Human agency does not function within a corporation.

“Climate Debate” a Corporatist

 Fiction

 

By Anthony Henry Smith

 

1. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, government is mandated to secure the rights of the governed.

2. Corporations are entirely mechanical. They function in obedience to a single prime directive: to make money for the corporation to the total exclusion of every other consideration. 

3. Human agency does not function within a corporation. The transformative force of power and money transforms human beings into things; living instruments which mechanically function within the corporate machine to fulfill the corporation’s prime directive: to make money for the corporation to the total exclusion of every other consideration. 

4. Weak government allows corporations to function without supervision or regulation. With no strong government to provide restraints, the corporation mindlessly and automatically transforms its biotic and physical surroundings to serve as instruments to make money for the corporation to the total exclusion of every other consideration, including the necessities of humanity and the biosphere itself.

5. Government is dominated by corporate interests. This is accomplished by means of the transformative force of corporate power and money. Since government is, in effect, government of, by, and for the corporations, government is kept as weak as possible and outsourced to corporations whenever possible.

6. Because it is in the best interests of the biosphere to gain control of the corporations which are visibly destroying it, individuals and groups working to stop the destruction would all want to work to strengthen the government to make regulation and supervision of the corporations possible.

7. Soup kitchen environmentalism addresses the symptoms and not the causes of our decades of environmental disaster and reverses. Further, soup kitchen environmentalism confuses the achieving of civic goods with accomplishment in the environmental area. Most of the little that has been accomplished in alleviation of symptoms has only served to strengthen the corporations in their destructive activities by creating the illusion that the supervision and regulation of corporate activity is being done by private, NGOs.

8. The supervision and regulation of corporate activity which results in the violation of the right of the governed to a safe and healthy environment can only be accomplished by strong government made up of human beings who are NOT under the influence of the transformative force of corporate power and money. Only persons protected from the corporation’s transformative force are capable of working in the interests of the governed.

Here’s what can be done:

Environmental organizations must now redirect their efforts, even though the goal is still to produce a changed person,

It will always be important to change the ways people think and act in regard to the biosphere, but it is now possible to allow educational institutions and agencies to discharge their responsibility in that regard. There is no reason to believe they would not. Thanks to the early successes of the environmental movement, science is taken much more seriously in the public schools now than it was in the 1960s.

Environmentalism must now focus on changing the ways people think and act in regard to government, and in regard to corporate activity as it affects human and biotic rights.

Government needs to be strengthened to make supervision and regulation of the corporations possible.

At the same time, corporate activity, which private, non-government organizations can monitor, but cannot supervise or regulate, needs to be identified as the central problem in need of address.

The public needs to be informed of the facts and issues concerning corporate activity, even though anyone daring to advance such information will certainly be vilified and attacked. Politicians ought not to do this. It makes no sense for an elected official to say and do the things we all know will anger the corporations who will then use the transformative force of power and money to anger the public. Once the politician is out of office, we lose all the benefit of what might have been accomplished that the public WAS ready to hear.

Becoming the target of vilification is the job of the environmental activist who is not running for anything. But that activist can’t be tied down with the need to support bricks and mortar, or research projects to protect, a family to feed, or a boat to keep on the river. The activist can’t be worried about increasing membership or donations. In activism, everything that needs protecting is a liability.

Sooner or later, the facts of the situation will become familiar to the public, and what was once seen as anti jobs and anti energy will be seen for what it really is, the facts. Then the politician can join in what will have become a conversation rather than a shouting match of name calling.

The corporation is, without question, one of humanity’s greatest inventions and, once repaired, could become the instrument of our salvation. No better machine exists for the purpose of making money and accomplishing transformation. With a new prime directive, those transformations could be in the public interest. The corporation, returned to its original function of serving the public interest, is beyond all doubt the machine capable of doing the work of restoring and protecting the biosphere while securing our human right to a safe and secure environment.

Anthony Henry Smith
© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 

 

View From Winchell Mountain, Millerton, NY © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 

Who has said you alone should have some greater right than the bird on the high wavecrest riding?

Essay: Who has said you alone should have some greater right?

 

 

By Anthony Henry Smith

 

“And who has said you alone should have hearing and sight
To hear the waves roar and still be strong to sing?
And who has said you alone should have some greater right
Than the bird on the high wave crest riding?”

 

(From “As Long As This Sloop Can Go” by Evert Taube;
English version from the Swedish by A. H. Smith)

In the above verse, Taube invites us to contemplate our relationship to a natural world we often regard as inferior to ourselves. The person, the bird, and the waves are kindred forces, sharing an immense and dynamic system where everything follows the dictates of reason and logic… except when it doesn’t!

An ecosystem is a set of highly complex relationships of living things to each other and to their surroundings. Although the parts of an ecosystem interact as a functional unit, ecosystems are not always orderly or reasonable. They can be chaotic, illogical, and far beyond anything we can ever hope to understand or control. We shall never know it all.

Taube raises a significant issue: “Who has said you alone should have some greater right…” than the other life forms within the ecosystem you inhabit? In fact, you “alone” couldn’t survive for a minute outside the set of essential relationships that sustain you.

Of this much we can be certain: we are, at very least, obliged to past and future generations as well as to earth’s other living inhabitants to maintain earth’s systems to the best of our ability.

Mining is only one immediate threat to the Eastern Timber Rattlesnake. The snake’s major problem is humanity, a competing species within the rattlesnake’s ecosystem. Because of human activity, the snake is losing air and receives less sunlight . Water supplies are being degraded. The snake’s already degraded habitat is being completely destroyed by mining activities.

