The Socialist Manifesto by Bhaskar Sunkara

   Sunkara doesn’t come off as the radical socialist, and he actually respects capitalism. He admires the Swedish approach, where enterprises like healthcare and education are considered to be the government’s problem. That leaves the people free to be productive without having to worry about college bills and doctor’s fees.

He writes about how new technologies led to the Industrial Revolution, and with that came a need for labor. What Sunkara doesn’t mention, however, is that the labor all came from ruined farmers. If England’s farmers hadn’t been unemployed, I wonder where the workers would’ve come from. Would the British have imported slaves directly into England? Would they have encouraged Russian Jews to emigrate? He’s right about the relation of the Industrial Revolution and socialism, because it was the English factory workers who began what we call organized labor.

Sunkara, on the subject of business, doesn’t deny that it’s needed. He also dislikes the Soviet model, when was in fact very poor in quality. He thinks that socialism should be more concerned with worker safety, ending discrimination, ending sexual harassment, and pollution control. If you look back to the early gains in worker’s rights, the first thing they accomplished was a fixed workday. Then came child labor laws. Then came fire safety. Fixed hourly wages came last.

I’m going to sum up with a story in the recent book Food and the City, recounted by the owner of a tortilla factory. He says “in Mexico, hen you go to the hospital, you pay upfront or they leave you to die in the street, but here in New York, they patch you up and then ask how much you can pay.”

The Secret Wisdom of Nature by Peter Wohlleben

   The NYC Parks Department recently found a natural way to de-weed their green spaces – by bringing in a herd of goats to eat them! Apparently the plan worked a little too well, and now the goats are getting territorial about the bushes. I have to wonder if there was this much undergrowth in the days when deer roamed Manhattan? Back in the 1700’s, New York City’s entire topography was different, and I don’t just mean in terms of the landscape. There were giant oysters in the harbor, and there were seals, both of which generated interesting cuisine in the taverns. These animals lived in harmony in the harbor, along with turtles, and yes, turtles were a popular dish too. The USA also had a native chestnut tree, but a fungus imported from Japan wiped all those trees out. When the land’s native flora and fauna die out, what are we losing besides local ingredients? This is what Wohlleben’s book tries to figure out.

    Peter Wohlleben, a conservationist from Germany, begins with Yellowstone Park’s program to rebuild the wolf population. The result has been a reduction in the elk herds and an increase in beavers, bears, and native trees. Even the flooding has been reduced. He also shows how domesticated dogs are a far greater danger to humans than the wolves, which are essentially harmless. Far fewer people have been attacked by wolves than by feral dogs, and when the wolves and bears do attack humans, it’s because the humans have been stupid enough to feed them. Then we have the giant salmon that fertilize the plants along the riverbank, and feed the bears and birds. When non-native trout were introduced, they crowded out the native salmon, and that starved out everything else.

    Hate seeing a dead deer by the roadside? To the wolves and vultures, a dead deer is a ten-course dinner. Bears and wolves are attracted by the smell, and they come to gorge, and then the vultures and ravens smell the stink of the rotting meat, and they come in to pick at the leftovers. Ravens show up too, but due to size differences they have to wait until the end of the line. Due to their sensitivity, the ravens alert the wolves if bears are close, so they can gobble as much meat as they can before the slower bears come lumbering in. When all the other carnivores are done, mice come in to pick the hard-to-reach parts, then the insects eat the rest, and the birds and bats eat the insects. When all the beasts have finished, the decaying bones fertilize the soil.

    Excessive light from cities, waste from livestock, human waste, and climate change are all covered in this book. The science of how fish, carnivores, and elk function together has been portrayed in an earlier book by Gary Larson, titled There’s a Hair in My Dirt. A young worm, fed up with his life, learns how much he really means to the environment, along with all the other dirty animals. He learns how dead trees help the forest grow, and how forests need fires every now and then, and how chirping birds are actually cursing at each other, and how snakes prevent diseases by eating rats. Even better, the worm learns how the biggest problem is the two-legged mammals who get in nature’s way.

