Organize the South

This is just weird. A Burger King executive using his daughter's email to take pot shots at the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. Seems a little juvenile, doesn't it? But it doesn't look like BK is out to make sense. Here's a New York Times piece from March 2007 about how BK was willing to pay more for cage-free eggs and pork. Yes, it seems that BK thinks pigs and chickens should be free but farmworkers can go to Hell. You would think a guy with the same name as a cute Sesame Street character would know better.

You can see Grover in this picture. He's the guy in blue.


Burger King Exec Uses Daughter's Online ID To Chide Immokalee Coalition

By Amy Bennett Williams
News-Press.com (Florida)
April 28, 2008
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/BUSINESS/804280351/1075

As the Coalition of Immokalee Workers prepares to deliver more than 60,000 petitions to Burger King headquarters in Miami today, the daughter of Burger King's vice-president Stephen Grover confirmed her father is responsible for online postings vilifying the coalition.

The Immokalee-based group is asking Burger King to improve tomato harvesters' working conditions and pay a penny more a pound for tomatoes, which could add about $20 to a daily wage of $50, workers say.

McDonald's and Yum! Brands, the world's biggest fast- food chain and restaurant company, respectively, have agreed to the raise. Yum! signed on in 2005; McDonald's in 2007. So far, Burger King has refused, while publicly saying it wants to work with the coalition to improve labor conditions.

Yet often during the past year, when articles or videos about the coalition were posted on YouTube and various Internet news sites, someone using the online names
activist2008 or surfxaholic36 would attach comments coalition member Greg Asbed has called 'libelous.'

This one, from surfxaholic36, is representative: 'The CIW is an attack organization lining the leaders pockets . They make up issues and collect money from dupes that believe their story. To (sic) bad the people protesting don't have a clue regarding the facts. A bunch of fools!'

A father's posts

Although Shannon Grover also uses the name
surfxaholic36 - mostly on social networking sites - she said the anti-coalition posts are her father's alone.

'I don't really know much about the coalition and Burger

King stuff,' she said, reached by phone at the family's Miramar home Friday. 'That was my dad. My dad used to go online with that name and write about them.'

Asked if she'd ever written about the coalition online, she was adamant: 'No, that was my Dad. That was him.'

Steven Grover did not return calls to his home or office, nor did Burger King spokesman Keva Silversmith respond to calls and a request to speak to Burger King CEO John Chidsey.

'This is truly disturbing,' said coalition member Gerardo Reyes. 'It's one thing to imagine that there's some kind of anonymous Internet stalker out there obsessively tracking every story about the CIW, posting these vicious lies about us and calling us things like `the lowest form of life' and `blood suckers," Reyes said. 'I mean, we're a farmworker community fighting slavery and trying to get a fair wage for the work we do.'

The bigger question, Reyes said, is this: 'When you realize the person posting those things is actually Burger King's vice president in charge of the ethical operation of the company's supply chain, it really makes you wonder just how high up does this whole thing go? Does Burger King, as a company, approve of this sort of behavior? If not, we'd expect to see some changes now that this has come to light.'

`The low-road approach'

Last month, activist2008 sent an e-mail to The News- Press almost identical to many of the online postings signed 'Shawn Glass.' The e-mail's Internet address showed it came from Burger King's corporate headquarters in Miami. No one named Shawn Glass works there, according to the employee phone directory.

At the time, Silversmith denied the e-mail was official BK communication, although he didn't deny it came from the company.

'This is a non-corporate sanctioned opinion,' he told The News-Press. 'The strident tone does not reflect Burger King, who wants to cooperate and bring real change to Immokalee.'

Marc Rodrigues of the Student Farmworker Alliance, which works closely with the coalition, says he's not surprised by the latest revelation but frustrated an executive would 'stoop to this level and choose the low-road approach instead of trying to work for real change.'

It was Rodrigues who discovered earlier this year the alliance had been infiltrated by Cara Schaffer, who said she was a student at Broward Community College interested in organizing campus events in support of farmworkers.

In reality, Schaffer owns Diplomatic Tactical Services, a Hollywood, Fla.-based security and investigative firm that advertises its ability to place operatives in the ranks of target groups.

