a man with QAnon ties was arrested for derailing a train with the intention of aiming it at a hospital ship in San Pedro, California.

QAnon followers have been egged on by a president who promised them vengeance against their enemies and never followed through. He didn’t “lock her up”. He didn’t “build that wall”.

The dramatic fantasies of Trump’s militant fringe are an attempt to rationalise the duller reality of capitalism and explain why Trump didn’t deliver. And that makes them dangerous.


Boxer Jack Johnson

Boxer Jack Johnson


Racist conspiracies and right wing politics—a murky and sordid history

QAnon is not the first conspiracy used by the US right.

In 1909 Woman’s World magazine delivered an expose to two million US households. Then came a best-selling book, written by Chicago’s District Attorney, called War on the White Slave Trade.

White parents were warned their girls were being snatched off the street and sold into sex slavery.

The book warned, “Ice cream parlours and fruit stores largely run by foreigners are the places where scores of girls have taken their first step downward.”

It provided a reactionary outlet for fear and rage at women entering the workforce and the independence that brought—and combined it with brutal racism.

Banned

The result was the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910. Better known as the Mann Act, it banned the transportation of any girl or woman across state lines for any “immoral” purpose.

To enforce the Mann Act, the federal government created the Bureau of Investigation. Nine days after the Act was passed Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion, beat James Jeffries, the “great white hope”.

The bureau arrested Johnson twice under the new law for crossing state lines with his white girlfriend. He fled to Europe but returned in 1920 to go to prison.

Then in 1942 millions of white Americans believed the US president’s wife Eleanor Roosevelt was traveling throughout the former confederate states, organising black women into secret “Eleanor Clubs”.

The club motto was, “A white woman in the kitchen by 1943.” She apparently encouraged black men to stockpile weapons—specifically ice picks.

Rumours 

All nonsense. But the rumours were circulated through newspapers, not just word of mouth.

As the US entered the Second World War, major changes upended traditional racial and gender hierarchies.

Millions of black men joined the armed forces or got jobs in the war manufacturing plants, freeing themselves from the economic dependency of sharecropping.

Black women found new opportunities. Industrial employment almost doubled and wages rose.

The racist conspiracies were a way for reactionary protest against a world in which women and black people demanded rights.

They strengthened rather than weakened those at the top. The same is true today.


 

Trump is escalating an ideological war

by Alex Callinicos SWP

Will Trump be able to hang on?  (Pic: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)


It’s always been a mistake to underestimate Donald Trump. This is especially true now, when he’s fighting ferociously to stay in the White House. Not underestimating him means taking him seriously as a political operator, but also as an ideologist.

There are three dimensions to the ideological positions Trump takes. The first is the economic nationalism that helped him win in 2016. It is expressed in the trade wars with China and—at a slower tempo—with the European Union.

Secondly, there is the “culture war” that the unsuccessful right wing presidential candidate Pat Buchanan declared at the 1992 Republican convention. This is about reversing the reforms won thanks to mass struggles in the 1960s and 1970s.

These reforms didn’t seek to overthrow capitalism in the US, but to extend the citizenship rights promised to everyone at the end of the 1861-5 Civil War. An obvious example is the black struggle for Civil Rights in the South. 

The 1973 Roe vs Wade decision by the Supreme Court legalising abortion was also a landmark victory.

Buchanan targeted Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s alleged support for “abortion on demand, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units”. 

These are the issues that particularly motivate the Christian right, whom Trump has been careful to cultivate, particularly by appointing conservatives as federal judges.

The death last Friday of justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal feminist, gives Trump the opportunity to instal a right wing 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court which might then reverse Roe vs Wade.

But we shouldn’t ignore the third ideological dimension to Trump—his war on the anti-capitalist and anti-racist left. This came out most clearly in a speech he made last week at a conference on US history.

“Left wing mobs have torn down statues of our founders, desecrated our memorials, and carried out a campaign of violence and anarchy,” Trump said.

“Far left demonstrators have chanted the words ‘America was never great.’”  He linked this to what he claims is the ideological penetration of the US education system by left wing ideas, naming the Marxist historian Howard Zinn.

“Students in our universities are inundated with critical race theory. This is a Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression, and that our entire society must be radically transformed.” 