    Here in New York City, the Peregrine Falcon has made a comeback in the last 20 years, and I’ve had the pleasure of seeing them swoop down to snatch rats. In New Jersey, I had the pleasure of seeing a vulture eating a deer carcass, the stink of which I could smell from a hundred feet away. Every time I got close enough to take a photo, the vulture would fly away and sit on the fence, as if to say “that’s alright, I’ll wait for you to leave, and then I’ll eat my lunch in peace.” I tried several times more to photograph the vulture, but he kept flying to the fence to wait for me to leave. To this day I admire his patience.

Pot in Pans: A History of Eating Cannabis

    Robyn Griggs Lawrence discusses the use of cannabis in history as mainly ingestion, rather than smoking. She brings forth accepted historic proof that the herb was cultivated for the fiber and seeds,  which were known in the ancient era for mind-altering properties.  Then she buttresses her claim with the research of the French botanist Jean Baptiste-Lamarck. He described cannabis’ properties as “going through the head and disrupting the brain,” and making the user feel drunk and happy. He also researched, and noted, that there were different species of the plant and each one had different strengths. However, Lawrence also claims that the plants controversial status hampered the scientific research into its use. Medieval physicians suggested it as a way to relieve gout, but without modern studies it’s difficult to argue in its favor. The anti-cannabis lobbyists, even the early Reefer Madness films (based on sensationalism and exaggeration) have always been powerful.

   The author doesn’t say it outright, but it seems that pot was considered foreign to the USA, and that may have fed the distrust. It came through Asia before reaching Europe, and was banned by Napoleon. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas both consumed it in the form of cakes, with the recipe included in Toklas’ famous cookbook. Unfortunately for her (and the US readers) the recipe was removed by the US publishers in an effort of self-censorship, given that it was the 1960’s, and the publishing houses were still in their “Mad Men” stage. Something tells me if they’d waited until the 70’s, Gale Sheehy of New York Magazine would’ve hyped up the recipe in one of her radical chic campaigns. There were high-society characters who brought cannabis to the upper crust of America, like the food writer  Jeremiah Tower, who served cannabis chicken stock in his lavish dinner parties. He would put the cannabis infused soups right between the meat and the watercress, so that it would kick in around dessert time, and the simplest dessert would feel like a religious experience.

   Amsterdam’s cannabis industry, well-written in this book, was ground zero for its use in food, and the city’s tolerance of the herb was a complete opposite of the USA. The Netherlands, aware of the increase in heroin use worldwide, decided to ignore anything that was not scientifically proven to be addictive. There was never any solid conclusive study as to the health risks, but cannabis addicts weren’t going though withdrawal, and there was no prof that it was a gateway drug. However, the Netherlands did not legalize the importation of cannabis, nor write any laws regarding cultivation, so the source was in the hands of criminals.

    Lawrence writes that Cambodia is a country where cannabis as rarely smoked (American backpackers did that) but was used in soups, and the word “happy” became a code word for any food with the herb in it. It found its way into drinks with the multitude of spices available in the region, but thanks to US pressure, Cambodia banned it. Fortunately, the country never had the resources to do a large-scale crackdown.

    While this book is a wonderful trove of history of cannabis in cooking, the author spends a little too much time on the legal issues, and not enough on the benefits. I’m eager to see how it will make its way into the restaurant industry now that states are loosening the laws. Will it find its way into drinks? Will it replace beer and wine? Maybe it will be to 21^st Century USA what Absinthe was to 19^th Century France.

Agent of Influence

    Jason Hanson is a former CIA operative who applies his spy skills to modern business. His most important lesson (or at least the one that sticks the most) is that you have to sharpen your memory, never relying on the internet or GPS. Always use maps, memorize your destination, and always have alternate transport. The second lesson is that when you travel, you have to know all the bus routes, where to catch the bus or train, always have spare cash, and now where you can get a room. I remember the time when I failed to plan my trip thoroughly, and almost missed my Greyhound in Dover, Delaware. The fear wasn’t extreme, as the area wasn’t dangerous, and the police weren’t hunting down the out-of-towners or anything of the like. The fear as that I’d be stuck there overnight, and if I couldn’t book another hotel room for the evening, I’d be toast. On a smart move, I kept spare cash in my shoe, and knew the locations of all the motels in the region. Traveling light was a big help too.