Homo sapiens is rapidly losing its own viable habitat, largely because of its own destructive habits. Human health is declining in significant areas. Human infant mortality rate is too high, especially in the United States. Humanity is rapidly depleting non renewable “resources“.

The issue is not the snakes and never has been. Total focus on a single threatened species to the exclusion of its ecosystem trivializes every other important issue.

Humanity’s significant issue is the right to a safe and healthy environment versus anyone’s freedom to compromise the health and safety of that environment through any activity.
David W. Orr puts it like this:
“… the concepts of diversity and sustainability have the drawback that they limit freedom, as presently understood. … freedom was never intended as license; rather it was known to entail personal restraint and the exercise of duties to a larger community. There can be no freedom amidst social chaos, nor can there be freedom in a state of ecological ruin. This level of sophistication requires that people understand the linkages between human behavior and ecological health, which is to say a comprehension of how the world works as a system.” (“The Last Refuge” Island Press, 2004, pg 87; ISBN: 1-555963-528-2)

It’s time to revisit the Constitution. An amendment yet to be drafted must plainly state the following:

“The rights of the people to freedom come before the rights of others to destroy our quality of life essential to the enjoyment of freedom. Every citizen has a right to the health of the biosystem of which that citizen is a part and upon which that citizen depends.“

No one should be free to destroy our nation’s ecosystems. Every citizen has a right to a healthy biosphere. It is a condition essential to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All other freedoms depend on the preservation of healthy ecosystems and a healthy biosphere.

Let the call for a constitutional amendment begin in Dutchess County. It was in Poughkeepsie on July 26th, 1788 that the United States Constitution was born when New York State’s deciding vote ratified it for the new nation. Most important of all, the Constitution was ratified only when Alexander Hamilton made it absolutely clear to Melancton Smith and other New Yorkers that the issue of rights would be revisited and rights would be included later as the amendments we know as the Bill of Rights.

The New York State Constitution is a logical starting point. Given the enormity of our need, the movement to add such an amendment to our state constitution could begin within you at the moment you read this call to action.

It has been said the “good” is that which you would wish to do, if only you knew what you were doing. We must rededicate ourselves in all humility to doing the work necessary to enable us to know what we’re doing. A debate regarding our human right to a healthy environment can only help.

 

Half Moon in the 21st Century, "Movin' Toward Tomorrow: Calling Me!"

Aftonstjärna, 30 Adriance Avenue

Poughkeepsie, New York, 12601

© Anthony Henry Smith, June 8^th, 2009

“I am absolutely baffled by your recent posting.”

 

John McLaughlin

 

 

Anthony Henry Smith, momentarily distracted from studying the New York Times

 

—–Original Message—–
From: johnrmcl@aol.com
To: hudson-valley-environment@npogroups.org
Sent: Sun, Jul 12, 2009 8:44 pm
Subject: [HudsonValley] OK I Give Up

 Tony:

I am absolutely baffled by your recent posting.  I do not understand it on any level.  Would you please explain in terms that a simple kid from rural Colorado can understand? Love ya man, but ya got me confused.

I will make this observation.  The Democratic Party completely lost the American middle and working class voter for quite a number of years.  Al Gore, who should have been able to beat George Bush with one hand tied behind his back totally blew the pooch and squeaked into a loss.  Please do not bore me with stolen votes in Florida or elsewhere.  It never should have been so close.  The Junior Senator from Mass. was even worse.  My heavens, what a terrible campaign.

Bush in office after the first 4 years so completely blew it that even I could have beat him (Hillary really regrets her early failure to oppose Bush on Iraq – she could have been the one). 

Obama is a very shrew politician.  Y’all really do not like shrewd politicians, but thank god this one is largely on your side of the fight.  A really shrewd politician can read the tea leaves and voter sentiment and do a good job of explaining his/her position on issues in terms they understand.  A really shrew politician knows what is possible and what is not.  Yes, I do want single payer.  Most “average” voters that I know do not.  I bet Obama still gets some form of single payer.

In the 60’s and 70’s I used to speak regularly before Black congregations in Black churches in the South.  My message was quit marching and start voting!!  The bottom line is: If you ain’t in office you do not count!!!  The further reaches of the Democratic and Republican parties cannot accept such a philosophy and will never prevail for more than short periods in the national political picture.  During those periods in which they may prevail, both tend to excesses (in the view of the electorate) that drive them from office for considerable periods of time.

Right now the pollsters find that President Obama is rapidly loosing the confidence of the “independent” voter.  Those registered as Democrats are slightly increased in support and those registered  or self-identified as Republicans are slightly lower in support (BTW – self-identified Repubs give Obama about a 25% level of support).  The key to political power in the US at this time is the independent voter.  You may not fully like what they like and I may not fully like what they like, but THEY are the controlling voter block in US National Politics today.  Either accept this or be quite happy to be dead right in your beliefs.  Either you find a way to reach out to them or YOU and your beliefs die.

Obscure rhetoric against corporations will not win the middle class and independents over to your side.  One thing Obama has going for him is he is a very good communicator and he delivers clear messages.  I suggest we all study his example.

Cheers,
John

 Let me begin by thanking you, John McLaughlin,  for taking the time and trouble to read this and comment. I’m responding to you via this website, because I’d like to make a more detailed and potentially contentious response and on that account do not wish to post this on the regular list.

I’ve been thinking about providing this kind of off list response for some time. This is the first time I’m trying it. I’d be interested to know if you find it effective. I’ve disabled the response function here, so perhaps you wouldn’t mind contacting me through the list or privately. Many thanks!

 Here’s my original post to which John is responding:

FYI

Obama’s statement “We don’t want to make the best the enemy of the good.” from the article below is an example of extreme corporatism in what may be its  most potentially dangerous form, ending conversation by co-opting the very language we need to make reasoned discussion possible. This cliché works to change the meaning of “the best” (usually expressed in this phrase as “perfection”) into an opposite meaning as something undesirable and unattainable.