Her application for a private investigator's license was denied last year because she failed to prove she had experience or training. Florida's Division of Licensing told her, 'Your employment must be terminated immediately, or your employer may reassign you to duties that do not require licensure or registration.'

That didn't stop her from listening in on two alliance conference calls. Her company's Web site is no longer online.

Reluctance to cooperate

The coalition, one of the nation's most respected anti- slavery groups, also is asking Burger King to help 'eliminate slavery and human rights abuses from Florida's fields.'

At Senate hearings on farm conditions held by U.S. Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., earlier this month, Eric Schlosser, author of the best-selling 'Fast Food Nation,' praised Yum! and McDonald's for working with the coalition and urged Burger King to do the same.
'The admirable behavior of these two industry giants makes the behavior or Burger King . seem completely unjustifiable.'

Schlosser has argued it would take Burger King no more than $300,000 a year to pay the increase.

On its corporate Web site, Burger King, which has more than 11,300 restaurants in the United States and in 69 countries and U.S. territories, reports revenues of
$2.2 billion last year, up 9 percent from 2006. CEO Chidsey made $4.1 million last year, according to Forbes.com.

Given the company's profile and earnings, Grover's behavior is all the more interesting, said John Stauber, executive director of the nonprofit, non- partisan Center for Media and Democracy, based in Madison, Wis.

'I think this shows a deep arrogance that a person at such a high level in the corporation would be directly involved in that type of harassment,' Stauber said.
'This a huge black eye for the Burger King corporation.
It's the type of situation that lands companies in public relations textbooks on how not to engage the press, the public and your critics.'

(c) News-Press.com

This story originally comes from politico.com, but I got it off of Portside.


GOP Objects To Bill Allowing Recounts
Ben Adler
Politico
April 25, 2008
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7D294509-3048-5C12-00015B2FD7DE0D76

Voting rights activists who hoped the federal government would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines have gone from elation to frustration as they watched Republicans who supported such a proposal in committee vote against bringing it to the House floor.

The result: The elections in November will likely be marred by the same accusations of fraud and error involving voting machines that arose in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential race.

When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt's Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support. But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn't make it that far.

Larry Norden, director of the voting technology project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school, called the vote "a sad statement on how little Congress has done on the issue of making sure elections are as secure and reliable as possible."

In May 2003, Holt proposed the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. That bill would have mandated a paper trail for voting machines so that voters could verify their vote and a recount could be performed, if necessary. The measure faced conservative objections on states' rights grounds and failed to make much headway.

So Holt introduced his new bill in January. Under the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, the federal government would help localities switch to paper ballots or attach printers to their electronic voting machines in time for the November elections. To overcome states' rights objections, Holt crafted the bill as an
opt-in: Nobody would be required to switch technologies or conduct audits, but federal funding would be available to offset costs for those who did.

Without a mandate, Holt's bill drew more bipartisan support; Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) was one of the 92 co- sponsors. "We need standards to ensure that things are auditable, verifiable and give the voters confidence, and [Davis] doesn't think that what we have now does that," said Davis spokesman Brian McNicoll.

"The principle reason for the bipartisan consensus is that this was opt-in," Holt told Politico after the bill passed committee. "Everybody, Democrat and Republican, would prefer fewer disputed elections and better ways of resolving disputes. You can't resolve disputes without a paper trail."

But Holt's bill hit a snag on April 15 when the White House put out a statement of opposition on the grounds that it was unnecessary to spend the money appropriated in the bill when funding could come instead from the Help America Vote Act.

Republicans say it was the bill's cost, not the White House's opposition, that caused them to change their votes. "The version that passed committee on April 2 did not authorize a specific dollar amount," said Salley Collins, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the Administration Committee. "We didn't receive the [Congressional Budget Office] score until the 14th of April, one day before it went to the floor. . So we did not know that the proposed legislation would cost $685 million - $50 million more than Holt's first version."

Holt and his staff dismissed that objection. "There's no reason to expect it would actually cost $680 million,"
he said, arguing that the $680 million estimate assumes more local governments will opt in than he believes is likely.

Republicans also cited concerns regarding implementation. Collins said Holt's bill is "overly prescriptive with the hand recounts," and she suggested that it might not be realistic to expect local governments to adopt new technologies in such a short timeframe. "It could wreak havoc on a hotly contested election," she said.