The first chapter is devoted to the science of preparation and routine. It includes listening (pay attention, talk less, study others, don’t judge) and how the behavior of others is always an indicator. The second chapter is about social situations and how to make people like you. Paying with cash is recommended, because it serves two purposes; it makes people think you have money, and it makes them feel indebted to you. Passing bills can also help buy your way out of trouble.

Hanson shows how all this can be used to audit employees, screen out the ones who aren’t trustworthy, and scope out new clients.

Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment

    Linda Hirshman charts the course of the movement against sexual harassment, which like most left-wing movements, was in the works for years. We had Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique, then Anita Hill’s testimony, then further court cases and the #metoo movement. Hirshman also writes about the resistance to change, much of it from women – like Phyllis Schafly – who Hirshman believes was looking to avoid losing the security of her husband’s money.

The author uses a case I was not familiar with, that of Cornell physics professor Boyce McDaniel, and how he sexually harassed women administrators in the 1970’s. It led to women in higher education documenting the abuse they put up with, including ogling, inappropriate stares, unwanted touching, pressure to have sex with their bosses, and loss of promotions (or even their jobs) if they refused. The book Sexual Shakedown (also n to me) showed how there was widespread abuse of women recruits in the Washington DC police, and at the time, police departments had only recently begun recruiting women on par with men. Though not quoted by Hirshman, a 2005 book by ex-NYPD detective Kathy Burke documented the same thing. I also recall a scene from Margaret Cho’s memoir, I’m the One That I Want, where she encounters intimidating behavior from boys at a military school; they jump on stage and do push-ups during her performance. I found it surprising for two reasons; the first is that you’d think the boys in a military school would be taught better behavior, and secondly, in the Jewish high school I attended, interrupting a guest speaker would’ve gotten you expelled!

Hirshman blames past problems on the lack of codified laws regarding workplace harassment. There were certainly none in the 1970’s, and there was also the question of whether the individual harasser or the employer was responsible for the damages. It wouldn’t be until 1986, when the case of Michelle Vinson highlighted the “hostile environment” as actionable in court. Then there was the question of whether it was sexual abuse or just boorish behavior and bad manners. Would a plaintiff have to be physically injured to collect a settlement? The case of Bill Clinton and Paula Jones from 1999 shows another problem in sexual harassment cases, involving social class. Was Paul Jones, a low-wage woman with no degree, considered an easy target for a man with power? While he may have exposed himself and/or propositioned her, he never threatened her job, so the media was quick to dismiss the issue. Then again, it can be very disturbing for a woman to be called to her boss’ hotel room and propositioned. If it caused an emotional interference and her work suffered, then that would be a problem.

Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein are the cap of the story, though I wager there will be a lot more to write about in the next three years. Let’s look back at previously disgraced luminaries to see how things turned out. First off is the Frugal Gourmet, sued and de-aired for sexually abusing young men, but since few remember him, it’s no longer a disgrace. Then there’s the actor James Stacey, imprisoned for sexually threatening little girls in the 1990’, his career ruined and forgotten. Then there’s the TV personality Rolf Harris, actor Jeffrey Jones, singer Gary Glitter, Judge Wachtler, Father Bruce Ritter, and a New York City Montessori principal, to name a few. They all ruined their careers with systematic, sexually abusive behavior. Now I have to wonder, do we really need these people? Will the word lose anything if they can no longer work? When it comes to Harvey Weinstein, I have to wonder if the film studios were afraid OF him, or afraid of losing him? Were they afraid that nobody could do as good a job as him? Now that Bill Cosby is disgraced and ruined, his former admirers feel betrayed, but does America need Bill Cosby?

When the Weinstein scandal broke, Howard Stern said “I’m 60 years old, tall, thin, and ugly, and Harvey’s 60 years old, short, fat, and ugly, and if you saw me naked, you’d die of fright. Harvey, you’re old and ugly, women don’t want to see you naked in the shower!” Now I wonder, Howard Stern if the most vulgar man in the USA, so why hasn’t HE been a target of more complaints? What about all the other sleaze-jocks in the USA, like Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, Al Goldstein, Russ Meyer, and others? Why were they rarely accused of sexual harassment? Maybe this country’s morals police were more interested in what people said than when they did? For years the FCC went after obscene content, but ignored inappropriate behavior.