It isn’t that Obama is using the tactics of his opposition; it’s that he is and always has been the vetted candidate of the corporate establishment that has long controlled the political monolith that once was a party system. Obama appears to feel secure enough to openly use the Orwellian tactics of the monolith he represents.

Disillusioned Environmentalists Turn on Obama as Compromiser

The New York Times,

July 11, 2009

 By LESLIE KAUFMAN

For environmental activists like Jessica Miller, 31, the passage of a major climate bill by the House last month should have been cause for euphoria. Instead she felt cheated.

Ms. Miller, an activist with Greenpeace, had worked hard on her own time to elect Barack Obama because he directly and urgently addressed the issue nearest her heart: climate change.

But over the last few months, as the ambitious climate legislation was watered down in the House without criticism from the president, Ms. Miller became disillusioned. She worried that the bill had been rendered meaningless — or had even undermined some goals Greenpeace had fought for. And she felt that the man she had thought of as her champion seemed oddly prone to compromise.

“I voted for the president, I canvassed for him, but we just haven’t seen leadership from him,” said Ms. Miller, who rappelled down Mount Rushmore on Wednesday with colleagues to unfurl a banner protesting what they called President Obama’s acquiescence to the compromises. (They were arrested and charged with trespassing.)

While most environmental groups formally supported the House bill, the road to passage proved unsettling for the movement. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen opposed the bill; members of some other groups privately berated their leaders for going along with it. And some, like Ms. Miller, have shifted to open protest.

Few politicians make the transition from campaign trail to White House without sacrificing a few starry-eyed supporters along the way, of course.

And Mr. Obama’s early record on environmental issues suggests that he is more aggressive than any of his predecessors in supporting causes like combating global warming and shifting to renewable energy sources.

In an interview last month, Mr. Obama defended the House bill as “a good start.”

Referring to European leaders and others who said the bill was not strong enough, Mr. Obama said, “We don’t want to make the best the enemy of the good.”

He went on: “By putting a framework in place that is realistic, that is commonsensical, that protects consumers from huge spikes in electricity costs while setting real, meaningful targets — what we are doing is changing the political conversation and the incentive structures for businesses in this country.”

Still, the compromises that were made to win House approval by a 219-to-212 vote have left the president’s “green” base in some disarray.

For some environmental groups and individuals, the bill’s perceived shortcomings — like generous pollution allowances to coal utilities and the usurping of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over carbon emissions — were more than mere setbacks.

“This bill was worse than what we were expecting, even knowing we wouldn’t get the best bill,” said Nick Berning, a spokesman for the group Friends of the Earth.

The overriding of the E.P.A.’s regulatory authority over carbon emissions was particularly startling, Mr. Berning said.

The president clearly shares the blame, he said, adding, “He is not engaged enough.”

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama used forceful and direct language on climate change, calling carbon emissions from human activity an “immediate threat” to the climate. His environmental critics say they miss that urgent tone.

“He was far too quiet during the House debate,” said Jess y Tolkan, the executive director of the Energy Action Coalition, a youth group in Washington that campaigns for clean energy. “He needs to live up to the promises he made to us when we poured our heart and soul into electing him.”

Ms. Tolkan said that her organization was hoping to take that point home to the Democratic Party before the midterm elections. “Those who played a leadership role in weakening this bill will feel the wrath of youth political power across the country,” she said. “2010 is not that far away.”

Democratic lawmakers have also drawn fire. Jill Stein, co-founder of the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities, w hich usually lobbies on local environmental issues, said she felt “betrayed” by the Democratic-controlled House. “If this is a political reality, we have to change our political leaders,” Ms. Stein said.

In a statement, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and an architect of the bill, defended the legislation. “We worked hard to craft legislation that would achieve our environmental goals while addressing the regional concerns of members of Congress,” he said. Politicians are not the only targets of dejected environmentalists.

The Clean, a collaborative grass-roots groups that encourages the use of renewable fuels, posted a critique of the climate bill on its Web site that asked at one point: “Why has this energy legislation become so bad?

It blames “corporate polluters” for spending tens of millions of dollars on lobbying, but environmental groups, too.

“Several of the national ‘green’ groups decided to cooperate with industry and members of Congress in getting a bill through,” the Web site reads. “N.R.D.C., the Environmental Defense Fund and Pew all sat at the table and, whether or not it was their intent to do so, provided ‘cover’ for these bad policies.”

Daniel A. Lashof, director of the climate center for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group in Washington, said that if his group had not come to the table, there might not have been any climate-change legislation at all. And he pointed out that Congressional support for environmental action was at a record high.

“We are not saying this is perfect,” Mr. Lashof said, “but we cannot hope for stronger environmental champions in Congress. If not now, when?”

HERE’S MY RESPONSE TO JOHN:

I wish that simple kid from Colorado well, but I have very little to say that would be helpful to a child. I’m limiting my efforts to those old enough to accept legal and  personal responsibility for their own actions.

Take that kid for a sail on the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, if you can, then camping in the Catskills. Perhaps that could be followed by a week in residence as an unpaid assistant with a family on a working farm. One could learn just as much from a stay on a living, functioning farm as one could learn on the decks of Clearwater. I’ve often thought it would be a good idea to attempt to offer such farm residency opportunities within the Clearwater community, especially as we are able to increase and encourage working farms in the Hudson Valley.

And definitely encourage that kid to study hard in school to acquire sufficient skills in math, the arts, science, and languages so one day that simple kid might mature to be able to read The New Yorker or The New York Times unassisted.