Holt says these issues are red herrings: Because of the opt-in nature of the bill, any state worried that it could not complete the process in time could simply choose not to participate.

While some election reform activists would have preferred a mandatory bill, many saw it as the best they could hope to get in time for the next election. "On Election Day, if machines are breaking down and there are no paper ballots, the failure of this bill will be one place to look for explanations," said Norden.

Holt is predicting exactly that: Ultimately, he said, the bill's failure will mean that "millions of voters will leave the 2008 election questioning the process and whether their vote means anything."

Editor's note: This story was updated to clarify references to bills introduced by Rep. Holt.

I was listening to the Democracy Now podcast when Amy Goodman mentioned the group Recreate 68. Of course, I had to check this out. How could I possibly pass up the chance to read about a group struggling to go back in time?

If you haven't had a chance yet, read Bill Fletcher's commentary Doing Elections. I am particularly reminded of this line, "there are those who wish to engage in an electoral politics that does not exist in the USA and wish to avoid the electoral politics that does." The Recreate 68 folks seem to me to be folks who wish to engage a social movement of 40 years ago instead of the lack of a social movement today. We can't recreate 1968 because the social conditions of today are different then they were then.

To be fair, their website does state they don't mean to be a "not a throwback group trying to relieve some vision of glory days long gone." But just because you say don't make it so. They also state we all have a voice inside ourselves "that has realized we live in a police state and we have stopped moving forward 40 years ago." I'm down with the police state part, but do they really think we haven't done anything since Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman ran a pig for President? It just reminds me too much of the white pacifist groups pulling together another march, another rally, etc. because that's what they know rather than truly engaging in the politics of building power.

Besides, why would I want to recreate 1968 when I don't look good in bell bottoms?

The New York Times has reported on comments by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that former president Jimmy Carter's visits with Hamas has confused US efforts to broker a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord. The idea that the US has undergone efforts to broker a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord has come as a shock to the people of the US.

"I'm astounded," said Jonathan Firman, a 42-year-old walking by me while I write this. "When did these efforts start? I really thought we were just coasting for the last 7 years or so. I can't tell you how surprised I am."

The news has also surprised members of the State Department, the national agency run by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Calls to the Bureau for a Palestinian-Israeli Peace Accord at the State Department went unanswered by press time. At least one call resulted an automated message that the phone number is now disconnected. All emails bounced back. One employee at a neighboring bureau said anonymously that she hadn't seen anyone come into the office for years.

"They said something in 2001 about going to Vegas for supplies," said the anonymous official. "I haven't seen them since."

I usually stay as far away from Infoshop and War Resisters League (WRL) as possible. I did my time with the anarcho-liberals and I'm done. However, this article by Matthew Smucker from WRL was good. It was originally posted at The Indypendent and Infoshop cross-posted.

What Is To be Done? Assessing The Antiwar Movement

Remember February 15, 2003?

That day saw the largest coordinated global demonstrations in the history of the world. Ten million people from more than 60 countries sent a clear message to Washington that the world was saying no to a U.S. war against Iraq. The newest manifestation of the antiwar movement seemed finally ahead of the game. But when the Bush Administration ignored us, what were we to do next? This was no easy question, and organizers understandably struggled with direction, tactics and strategy.

Five years on, we have some assessing to do. Despite the dedication of many, our successes have been quite limited. We have been unable to translate popular antiwar sentiment into popular antiwar action. We have been unable to build the kind of grassroots political power strong enough to apply pressure to end the occupation.

Over the past several months, as part of an organizational assessment project initiated by the War Resisters League, I’ve had the opportunity to speak to nearly 100 grass-roots organizers and activists from across the country. Many of them work explicitly on issues of war and peace, while others focus on other issues, including labor, economic justice, gender justice, racial justice and the environment. We asked them about the biggest constraints they face in building a stronger and more effective peace movement and how it can become more diverse, cross-class and multiracial peace movement.

What we found was that a cross-section of organizers from diverse groups across the country — local efforts like the Port Militarization Resistance in the northwest; constituency-based organizations like U.S. Labor Against the War, Veterans for Peace and the Women of Color Resource Center; and national coalitions like United for Peace & Justice — are grappling with similar issues related to demographics, cultural constraints, strategy and capacity.