Influence

Trump is of course right. Marxists and other anti-racist scholars have for decades been documenting the racist roots of US society. Unfortunately, these scholars’ influence has been limited.

The tweet Trump endorsed denouncing “critical race theory” as “the greatest threat to western civilisation” is way off the mark.

But the Black Lives Matter (BLM) risings this summer changed the situation. A militant movement has emerged that gives the lie to the idea that the US is a “post-racial” society.

Trump has seized on these protests to beat the drum of law and order.

And his ideological assault on the left is linked to his Twitter denunciations of “Antifa” activists and his encouragement of both cops and his own supporters physically to attack BLM activists. This has led to at least three fatal shootings. 

Trump’s tactics are raising the stakes in the election, seeking to brand Biden as a fellow traveller of the “left wing cultural revolution”. But they seem designed also to provide the ideological cement for Trump’s own militant street movement.

Already there are widespread fears being expressed in mainstream circles that, if he looks like losing the election in November, he will mobilise his armed supporters to keep him in the White House.

We’ll see whether Trump is able to hang on, constitutionally or unconstitutionally. 

But for his own opportunistic reasons, he is transforming the scattered, fragmented, incoherent far right into something that could be the beginnings of a real fascist movement. 

This may be the worst part of his legacy.
Aprés Ginsburg, Le Deluge
AFTER GINSBURG,THE DELUGE

Liz Elting Contributor 
ForbesWomen

29/9/2020

The year is 1993. It’s August, and Bill Clinton has been president for less than a year. During the 1992 campaign, his partner Hillary was facing a sexist public reckoning: was she enough of a wife and mother? After all, she had kept her name throughout her tenure as First Lady of Arkansas and defended her decision to keep outside employment rather than stay at home baking cookies. Remember, this was almost three decades ago, when working women were still regarded with a fair bit of suspicion and Family Circle (then still in circulation) ran a quadrennial cookie recipe contest for potential First and Second Ladies of the United States.

UNITED STATES - JANUARY 20: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg arrives for President Barack Obama CQ-ROLL CALL, INC VIA GETTY IMAGES


In that environment, Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died ten days ago at 87 after 27 years on the high court, where she served as perhaps the primary defender of women’s rights and independence. When she took office, it had been only 12 years since women were released from legal subordination to their husbands, and state-funded schools were still allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex in admissions.

Here in 2020, it may actually come as a bit of a surprise the extent to which women were subordinated by the state. The military could compel pregnant servicewomen to get an abortion or else resign and didn’t stop that until 1972. Women couldn’t apply for credit cards or mortgages in their own right until 1974. Women could be excluded from juries until 1993. Women could be compelled to carry dangerous pregnancies to term until 2007. And circling around each of those decisions, either on the bench or arguing in front of it, is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She’s had plaudits aplenty in the days since her death, and rightly so. She’s easy to applaud. Superlatives attach themselves to her like barnacles on a ship at sea. She was a sui generis advocate, attorney, and judge. But I’m not here to praise Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but to speak to where we find ourselves now that she is gone. Because she is gone.

The obvious place to start would be to look at the makeup of the bench if Amy Coney Barrett takes her seat, at her history and public statements, in the big hoary arguments of academic law. That would only be part of the picture, however, because the reality is far more complicated; one complicating factor in particular is the pandemic.

We as women are in the midst of an entire new series of challenges to our rights on a level that I am not sure we could have predicted a few short years ago. COVID-19 has disrupted our ability to live our lives in ways large and small, a disruption that has fallen disproportionately on women, who are bearing the brunt of the economic and emotional damage it’s wreaking. It’s not a secret; every repercussion—from the childcare crisis to the looming eviction disaster—is a heightened threat to women for the same reason we make seventy-nine cents on the dollar: our labor is not valued.

This matrix of events—pandemic-induced economic and social dislocation alongside an increasingly reactionary court—places us in the position of having our social rights (especially in the workplace) challenged and the challenge being upheld.

Where do I begin? Women are being tacitly and even explicitly encouraged to voluntarily resign their positions because they have children to take care of, which ostensibly gets in the way of the unfettered march of capitalism. Even without that pushing force, working moms are spread thinner than ever; they have children to homeschool, jobs to perform, and household chores to carry (responsibilities men are shirking). Women dominate retail work, which means we’re disproportionately affected by closures and lockdowns. We are, more than ever in history since the middle of the twentieth century, being pushed out of the workforce. What worries me more than anything is what happens when those push factors come before the courts, because they’re going to. Of course they’re going to—and under less-than-favorable conditions.