To you, a highly sophisticated person, past president of the Beacon Sloop Club and currently the club’s treasurer, with an activist history of speaking in black churches, I gladly share what I would not share with that kid unless the kid was very sharp:

Of the perhaps twenty five paragraphs of my “baffling” post, twenty were written by Leslie Kaufman of The New York Times. I can only imagine you’re baffled my two paragraph introduction.

 I’ve re read it. Originally written is such haste that I had to resend the message to make a careless one word correction,  it was not intended to be great literature, but it does speak for itself.

The first of my two paragraphs is about keeping the public weak by diluting the very language so vital to our self government. My problem is that this isn’t Rush Limbaugh, this is Obama. That’s what makes it problematic. I know many will disagree with my assessment. I understand most will not read it. That doesn’t relieve me of the responsibility of raising the issue and writing it out for circulation, even if no one agrees with my position.

Of course, to reject my two paragraphs as baffling is one way of dealing with the content. Nothing should be baffling. Everything should be clear and not “obscure”. Equally important, it should fit compactly into an e-mail.  

Things should be simple, but nothing should be simpler than it needs to be except in e-mails where over simplification becomes part of the illusion that we are actually communicating more than we do.

One way of attacking a point (and I don’t suggest for a moment that you, John, are attacking anything) is to ask the speaker for an explanation of what was just said on the grounds that you do not understand it. Explanations can be tedious and in many situations, explaining is losing, or at very least, the necessity of an explanation can be a significant disadvantage to anyone presenting a new, unfamiliar, or unpopular idea.

I do have ideas few are ready to hear.

 I think many confuse certain functioning, rewarding, creative, and sometimes alternative  lifestyles with environmentalism. There are many wonderful communities doing important work in mutual support of one another. I support them and value the many social, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and physical goods they create.

Although such communities might coexist with environmentalism and appear to value it, a life style should not be mistaken for environmentalism, even though environmentalism may include a lifestyle. Environmentalism and lifestyle are two different things.

I believe the environmental movement died a long time ago.

The empty husks of once viable environmental organizations are now animated by careerists, celebrities, and professionals who march together in response to a corporate drum.

Change shall occur. The fact that change would happen of its own accord in any event, with or without human efforts,  is no reason we should not stop polluting the water we drink and which life needs to survive.  

I believe the most viable option for the ordinary citizen is to anticipate ongoing and sometimes sudden change whenever possible and take all measures to think and act in ways which alleviate, mitigate, or avoid unnecessary pain and suffering among living things. Among the many things beyond our power to control, this is the area wherein each individual is definitely empowered to make a difference. I believe a government clearly mandated (as ours is) to secure the rights of the governed is absolutely necessary to MAKE that happen on a larger scale.

It’s a mistake to believe mandated government responsibility can be appropriately executed by means of outsourcing, privatization, or NGO’s, including private or voluntary environmental organizations. It cannot. Government is a sacred trust, not goods or services to be farmed out.

One outsources dining hall food services in a government building; one does not outsource the mandate of the people to secure the rights of the governed. It is for the government to regulate and enforce where GE dumps the PCBs dreged from the Hudson. That is not the job of any private organization, although private organizations can have a place in monitoring and advising government.

Grassroots responsibility and accountability is what’s needed. Grassroots needs to focus on strengthening government to make it possible to protect the rights of the governed.

The Green Ghost of the dead environmental movement now stalks among us in the service of the corporate machine which animates it. It works like a shadow puppet show. It also serves to weaken responsible and strong government through the illusion that it’s actually doing the things government is mandated to do.  

I’m all for the lifestyle that has been associated with (but is not in and of itself) environmentalism: sailing, food, music, learning, the education of children, and most of all, mutually supportive  and unconditionally accepting community. I have not a single syllable to say against all these good things and hope such communities survive and thrive within the coming changes.

But it’s a serious mistake to mistake any of these obvious goods for what urgently needs to be done in America today. How Can I keep From Singing? is one of my favorite songs. “In prison cell and dungeon vile our thoughts to them are winging. When friends by shame are undefiled, how can I keep from singing?” This speaks from my heart. But I’ll ask you quite simply (and it’s simple enough to share with that kid from Colorado) how can you go on singing? I have no intention to abandon hope, but I’ll join in the singing again when the screams of the tortured cease to echo in my ears.

ROBERT GRANT

Robert Grant, a practicing attorney and former judge, has saved us all a world of trouble by very kindly writing and publishing what can and probably should serve as the handbook for those attempting to empower government.

I don’t say this lightly. I say it as a philosophical activist. I believe our system of law and justice has deviated significantly from our English Common Law traditions and has suffered geratly thereby.

Long story short:

You cannot play baseball without rules. They are what they are. They are fixed and unchanging. They are not fair or unfair, good or bad. They are simply the rules. It’s how we play the game.

You should not play baseball without sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is about how we treat one another before, during, and after the game. Sportsmanship doesn’t change the rules, but it does try to make the literal ruling fair by ADDING mercy, kindness, forebearance, and mutual respect to the way the players and fans treat one another in the process.  It is inappropriate to accuse the umpire of being unmerciful when he says the batter has struck out, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding.  The rules are the rules. But it is appropriate to show proper sympathy and respect when the occasion calls for it.

From its beginning, English Common Law separated Law (equivalent to the rules) from Justice equivalent to sportsmanship.) One court was responsible for a PURELY legal decision based on law and precedent and a separate court (Chancery Court) was responsible to add to the purely legal decision in an attempt to make it merciful, fair, equitable, just, and responsive to conscience.