The movement has a demographic problem and an image problem (and they’re related).

“Military members represent a diversity in society that movement people often don’t. And I’ve always had that struggle as a former military person myself, that I’ve been in rooms where I look at everyone and I think, ‘You guys freak me out. I can’t relate to where you’re coming from.’”

— Aimee Allison, veteran and coauthor of Army of None.

Widespread opinion against the war does not equal a large-scale identification with a peace or antiwar movement. Some organizers even disputed the use of the term antiwar “movement,” questioning whether we have a solid enough base of people taking collective action to even constitute a movement.

Many of the people I spoke to sensed that a majority of Americans — and particularly working-class people and communities of color — felt alienated from the white, counterculture image of the peace/antiwar movement.

Some of the problem lies with how the media broadcasts the narrative of “hippies” and “the sixties” and makes “activists” and “protesters” an alien identity – as opposed to portraying activism and protest as actions reasonable people take when they’re fed up. At most antiwar demonstrations, however, there’s no short supply of folks providing images and sound bites that enable the media to run with this angle.

Some organizers suggested that we are so used to holding a minority position, that we have become emotionally attached to a marginalized identity. We have to breathe in the new political climate, realize that some of our positions are now popular, start connecting with more people, and reimagine ourselves as winners.

We need to focus less on big demonstrations, and more on organizing a base and building leadership.

“I think that a big obstacle to the antiwar movement building stronger, longer-term institutions is the politics of the philanthropy community. So much of movement infrastructure has been professionalized and is anchored by nonprofits in this country — some quite effectively, some quite destructively. The antiwar movement lacks access to the millions of dollars of philanthropy money going into different socialchange ventures. That limits the antiwar movement’s ability to create the kind of basic infrastructure and organizing that would help turn popular antiwar sentiment into action.”

— Patrick Reinsborough, San Franciscobased direct-action organizer and coordinator of smartMeme Strategy & Training Project

As a trend, organizers felt weary of mass rallies and marches in this political moment. No one in power seems to be listening, and national demonstrations seem to get less and less media coverage. A number of people pointed out that local demonstrations and other forms of local action often get more bang for the buck with media.

In addition, large rallys are resource-intensive, and the antiwar movement has a shortage of money, staff, infrastructure and leadership. Some organizers noted how the peace movement, in comparison to the labor movement, the environmental movement, and community organizing efforts, has fewer jobs and resources.

As social movements have institutionalized largely as nonprofits over the past decades, this lack of “peace jobs” is no small factor for the peace movement. One organizer described how he got involved in activism through issues of war and peace, but as he acquired the skills to stick with organizing for the long haul, he went to work with an environmental organization because that’s where the organizing jobs were.

As a result of this and other related resource factors, some classic models of organizing widely used in the labor movement — like identifying a target constituency, organizing some of them into a membership base, and developing the leadership of some members to continue to build an organization and base — are known or practiced by few in the peace movement. Many interviewees encouraged national organizations to focus more on supporting the leadership and skills development of local organizers and groups.

The growing GI movement is likely to play a critical role in ending the war.

“The majority of the military is workingclass, and there are connections there that we have not capitalized on. I think that even the construction worker with the American flag sticking on his helmet probably has a pretty negative opinion of the war and probably knows somebody who got fucked up over there. If the Longshoremen received a phone call from Iraq Veterans Against the War saying, ‘We’d like to talk to you guys about possible action,’ we would probably get a response, out of respect for the veteran part of it. I think the opportunity is almost ripe for the picking, and that’s probably the next step.”

—Jose Vasquez, Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), NYC Chapter President

We interviewed members of IVAW, Veterans for Peace, Service Women’s Action Network and other organizers who are military veterans. We also asked all of our interviewees about the role of soldiers, veterans and their families in ending the war, and also how others can best support their efforts. Most everyone we talked with felt that soldiers, vets and their families are uniquely positioned to organize in ways that others sometimes cannot, particularly in organizing active-duty GIs.

For a number of reasons, some problematic, they are also seen as some of the most credible critics of the war, and our interviewees unanimously saw them as effective spokespeople. Some folks viewed them primarily as spokespeople, while the veterans we interviewed were more excited about organizing other soldiers and vets. Because they are seen by many in the peace/antiwar movement primarily as spokespeople rather than organizers, people often viewed support as having them speak at an event or be at the front of a march.