We’re staring down a social landscape that rolls back progress and reaffirms traditional gender roles rather than breaking them down, where millions of women have to leave the workforce long enough to derail their careers. That means fewer women managers hiring fewer women candidates, fewer women reaching the c-suite or boardroom, and therefore fewer women in a position to argue on our behalf. The current choice facing working moms is just another manifestation of the motherhood penalty, or the enforcing of the idea that women don’t really belong in the workforce by holding female applicants to the ridiculous standard of “will never marry or have children.” The losses have already been staggering.

It saddens me deeply to see Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy, what she fought for her entire life, teetering on the precipice. But you and I have it in our power to stop that from happening. It’s not going to come at the ballot box alone, but in the decisions we make every day, in what we communicate to our daughters and sons about the value women hold and offer, in our conduct as business leaders, managers, or hiring officers. These are decisions that we make day by day, you and I, to embody our secular credos. The rollback we’re already seeing didn’t begin in the Supreme Court, the halls of Congress, or the White House. Instead, it took root in millions of daily decisions by people in the position to decide them.

I don’t know what the future holds, and it’s not my place to try and say. We may not have a reliable path to codify our values into law or before a sympathetic court. But we do have our lives, and our choices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t start on the Supreme Court. She started by organizing, pushing back against arbitrary values, fighting for what she (and all of us) deserved, and forcing others to adapt to her by the sheer power of her brilliant and dedicated mind. But we don’t have to be as notorious as RBG to effect change in the world. If we commit ourselves to the wellbeing and advancement of women in the workplace and beyond, we will be doing our part, small it may be, to build this better world she could see twinkling in the distance.

We can do it.


Follow me on LinkedIn.

Liz Elting
I am a global CEO, entrepreneur, business leader, linguaphile, philanthropist, feminist, and mother. After living, studying, and working in five countries across the globe, and quitting a particularly nightmarish job, I decided it was time to chart my own future. Driven by a passion for language and cultural diversity, and a vision to break down boundaries, forge new paths forward, and connect people and businesses across the globe, I founded my dream company out of an NYU dorm room. Today, that dorm-room startup is the world’s largest privately-owned language solutions company, with over $500 million in revenue, 4,000 employees, 11,000 clients, and offices in more than 90 cities around the globe. As for me, I’m still fueled by a passion for breaking down boundaries – not only geographically, culturally, and technologically – but also in the workplace for other entrepreneurial women working toward their dreams and building a better tomorrow. You can follow me on Twitter @LizElting.


Poll: Majority of adults don't support overturning Roe v. Wade

Sixty-six percent of adults say they don't think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade, according to an NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Tracking poll.

Abortion rights activists protest outside the Supreme Court on March 4.
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

















TRUMP SUPPORTERS DENY THIS RIGHT TO WOMEN


Sept. 29, 2020, 2:33 AM MDT

By Melissa Holzberg and Ben Kamisar

WASHINGTON — A majority of American adults say they don't support the Supreme Court's completely overturning Roe v. Wade, according to new data from the NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Tracking Poll.

Sixty-six percent of adults say they don't believe the Supreme Court should completely overturn the decision that established a woman's right to an abortion nationwide in at least the first three months of a pregnancy. Twenty-nine percent of adults say they do want the court to completely overturn the ruling.

The landmark 1973 decision found that a woman's constitutional right to privacy protected her choice of whether to have an abortion, although it also allowed states to more heavily regulate access to abortion after the first trimester. Before Roe v. Wade, states were largely unrestricted in regulating access to abortion at any point in a pregnancy.


Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving the decision — 86 percent say it shouldn't be overturned, while 12 percent believe it should be overturned.

Independents feel similarly — 71 percent want to preserve the ruling, while 25 percent want to see it overturned.

Republicans are virtually split, with 50 percent supporting overturning Roe and 47 percent saying it shouldn't be overturned.

President Donald Trump nominated federal appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court seat left vacant after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The nomination has sparked questions about whether a more conservative-leaning court could re-examine issues like abortion — Trump has said he would nominate only anti-abortion rights judges to sit on the court.