In the 1840’s we did away with the Chancery Court and have been attempting ever since to (in effect) have the umpire be responsible for both rules and sportsmanship. Chancery Court was done  away with to save time and money, but in consolidating the two courts, we also destroyed the nuance that is the essence of English Common Law. (England followed our example some years later.)

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unable to give truly satisfying answers to the question as to whether she would be influenced in her Supreme Court decisions by anything other than the law.

It’s a problem. The Law, strictly inperpreted, is one thing. Justice, which requires a judge to be obedient to the unenforcable dictates of conscience, is another. Sotomayor knows the importance of a purely legal decision based on law and precedent. But she also knows what Shakespeare’s Portia knew in The Merchant of Venice; that “The quality of mercy is unstrained.” Portia was a chancery judge who added the quality of mercy to the strictly interpreted law. The victor in the suit was indeed entitled to remove a pound of flesh from the person legally indebted to him; that was the law. But Portia added to that judgment by noting that he was not entitled to a single drop of the debtor’s blood.

It is as conflicting and confusing to require the same judge to entertain law and justice as it would be to require an umpire to factor justice into his decision on what constitute the rules of the game.

Sotomajor will be confirmed to the Supreme Court and I wish her well. Nevertheless, our broken justice system needs to be fixed.

Grant’s remarkable book gives the important basics of civics as it can and should be done NOW with the legal system we have. The conflation of law and justice is a serious problem that begs to be corrected, but there’s much else about our system of government that can and often does work well.

The goal is to empower government to be able to secure and protect the rights of the governed AND AT THE SAME TIME securing and protecting the rights of the living things of which the governed are but a part and upon which they depend.

Here’s Grant’s book:

Grant, Robert, 1999, American Ethics and The Virtuous Citizen, Basic Principles, Amherst, New York, Humanist Press (ISBN 0-931779-11-1)

Ralph Nader was correct.

It didn’t matter which candidate won when Al Gore ran.

Even Al Gore, who didn’t contest his “loss”, seemed to think so. All were equally vetted by the corporations who wouldn’t have financed them if they weren’t vetted. And it isn’t that there’s some mysterious conspiracy. There isn’t. This is just the way it works mechanically when corporations follow their prime directive: to make money for the corporation to the complete exclusion of every other consideration. Values have nothing to do with it, because human beings within a corporation serve an entirely instrumental, mechanical, non-human function.

I am speaking as an activist.

As an activist I have no expectation that what I say will be comfortable, familiar or user friendly. I do not speak to target audiences. (Many activists do. It’s an individual matter.) I am not in marketing. I speak of what others do not because it costs friends, donations, jobs, votes, or support. I’m not running for anything. I don’t need or want anyone’s money. I do not ever take up collections, emergency donations for specific individuals in crisis excepted. I have no bricks or mortar in need of support. I am not selling anything. I care nothing about ridicule. I represent no one. I have no mandate. I have nothing I’m asking you to join. But I do have one overriding responsibility.

It is my sole responsibility as an activist to be right too early.

By being “right” I mean being able to provide a satisfactory or “right” answer or plan for action in response to a question or issue.

By “too early”, I mean being able to introduce a new idea or solution before the public is ready to hear about it; before the public is familiar enough with the issue to be able to discuss it without hostility or fear of the new and untried.

In the United States, when an unfamiliar issue is introduced to the public, it is typical that all will have opinions and will be willing to express them, regardless of how little they may know of the subject. The philosopher Harry Frankfurt has speculated that perhaps because people in a democracy are expected to have opinions, many will express an opinion that is completely devoid of actual information, simply for the sake of saying something. In any event, we may reasonably expect that when the issue is new, most of the opinions are likely to be uninformed and many will be attended by hostility. It often takes time to overcome hostility to an unfamiliar idea.

Any individual raising a new and unfamiliar issue must be prepared to be ridiculed and attacked, often for no reason other than that the issue is unfamiliar. Gradually, as opinion becomes informed, hostility levels decrease and it becomes easier to have civil discussions.

A well informed politician may know the best course of action far before the public becomes familiar enough with the issue to receive it without out anger. However, if the politician supports an unfamiliar or unpopular plan before the public is acquainted with the issue, she will bear the brunt of the initial public reaction. Although her position may be the right one to take, she may find herself voted right out of office.

A politician’s understanding and knowledge are important, but if the people haven’t had the opportunity to become as informed as the politician, the politician will not have the support of the people.

It’s not a small matter. Once voted out of office, the politician will have the pleasure of being “right,” but will have to forgo all the good that might have been accomplished if she had ignored the contentious new issue and instead supported all the many other issues the public was ready to support.

 Yet someone must be first. Someone must be “right” too early. This brings us back to my original point.

 Being right too early is the job of the activist.

That’s my job. I know activism may seem tough, but it’s far better than the hard, dirty work my father and grandfather did before me. They were professional fool killers. Both died of overwork.

Sept., 2003, Beacon Sloop Club's WoodyGuthrie, back in the water after 3 years out,

 POST SCRIPT:

To get the correct spelling of your name, I went to the Beacon Sloop Club’s newsletter. I want you and everyone else reading this to know the latest issue is the absolutely best I’ve EVER seen, and I’ve seen some good ones over many, many years. It is nothing short of outstanding. May it always be so.