Veterans’ groups tended to describe support more practically; lending a hand with logistics, raising money, and the like. Some veterans saw themselves as particularly well positioned to connect with working class constituencies, and help build a broadbased movement.

For example, IVAW is crossing a critical threshold, moving from what has for a long time functioned essentially as a speakers’ bureau of antiwar vets into a chapter-building organization with skilled organizers who are increasingly focused on activeduty soldiers.

• • •

While it’s easy to be critical of the current peace/antiwar movement, it is important to point out that a lot of its leadership shares these critiques but often lacks the capacity to correct the problems. It’s also important to recognize that some of the most critical organizing work is not made for television, but is the unglamorous jobs of developing leadership and building relationships and a base. We need more organizing — enough of it to leverage political power — but let’s start by amplifying what’s already happening, rather than starting from scratch.

A full report of WRL’s listening process will be published in WIN magazine in April. For more information visit warresisters.org. Matthew Smucker is the national field organizer for the War Resisters League.

Published today at the AJC. Steve is right on again.

A grave injustice to the disadvantaged: Proposals on indigent defense untenable

By Stephen B. Bright
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/24/08

Imagine that a terrible mistake was made and you were arrested, charged with a crime and thrown in jail. How long would you wait to get a lawyer?

People who can afford lawyers get them right away —- usually within hours of their arrest. They want lawyers to get them out on bond as soon as possible so that they can go home to the love and support of their families and to work before they lose their jobs. They want lawyers to explain the charges and the legal procedures. And they want lawyers to find out, right away, why they are being charged and to start preparing defenses.

People who cannot afford lawyers are not so fortunate. It may be two or three days before they see a lawyer and another day or two before they are released on bond. Jail can be a dangerous, terrifying place for anyone, but it is particularly so for the many people arrested who are mentally ill or vulnerable in other ways. For people who are working and barely making their rent payments, a few extra days in jail may result in the loss of their jobs and may leave them and their families homeless.

Nevertheless, the Georgia legislature is considering proposals that would leave people languishing in jails even longer before seeing lawyers and would completely deny lawyers to some people who cannot afford them.

Georgia law now provides that a person who cannot afford a lawyer must be provided one within three days of arrest. Weekends are included. A person arrested on Friday is entitled to see a public defender or court-appointed lawyer no later than the following Monday. However, the Senate passed an amendment to HB 1245 last week that would make public defenders available within five business days from when a person makes a request for a lawyer.

The Senate's amendment is based on the assumption that people who are arrested will know to ask for a lawyer, but this is unrealistic for those who are mentally ill, addicted, illiterate or limited in other ways. The proposed legislation does not specify how or when requests are to be made or how they will be transmitted.

People could be in jail a week or two before making requests and then wait another week before seeing lawyers. This includes people who may be completely innocent.

It includes people charged with petty offenses such as loitering who may spend more time in jail before seeing a lawyer than they would receive as a sentence for the offenses. (This occurred routinely in Fulton County until a few years ago.)

And it includes people who will lose their jobs and their homes because of the delay in seeing lawyers and obtaining release on bond.

The proposal will produce substantial increases in the populations of jails throughout Georgia. Counties will pay the cost of feeding, housing and providing medical care for people who would have been released on bond within a few days of arrest had lawyers been provided to them promptly upon their arrest.

A Senate-House conference committee will consider the amendment this week in an effort to reconcile the different versions of HB 1245. The version passed by the House does not disturb current law providing a lawyer in three days.

The conference committee should also strike a provision in both versions of HB 1245 that would deny public defenders to many people charged with misdemeanors —- offenses punishable by a year or less in jail. This proposal would change eligibility for public defenders from 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines to 100 percent or less of the guidelines. One hundred percent of the guidelines is an annual income of $20,650 for a family of four.

The federal poverty guidelines identify people so destitute that they cannot afford basic necessities like food and shelter, but one's ability to subsist is not the ability to afford a lawyer.

A member of a family of four with an annual income of $20,650 —- about $1,700 a month —- is unable to pay from $2,500 to $5,000 to retain a lawyer. (Most lawyers require the full amount at the time of accepting the case.)