In a 2013 article in the Texas Law Review, Barrett cited Roe v. Wade when she wrote, "If anything, the public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that [precedent] can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging."

Barrett, however, has said that she doesn't believe the Supreme Court would ever fully overturn abortion rights — rather that the court may change how much power states have to regulate abortions.

In a speech at the University of Notre Dame in 2013, Barrett said, "The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand." And in 2016, she said: "I don't think abortion or the right to abortion would change. I think some of the restrictions would change."

After he nominated her, Trump said in a "Fox and Friends" interview that with Barrett on the court, overturning Roe v. Wade was "certainly possible."

"And maybe they do it in a different way. Maybe they'd give it back to the states. You just don't know what's going to happen," he said.

Many conservatives have pushed for the court to re-examine Roe — Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., tweeted this month that he would vote only for Supreme Court nominees who believe "Roe was wrongly decided."

The new data tracks with other polls that show that the majority of Americans don't want to see Roe v. Wade completely overturned and generally agree with a women's right to have an abortion with certain restrictions.

The timing of Barrett's nomination is also controversial. Last week, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 57 percent of Americans thought the candidate who wins the Nov. 3 election should fill the vacant seat. And two NBC News/Marist College polls showed that a majority of likely voters in Michigan and Wisconsin agreed that the election winner should make the nomination.

The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced that Barrett's confirmation hearings would begin Oct. 12 — just 22 days before the election. Democrats have criticized Republicans for moving forward with the nomination and the confirmation process so close to the election after having blocked President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in March 2016.

While Democrats have promised to try to block Barrett's confirmation, only two Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — have joined with them to say a nominee shouldn't be confirmed until after the election, so there's little that Democrats can do to delay the process.

Data come from a set of SurveyMonkey online polls conducted Sept. 21-27, 2020, among a national sample of 48,241 adults in the U.S. Respondents were selected from the more than 2 million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. The modeled error estimate for this survey is plus or minus 1.0 percentage points. Data have been weighted for age, race, sex, education and geography using the Census Bureau's American Community Survey to reflect the demographic composition of the United States ages 18 and over.
Blondie’s Chris Stein and William S. Burroughs discuss the nature of war in a rare clip from 1987

Credit: Noah/Anna Hanks

Jack Whatley·September 29, 2020

There are some striking similarities between the attitude and ethos that the beat novelist and cult icon William S. Burroughs put into his work such as Junky and Naked Lunch that the punks of New York City could and likely still can identify with. His no-holds-barred approach and visceral storytelling made him a hit with musicians across the city in the seventies, including Blondie’s own Chris Stein.

The other ventricle in the beating heart of Blondie, Stein’s contribution to punk’s movement into popular music is undoubted but what has always impressed about the somewhat more reserved member of the band is his wide range of artistic endeavours. Whether through photography or producing films, Stein has always appeared as a composed curator of the arts. It’s fitting then that he should find such favour with a similarly well-mannered man such as Burroughs.

We’re revisiting the moment when Burroughs and Stein sat down for a vintage piece of television—discussing the nature of war. It’s not exactly your everyday piece of footage, but the people being recorded aren’t exactly everyday people. The clip comes from 1987 and is just before the grunge generation, led by Kurt Cobain, cottoned onto Burroughs’ work and the man himself—it catches the writer at a philosophical moment.

“What’s your favourite war, Bill?” asks Stein. The informality is to be expected, the two men have crossed paths many times before. They shared dinner back in 1978, an experience captured by Victor Bockris which saw Stein, Burroughs and Debbie Harry wax lyrically about everything from the French’s efficiency to haunted Bowery apartments. Stein also enjoyed an experience which greeted many of Burroughs’ guests—target practice.

“I was lucky I got to hang out with Burroughs,” Stein remembered in a recent interview with The Guardian in 2018. “He became a mentor. I had a long illness and didn’t leave Manhattan for three years, so the first place I went afterwards was to go stay with Burroughs in Kansas. It was like the old days of hosting a salon. Me, Mick Jagger and various others would go visit.”