Here’s the link for the Beacon Sloop Club Newsletter:

http://www.beaconsloop.org/BSC%20Broadside%200709.pdf

Here’s the link for the Beacon Sloop Club:

 http://www.beaconsloop.org/

Yours with every best wish and many thanks,

Anthony Henry Smith

© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Answering Barbra Tuchman: An essay on the corporate machine and the transformative force of money and power

(Draft; in progress, 22 June 2009)

  by Anthony Henry Smith

 

 

 

 

Leonardo's Horse at Tallix Foundery, Beacon NY

 

 

 

 

Nearly a quarter of a century has elapsed since the historian Barbara Tuchman asked these significant questions:

 

“Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function? … Why does American business insist on ‘growth’ when it is demonstrably using up the three basics of life on our planet – land, water, and unpolluted air? (While unions and businesses are not strictly government in the political sense, they represent governing situations.) (Tuchman, 1984, 4)

 

Each of Barbara Tuchman’s related questions presupposes the presence of an operative human agency which either “acts,” “functions,” or “insists.” 

 

I propose that in each case, human agency is neither present nor functioning despite all appearances to the contrary.

 

I further propose the problems posed by Tuchman’s questions should be defined in terms of mechanical malfunction rather than pursued as the consequence of human failings or a failure of values.

 

Certain mental processes are characteristically and definitively human, among them love, empathy, hope, joy, friendship, consideration for others, honor, compassion, loyalty, kindness, respect, and value judgments, to name a few.

 

These characteristically human mental processes cease to function under certain circumstances, extreme fear being an example.

 

Extreme fear also provides an obvious example of a transformative force (fear) which has the power to effectively change an individual from a functioning, effective human being into a living “thing.”

 

The answer I propose is based on the existence of certain phenomena, things which can be perceived,  necessary to inform any full response to Tuchman’s questions. These phenomena include: 

 

1. Money and power can constitute a transformative force.

 

2. The transformative force of money and power can be generated by a corporation.

 

3. Within a corporation, the transformative force of money and power changes human beings into living, but non-human things.

 

4. These living things are instrumental to the execution of the corporation’s prime directive.

 

5. The corporation’s prime directive is to make money for the corporation to the total exclusion of every other consideration.

 

6. Thus means generates ever more means in an endless cycle.

 

Money and power can be employed as a means to an end. Money and power can be employed solely as a means to create further means. Money and power can also constitute a transformative force.

 

Within a corporation, the transformative force of money and power changes human beings into living, but non-human things. Individuals thus transformed, although still living, have the capacity to function as things to be used as instrumental parts of the machine that is the corporation. 

 

2. The transformation from human being to a living, but non-human thing  can be instantaneous. The normal range of human functioning includes a remarkable ability to quickly detach from reality as one slips easily and suddenly from one modality of thinking/acting to another. 

 

3. The corporation can be thoroughly mechanical and therefore non-human in essence.

 

This detachment from reality (being, in fact, a detachment from “human” reality,) occurs to a degree sufficient for the resultant behaviors to fall within a range that can include an apparent inability to learn from mistakes, apparently aggressive impulses, apparent lack of remorse for one’s actions, and antisocial behavior. The term “psychotic” is descriptive of these behaviors and I therefore refer to this state of being as “the psychotic modality.” 

 

I consider the “psychotic modality” to be the normal, reasonable and likely consequence of human exposure to transformative force. The psychotic modality presents itself through the manifestations of characteristics typical of a machine, or more nearly, a robot This can be a valued temporary state, as long as it doesn’t persist. In its persistent state, this modality should be considered pathologic.   

 

It is the psychotic modality that enables one to detach from reality long enough to continue important functioning in otherwise impossible circumstances. The psychotic modality may enable one to retain one’s ability to move and function while facing a hail of incoming arrows. It might enable one to jump into freezing water, or to rush into a burning building to save another’s life. Like deep mourning after a death, the psychotic modality in otherwise normal individuals becomes a serious problem only if it persists.

 

Certain forms of slavery and military training result in a person in a transformed state functioning as a non- human, living machine. The difference between the living thing and an actual robot can be significant, but in many cases the difference is indistinguishable. Even the mere thought of how mechanical a human being can be is distasteful to many. It immediately raises issues concerning the values and responsibilities we tend to consider to be an inseparable part of the human condition.

 

I propose a human being can, and frequently does, function as a non-human, living thing. Further, a living thing is not and cannot be responsible or accountable, and while this living thing may have a value (as a thing to be bought or sold) it is not an agent capable of possessing values to guide its own use.

 

My proposal is similar to, but significantly differs from the theories held by those who historically supported and who now continue to support slavery in its various forms in the United States and other parts of the world. What I am proposing is a state of being that all humanity shares equally; a modality in which one is transformed into a living thing. For most it is an unusual modality that exists in juxtaposition with our day to day reality of normal functioning as a fully realized human being. I call this alternative state the psychotic modality; a name I use to describe the  characteristic loss of contact with day to day reality experienced by those in this state.

 

oil on board, "The Falls at Fountain Square, Beacon, NY, c. 1986 , by Anthony Henry Smith, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

It is my thesis that:

 

A. The machine, (here defined as a thing with moving parts; created by human agency and used to perform a task) exerts a more significant transformative force over its biological and physical environment than has heretofore been considered.

 

B. The corporation is a machine: a thing with moving parts; created by human agency and used to perform the task of executing the corporate prime directive.

 

C. Human beings operate in various modalities. In one of these modalities, the human being operates apart form its “humanity” and becomes, in effect, a living thing as the result of exposure to transformative force.

 

 Accordingly, a human being who has come within the transformative force of a corporation can be transformed to become non-human, but living, thing capable of performing non-human tasks. These tasks are often carried out  within the context of and as instrumental to the non-human thing/machine that is the corporation.