Behavior standards have obviously changed, and with it, the definition of sexual harassment. It remains to be seen how it will be defined in the next decade.

We Speak for Ourselves: A Word From Forgotten Black America

    D. Watkins doesn’t seem to like the well-known Black American pundits, nor the elite Black professionals who he meets at an Oprah Winfrey event. He finds that the Black professors, who go on TV and talk about Black issues, have no real interest in talking to an unemployed Black man. Throughout the book, he compares the Black pundit to a drone; viewing the people from too great a distance, and not seeing what’s really going on.

One of the more disturbing parts of this book is the collective reaction to the Charlottesville tragedy, where a woman was run over by a White supremacist. Watkins mocks the TV pundits for crying about the racist tiki-torch boys but not shedding a tear for Heather Heyer, who got killed. Then he realizes the problem, which is that they are somehow surprised by open White racism, and that surprises him. He wonders why they’d cry over open racism, but not cry about the deaths of Michael Brown, Freddy Grey, or any of the other unarmed Black men (or women, or kids) killed by White police. Then he wonders if any of these elitist Black Americans know anyone Black outside of their social circle. He finds it comical that with all the horrible things happening in the USA, these people are crying over a sparsely attended rally in a town that nobody had heard of until the tragedy.

Watkins’ chapter on police brutality is titled An American Tradition and uses the difference between rich and poor neighborhoods as a test of American policing. In the more affluent community, the police will make fewer stops, while in a poor one, everyone is a suspect. This point I agree with, because I once lived in a dominantly White area and there were few police stops. Based on what I saw growing up, the worst thing a cop ever had to worry about was a group of teenage skaters. The next problem discussed in this chapter is the “police as heroes” myth, and how it plays into protecting bad cops. However, the author didn’t really do his research on this topic, because there are many reasons why it’s difficult to fire bad cops, and almost impossible to get a conviction. Few police officers have been convicted of committing a murder while on duty (except for Joseph Kent McGowan in Texas), and reasons include unions, arbitration, high-priced defense lawyers, incompetent prosecutors, and the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Once again, on the subject of bad cops (a subject that has dominated political discourse for the last five years) the author writes that while the Freddy Grey cops got off the hook, the system worked for the eight cops convicted of other crimes. At this point in the book, we need to step back. The Baltimore cops whom Watkins refers to are not an example of how “the system works.” The reason that these cops were convicted of drug-dealing, gun-dealing, payroll fraud, and money laundering, is that the prosecution was easier. When a cop makes a false statement, steals from the evidence locker, or gets caught with illegal drugs, the evidence is impossible to dispute. He can’t say “I stole guns and sold them on the street because I had probable cause!” He can’t say “I broke into the store and stole 300 pairs of sunglasses because I was afraid for my life!” Try as he might, no cop could get off the charges by saying “I drove drunk because the guy had a gun.” Furthermore, a cop has no protection for a crime committed while off-duty, which is why Antoinette Frank (from New Orleans) was convicted. The problem is that if a cop shoots someone while on duty, he can claim that his own safety was compromised. All he has to do is say “I thought the thing in his hand was a gun,” and that’s that. For on-duty killings, the burden is entirely on the prosecutor.

Another problem that I have with this book is that the author keeps waxing nostalgic about living in the Baltimore housing projects. There’s no law that says people must live there. And it was never quality housing to begin with. Now that segregation is over, why does he not want his people to get out of the projects? What could he find good about living in disgusting run-down buildings that were designed to segregate? The public housing is the worst form of charity and has led to a further dependence on charity. He writes about classmates whose lives were ruined by teenage pregnancy and absent fathers, but nobody seems to encourage birth control. Watkins is right about police brutality, and he’s right in that the rudeness he encounters is often race-based, but the cards stacked against him involve a lot more than racism. Things like poverty, drug use, poor nutrition, and family violence, can do a lot more damage than a racist cop.