What would await the rock stars was a writer with a keen wit and wicked sense of gun ownership. “Bill was a peaceful guy but a big proponent of firearms,” Stein continued. “It was ironic that he had that accident and killed his wife [Burroughs accidentally killed his wife in a tragic ‘William Tell’ skit, gone wrong]. Everyone who went there would go out and shoot with him. You’d do target practice, then he’d take the target down and sign it for you as a souvenir.” By the time he was sat across from Burroughs in quite possibly one of the worst TV sets we’ve ever seen, the two were on more than first name terms.

Back to ‘Bill’s’ favourite war and the extraordinary writer replied with a typical twist, paraphrasing a Hindu spirit he says: “She said this is a war universe. It’s always war.” Instantly, Stein’s ears prick up, “If there wasn’t any war, people would have nothing to do with themselves,” summarises Burroughs.

“Do you think war is a natural lifeforce like earthquakes or something like that?” he asks. “There’s a very interesting theory that earth is an organism like Gaia [from Greek mythology], the Earth Goddess,” at this point, for no apparent reason, an extra breaks the camera line and walks straight through the middle of the interview. Whether it’s for comic effect or artistic edge or was a genuine accident is unknown but it’s pretty bizarre.

“Nature’s always in this tremendous flux, constantly,” continues Stein after a reset. “Destroying itself, eating itself up—y’know the ocean eats the land away. So maybe war is just a natural version.” Burroughs can’t help but interject, exclaiming: “It is. It is change, change, war is change. Or rather, you should say, you can’t have change without war on some level. It doesn’t have to be going out with guns and clubs or anything else. There’s biologic war, psychological war—there are weapons that take generations to get there.”

The irreverence of this conversation’s setting and soundtrack, despite its intrinsically destructive content, is what is so enjoyable to watch. Two very esteemed artists sit across from one another in what looks like a back corridor, discussing some incredibly philosophical notions and the entire interview feels like a dream. For that reason alone it’s one minute and forty-seven seconds of joy.


Chadwick Boseman took money out of his own salary to boost Sienna Miller’s pay on ’21 Bridges’

(Credit: STXfilms) Far Out Staff·September 29, 2020

Sienna Miller has revealed that her co-star Chadwick Boseman took money out of his own salary in order to boost her pay in an eye-opening glimpse into the pay disparity within Hollywood.

Miller, who worked alongside Boseman on Brian Kirk’s 2019 film 21 Bridges, has been reflecting on her friend’s generosity following his tragic death. Boseman recently passed away at the young age of 43 having lost his battle with colon cancer. The Black Panther actor died in his Los Angeles home alongside his wife and family in a tragic story which rocked the film industry.

Remembering Boseman, Miller explained how his extreme drive to create a genuine balance emerged during the filming of 21 Bridges, a project which would be one of the actor’s final ever roles. “He produced 21 Bridges, and had been really active in trying to get me to do it,” she told Empire. “He was a fan of my work, which was thrilling, because it was reciprocated from me to him, tenfold.

Miller added: “So he approached me to do it, he offered me this film, and it was at a time when I really didn’t want to work anymore. I’d been working non-stop and I was exhausted, but then I wanted to work with him.”

While the film also starred the likes of Anthony Russo, Joe Russo, Mike Larocca, Robert Simonds and more, Boseman—who was secretly battling cancer at the time—went out of his way to try and ensure iller received a better pay for her work: “I didn’t know whether or not to tell this story, and I haven’t yet. But I am going to tell it, because I think it’s a testament to who he was,” she explained.


“This was a pretty big budget film, and I know that everybody understands about the pay disparity in Hollywood, but I asked for a number that the studio wouldn’t get to. And because I was hesitant to go back to work and my daughter was starting school and it was an inconvenient time, I said, ‘I’ll do it if I’m compensated in the right way’. And Chadwick ended up donating some of his salary to get me to the number that I had asked for. He said that that was what I deserved to be paid.”

Miller continued: “It was about the most astounding thing that I’ve experienced. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen. He said, ‘You’re getting paid what you deserve, and what you’re worth.’

“It’s just unfathomable to imagine another man in that town behaving that graciously or respectfully. In the aftermath of this I’ve told other male actor friends of mine that story and they all go very very quiet and go home and probably have to sit and think about things for a while. But there was no showiness, it was, ‘Of course I’ll get you to that number, because that’s what you should be paid.’