 

In her 1940-1941 essay titled “The Iliad or The Poem of Force,” Simone Weil (1901 – 1943) observed that force ” …is that x that transforms anybody subjected to it in to a thing.” In a like manner, the corporation is an intelligent machine that transforms those who come within the influence of its force and power into things.
At the time she was writing, Hitler’s version of the extreme corporatism we otherwise know as fascism was being unleashed in Europe. The following is from Weil‘s essay, published in20the December 1940 – January 1941 issue of “Cashiers du Sud” [signed Emile Novis] :
” … How much more varied in its processes, how much more surprising in its effects is the other force, the force that does not kill, I.e., that does not kill just yet. Perhaps it will surely kill, it will possibly kill, or perhaps it merely hangs, poised and ready, over the head of the creature it can kill, at any moment, which is to say at every moment. In whatever aspect, its effect is the same: it turns a man into a stone. From its first property (the ability to turn a human being into a thing by the simple method of killing him) flows another, quite prodigious too in its own way, the ability to turn a human being into a thing while he is still alive. He is alive; he has a soul; and yet – he is a thing. …” (Weil, 1986, 164-165)

 
The corporation has force or power sufficient to effectively “end” the existence of those who come within its influence by virtue of the fact that the corporation shapes, controls, and if it wishes, terminates the employment-career-existence of whomever it chooses at any time the corporation wishes.

 

If a human being is aware of this phenomenon, it may be possible to make an intervening decision to avoid exposure to the transformative force of power and money and retain humanity. Such an option is unavailable to individuals who are compelled to associate with the corporation as the result of economic or social necessity.

 

The mere presence of a corporation within a community will transform that  community. Its government, its associations, its institutions, its agencies, even its infrastructure, its biomass (including people), and its ecosystems will either reconfigure themselves or be reconfigured over time in accommodation of the needs of the corporation’s prime directive.

"Fire, Air, Earth, and Water" © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 

Once it is understood that non-human corporations and the living, but non-human instruments utilized by the corporations are in a very literal sense no more than machines, it also becomes clear they are therefore value free, having nothing more to do with right or wrong or good or evil than does your alarm clock.

 

Now try to imagine getting a good night’s sleep within the influence of an out of control alarm clock. Welcome to corporatist America!

 

There was nothing human about the approaching Israeli Army bulldozer that killed (but was incapable of murdering) Rachel Corrie in March of 2003. Long before the tragedy, the same force that killed Corrie had already transformed the creature that operated the bulldozer from a human being into a living thing; an instrument of death.

 

The “clockwork” paradigm:

 

 The great clock at the Salisbury cathedral in England, c. 1386, is the oldest clock still operating in Europe. If children are to be seen, but not heard, the early “clock” was meant to be heard, but not seen. The Salisbury clock was built with no face and tolled only once on each hour. In fact, the word “glock” is the German word for “bell.” Before long, many towns had their own clocks. Just as the clock driven bells had regulated cathedral life, now the town hall clock regulated and shaped the activities of the entire community.

 

Soon a general interest in portable clocks and watches spurred the rapid development of the technology of precision-machine work. It also ushered in the clockwork machine concept as a paradigm for organizing and thinking about the world similar to the way the computer has become a paradigm for much of our present day thought. In 1605, Johannes Kepler wrote The New Astronomy (Astronomia Nova) “ …to show that the celestial machine is to be likened not to a divine organism, but rather to a  clockwork.” (quoted in Boorstin, 1983, 71) 

 

Gradually, even rhythms established by the risings and settings of the sun and the moon diminished in importance as a machine reconfigured the human mind to conform to the hour and minute.

 

The clock was but one of the many machines to exercise transformative power over humanity. Gutenberg’s printing press, Edison’s lighting system, Whitney’s cotton gin, the automobile, and the computer are just a few of humanity’s transformative machines. A complete list would be very long indeed. Yet of all the transformative machines one might name, none is more powerful than the corporation.

 

The social machine we know as a corporation is unquestionably one of humanity’s greatest inventions. No better machine now exists for the purpose of producing capital and increasing financial power. When well maintained and operating properly, this machine performs invaluable service as it brings its ample and transformative means to bear upon its proper focus of rapidly increasing the general well being of humanity and the biosphere.

It is exactly because of their extreme power that corporations become so destructive  when allowed to operate with uncorrected malfunctions.
In describing the corporation as a social machine, I mean to emphasize two things:
First:  The “thing in itself” is only a machine. It is an intelligent machine in much the same way as computers are intelligent machines, yet for all its intelligence, the corporation remains a machine.

 

Second:  The corporation is a social machine. The corporation needs the raw material of people, each of whom are transformed to serve as its instruments.

 

Any body of people can function like a machine. Athletic teams, military forces, symphony orchestras, and corporations are alike in that each performs tasks toward achieving an end. All properly functioning organizations, associations, and institutions that make up our society have the potential to function as social machines.

 

Any body of people can function as a machine.

The difference between these “bodies” of living human beings and a machine is this: the machine is not human. Although the parts and components of a “social” machine can sometimes be human, all who come within the influence of the power of the corporation are transformed by its force into things.

 

  If one thinks and acts without resort to one’s human resources, that individual, though living, is for all intents and purposes, a living thing. Things formerly human are things nevertheless.

 

Persons who live within the context of a corporatist society are no more aware of that fact than you are normally aware of the fact of your tongue being in your mouth . They see themselves in school, at work, on the job, or in a volunteer organization. They have no clue that these have reconfigured themselves to accommodate  the corporation’s prime directive. In the same way, the transformation from human being to living thing (and back again) can occur without even being noticed.

 

"From Winchell Mountain"© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

The transformative power of force:

 
Simone Weil (1901 – 1943) left the security of her position as a privileged intellectual to take a job in a factory in order to experience the life of an ordinary worker at first hand.

 

In her 1940-1941 essay titled “The Iliad or The Poem of Force,’” Weil observed that force  “…is that x that transforms anybody subjected to it in to a thing.”