To Sir With Love, by E.R. Brathwaite

Few in history have disobeyed the racist warning of To Kill a Mockingbird, or more Black writers would follow Brathwaite’s path of criticizing low-class Whites. Before I mention anything about the White working class to a Hillbilly Elegy debate, let me remind that Brathwaite is an Englishman and his memoir takes place in London. Ignoring the silly 1967 film version, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, which takes place in 1948, when London was struggling after WWII and there was no G.I. Bill. This book is a contrast to most stories of adventure, because it’s usually the upper-class Englishman exploring Africa, not a Black Guyana-born former RAF officer surviving in London. Furthermore, this man behaves like a judgmental English explorer when he ventures among the White youth of darkest London; they are dirty, unwashed, uncouth, uncultured, and with little appreciation for their country’s gifts to history.

    To Sir With Love is a book that is unfortunately ignored today, a loss to all of us. However, most books on the proletarian experience of post-WWII Britain are ignored as well (Been in the Snooker Club, A Kid for Two Farthings, An East End Story) as opposed to more “classical” works by writers like Mary Wesley. Even if you’re not especially interested in the race or education aspects of the book, you still get an eye into what Britain was like after the war ended. The author comes out of his service in the Royal Air Force (where he experienced no hostility) and finds that everyone – employers and the public alike – regards him as a nuisance. There are dirty looks on the train and bus, signs advertising rooms for rent are suddenly a mistake, and the fact that he risked his life for Britain means nothing. Though he doesn’t mention it in the book, the Polish RAF pilots got the same treatment. The British were happy to have them while there was a war going on, but once the war ended, they were asked if they wouldn’t mind leaving the country. Bloody decent of the Brits!

    In terms of plot, the memoir is relatively simple; born and educated in Guyana, graduate work at CUNY, RAF crewman in WWII, demobbed in 1945, and unemployed (like most war veterans regardless of color) in post-war UK. Unable to find work as an engineer, he takes a job teaching 14-year-olds in a crappy school on Cable Street, and here his adventures begin. This educated West Indian, espousing upper-class airs, looks down on their foul mouths and foul hygiene. The famous scene in the movie with the burning bra? Yes, it happens in the book. The scene where he boxes with the class moron? Yes, that happens too, but at the very beginning. These two events serve as a kind of icebreaker.

The story of the new teacher who flies in to rescue the bad kids can be a genre unto itself. We have The Water is Wide by Pat Conroy, and Blackboard Jungle by Evan Hunter, though in the latter, the hero teacher fails. Then there’s Coach Carter, Dangerous Minds, Freedom Writers, Death at an Early Age, they’re all cultural icons. Unfortunately, the main character is always the nice White guy or the nice White lady rescuing minority kids, never a Black man rescuing White kids. At the same time, how often do you see (in USA, Canada, Britain, or anywhere else) a Black man or woman teaching White kids? It’s rare. Coach Carter and Lean on Me had one or two White kids, but they’re portrayed as misunderstood and suspicious. Both movies are also part of the “Black disciplinarian” genre to which An Officer and a Gentleman belongs. To Sir With Love is set apart from that genre because Braithwaite isn’t tough, but snobby, with a clear disdain for Cockney ways. It’s a reverse of Heart of Darkness, with the horrors of Africa  replaced with gloomy East End London.

    The kids who the author tries to cultivate are misunderstood in every sense of the word. In the 1967 film, they were nasty and stupid for no reason, but the book explains that in 1948 they were all angry. They’d lost their fathers during the war, and their neighborhood had few male role models. The next problem was that they weren’t expected to graduate high school in those days, so why would they make any effort? Kids in the UK usually left school at 14 to work, unlike in the USA, and there was no GI Bill or cult of upward mobility. When you grew up poor in London, there was no expectation to move up the social ladder, and even Booker T. Washington made note of this in his book Up From Slavery. When Washington visited the UK in 1900, he noted how the American wants to be his own master, but the Englishman wants to do the best he can in the position he has.