This proposal, if adopted, will leave people unrepresented and create havoc in Georgia's courts. Both the state and federal courts have long held that people facing the loss of their liberty must be provided lawyers if they cannot afford them. This is a basic component of fairness in our legal system today. But people making $1,700 a month will be unable to afford lawyers. Yet the legislation would make them ineligible for a public defender.

As long as they are unrepresented, the courts will not be able to try their cases or accept their guilty pleas because they do not have lawyers. And no matter how hard they try, people living on a bare subsistence income will not be able to hire private attorneys. Eventually, if their cases are to proceed, lawyers must be appointed to represent them.

The proposals before the legislature are unjust and unworkable. The existing system of providing lawyers within three days to those who are least able to afford them contributes to a process that is reasonably fair and efficient. The legislature should heed the adage not to fix what is not broken.

> Stephen B. Bright is president of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Jim O'Brien was here a month or so ago scouting locations for the Historians Against the War conference. I attended the lecture and got something out of it. I'll also be at the conference. I don't have much hope for conferences anymore, but I'll be happy with a good conversation.

JIM O’BRIEN LECTURE

On January 17, 2008, historian Jim O’Brien gave a lecture at Georgia State University on "The 1960s Legacy and the Search for a Democratic History." Mr. O’Brien was one of the editors of the New Left Journal and Radical America. His talk focused on the relationship of graduate students, particularly students focused on history and political science, to the social movement going on around them. While the talk was recalling lessons from the past, it also produced questions about what to do today.

O’Brien named some key influences in his life. Both Eugene Genovese and Jesse Lemish were noted. However, he named Staughton Lynd as a mentor. It was from Lynd that O’Brien learned about “social history,” a wider version historical scholarship done in service to a community. Social history is also known as history from below since it focuses on less on prominent individuals and more on the mass of people behind trends. From Lynd, O’Brien learned that “nameless poor people are important to history.”

During the lecture section, O’Brien told stories of student involvement in the modern civil rights movement as well as the anti-war movement of the time. What I found most interesting, however, was when he talked about later years. Beginning in 1973, a recession hit the country hard. This economic realignment affected the social movement of the time, of course, but also deeply affected young scholars looking to have a career. The recession exposed the tension trying to do academic history work while also being part of a social movement. History from below is not usually popular with the establishment. O’Brien talked about the difficulties of finding a job for himself and others in his class. He also talked about the difficulties faced by Lynd when he refused to compromise his scholarship or his outspoken activism. Eventually, Lynd gave up on academia and became an organizer and then a labor lawyer.

This type of tension is much more bearable when a social movement backs one up. However, by the mid-1970s the character of the movement in the US changed dramatically. Activity, especially among college students, declined. More than a few participants mentioned they were surprised when the 70s ended and the revolution hadn’t come.

Before this lecture, I had never heard the term social history before, even though I was familiar with the idea of grassroots history. When I decided to return to school, I also decided my goal was to be a lighter-skinned Robyn Kelley or a darker-skinned Howard Zinn. Although I meant the statement to be funny, it does communicate that I want my focus on history to serve the organizing I have always done. Knowing there is a term and a body of knowledge on how to make this happen is quite a relief. I don’t feel like I have to reinvent the wheel. Instead, I can focus on trying to fit the wheel to my particular vehicle. I know how to be an organizer who uses history. I don’t know how to be a historian helping organizing.

One of the questions that came up during the discussion was how can one be accountable to community in the absence of a movement. Personally, I don’t like the question. One doesn’t need a movement to be accountable to a community, one needs a community. Movements come and go, but the community is still there. Rather, I think the question is how one’s scholarship should be geared. I do not underestimate the ability of workers to understand anything. In fact, I count on it. However, I do think that modern scholarship focuses on other scholars rather than the public. I refer to this as writing for the scholar vs. writing for the worker. What I’ve come away with from O’Brien’s talk is a clearer understanding of what I will be learning over the next couple of years. I already know how to write for workers, but I will be learning how to write for scholars. My challenge is to learn these skills while not forgetting my old ones. I want to be a good scholar, but I already am a good organizer. The challenge is learning to be both.