While Booker T. Washington refused to give his opinion on the English work ethic, Brathwaite makes his disdain very clear. He would clearly like to see the kids do better in life, so I can forgive him for being such a snob. I would also point out a British film from the 1960’s, called Spare The Rod, which is also about a bleak London school. The kids are rude and dirty with no prospects, and the teachers are too upper-class to relate to the kids. The difference between the two stories is that in Spare The Rod the teachers whip the kids. I had to wonder why the kids in Spare The Rod didn’t just hit the teacher back? They’re not going to stay after 14 anyway, so what do they have to lose? What is the school going to do, expel them a month before they age out?

   Omitted from the film is the eyebrow-raising romance between him and a sexy blonde White teacher at the school. They get nasty remarks from two old biddies on a train during the field trip, and they get attitude from a waiter in a restaurant. When he meets her parents, they’re not averse to him, but apprehensive. It seems that a lot of the xenophobia in the story has to do more with apprehension than outright fear or jealousy. An employer tells him “I’m sorry, but we have Englishmen who’ve been working here for years and we wouldn’t be able to make you their boss.” There’s a funny scene where he gets a hostile response while checking a room for rent, but just as she’s about to slam the door at him, a girl peeks out and goes “oh no, Mum, that’s Sir!” For some reason, I found the woman’s rudeness comical.

    Brathwaite’s version of the events is disputed in the book An East End Story by Alf Gardner. The former student states that Brathwaite was mean, abusive, gladly used the rod, and the girls were uncomfortable around him. He also states that while the headmaster had officially banned caning, Brathwaite used it anyway. However, I wonder if Brathwaite was just too much of a Victorian moralist for Gardner’s tolerance? None of the other pupils have come forward (if any of them are still alive) and the school’s radical headmaster Alex Bloom died in the 1950’s. Was Mr. Bloom a Jew? There are several Jewish characters in the book, though their goals and aspirations are different from those you’ll know in the USA (there are few Jewish doctors in the UK.) From my experience, the Jewish Briton doesn’t make a spectacle of himself, probably thanks to centuries of Anti-Semitism. You won’t see lots of noticeably Jewish comedians in the UK either. No Adam Sandlers or Rodney Dangerfields there.

    I’m not sympathetic to all the kids in the book, by the way. When the biracial student named Seale loses his mother, they all buy a wreath, but won’t take it to his house. They don’t want to be seen going to a colored person’s house, because “people will start to talk.” They all go to the funeral, pressed and clean, but won’t visit the house, and this is the part where I got upset. The class asshole, a boy named Denham, likes to be the tough guy, but he’s too afraid of housewife gossip to show solidarity. I wonder sometimes if the ultimate test of toughness is standing up to your own friends and family? When A. Philip Randolph supported Albert Shanker and the Teacher’s Union, he lost a lot of support from his own people. Fidel Castro, another famous leftist, supported everything the Soviets did, and was seen as a desperate puppet. Unlike Castro, Romania’s communist dictator denounced the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and won worldwide respect.

    Perhaps Brathwaite, a teacher in 1949 Britain, had the same problem as US teachers 70 years later? When your dealing with lower-class kids from troubled backgrounds, it’s like trying to de-brainwash a cult member. These kids have been taught that it’s cute to be stupid, and that insults have to be avenged, and that you get respect by being bad. Think of all the White (or educated Black) teachers who keep saying “no, it’s not okay to shoot someone” and the kid is never convinced. It took Brathwaite a while to convince the girls that skankiness is not a turn-on.

    I found the book much better than the movie, in part because Sidney Poitier’s acting style is annoying. The fact that Brathwaite is not an American is a big help, because the social class dynamic plays a big part. During my time in the UK, I found that class differences were a taboo subject that were only mentioned in the occasional comedy. It’s a sore point in the UK, whether Cockney accents are acceptable or not, and whether proper speech means polished vowels. If you go into the courts, you’ll hear the judges and barristers all speaking with refined posh accents, no low-class drawls in the court. Go into a US court, and you’ll hear judges with Staten Island accents. You’ll hear low-class accents among police chiefs, judges, army officers, doctors, and politicians. They’ll wear it like a badge of honor.