 

Corporations are an intelligent machines that transform those who come within the influence of their force and power into things.
At the time Weil was writing, Hitler’s version of the extreme corporatism we otherwise know as fascism was being unleashed in Europe. The following is from Weil‘s essay, published in the December 1940 – January 1941 issue of “Cashiers du Sud” [signed Emile Novis] :
” … How much more varied in its processes, how much more surprising in its effects is the other force, the force that does not kill, i.e., that does not kill just yet. Perhaps it will surely kill, it will possibly kill, or perhaps it merely hangs, poised and ready, over the head of the creature it can kill, at any moment, which is to say at every moment. In whatever aspect, its effect is the same: it turns a man into a stone. From its first property (the ability to turn a human being into a thing by the simple method of killing him) flows another, quite prodigious too in its own way, the ability to turn a human being into a thing while he is still alive. He is alive; he has a soul; and yet – he is a thing. …” (Weil, 1986, 164-165)
The corporation has force or power sufficient to effectively “end” the existence of those who come within its influence by virtue of the fact that the corporation shapes, controls, and if it wishes, terminates the employment-career-existence of whomever it chooses at any time the corporation wishes.

 

Can the living thing employed by the corporation regain humanity on its own time, away from the corporation? Some can, others can’t.

In his poem, The Hangman at Home Carl Sandburg visits the issue:

 

“…If the little
Ones say, Daddy, play horse, here’s
A rope—does he answer like a joke:
I seen enough rope for today?
Or does his face light up like a
Bonfire of joy and does he say:
It’s a good and dandy world we live
In. And if a white face moon looks
In through a window where a baby girl
Sleeps and the moon gleams mix with
Baby ears and baby hair—the hangman—
How does he act then? It must be easy
For him. Anything is easy for a hangman,
I guess.”

     – Carl Sandburg

Even during working hours, the corporation will permit its living instrument complete freedom to say or do or think anything it wishes to, as long as that speech, thought, or action  makes no difference whatsoever to the expeditious fulfillment of the corporate prime directive.

 

The corporation prime directive:

 

“The corporation exists for the sole purpose of making a profit for the corporation, to the total exclusion of every other consideration.”

 

“The genius of the corporation as a business form …(is) its capacity to combine the capital and thus the economic power of unlimited numbers of people.” -Joel Bakan, The Corporation, The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Bakan, 2004,

 

 Any body of people can function like a machine to work toward an end.  Athletic teams, military forces, symphony orchestras, and corporations are such organizations. All the organizations, associations, and institutions which together make up our society have the potential to function as  social machines.

 

The genius of the corporation as a social machine lies in its capacity to quickly and easily generate force sufficient to transform the corporation’s immediate physical and living environment, causing it to reconfigure itself in ways which optimize the ability of the corporation to fulfill the prime objective.

 

Moreover, the corporation does this while simultaneously transforming

 

All human beings who come within the corporation’s influence are simultaneously transformed into mere things; living, but non-human objects whose only purpose is to be instrumental toward achieving the corporation’s culturally mandated and sole prime directive.

 

The corporations’ prime directive is like the ball at a tennis match; it explains every move made by a corporation and those within its influence ( i.e. those in the game). Much like a film of a tennis match, the moves would still make sense, even if you ran the film backwards.

 

Sports analogies:

Corporations are sometimes mistakenly compared to “teams” of people. Viewed from the outside, it can appear that people work together within the corporation much as they do within athletic teams, but the analogy quickly breaks down.
An athletic team consists of human beings who retain their ability to think and act out of humanity throughout the entire process of the activity for which they have been assembled. In stark contrast, a corporation consists of human beings whose sole value to the corporate machine is to think and act only and at all times in ways which are instrumental to the execution of the corporation’s prime directive.
In the athletic world, the rules are all about the mechanics of the game, but sportsmanship introduces the human element, the human conscience that thinks in terms of fair and unfair, mercy, kindness, and compassion. Sportsmanship is respectful of the rules, but is closely attentive and caring in regard to the conduct of the players toward one another and in all things relating to the game, both before, during, and after the game.
Without the human element of sportsmanship, the athletic team would resemble a corporation as corporations now exist. It would then be on its way to becoming nothing more than a mere social machine that would do everything it possibly could for the purpose of winning the game to the exclusion of every other consideration.

 

Of course this is exactly what happens far too often in professional sports. When the bottom line is to win to the exclusion of every other consideration, the formerly human players become translated into mere things; objects instrumental only to winning. 

 

Games operate according to rules; corporations operate according to laws. Just as rules are to sportsmanship, so is law to justice. While rules and law determine in a mechanistic, logical way what must be done, sportsmanship and justice introduce the elements of conscience and values, expressed as a concern for what ought to be done.
 

The limits of ethics

 

The Fishkill Mountains seen from All Angels Hill Road, c. 2006

Justice, Ethics, Law, and Values do not apply in a non human context. Those functions of the human spirit that Freud attributed to the super ego, specifically, the abilities to criticize and to evaluate, do not make up any part of the corporation and do not exist in the living things which make up its parts.

 

The corporation is an intelligent machine which functions in accord with what must be done. What is entirely absent is the human element corresponding to conscience, or sportsmanship, or justice.
The task before us as a responsible society is to clearly establish that what ought to be done and the ways in which we treat one another before, during, and after our corporate interactivity are matters of the utmost importance and need to be grounded in the corporate equivalent  of sportsmanship and justice.

 

 

 

 

 

“ Corporate behavior … is directly responsible  for much of the deterioration of the human environment, has played a major role in the generation of resource wars, and is indirectly responsible for many of the world’s consumption patterns. Corporations have begun to slip out of civilization’s control. These fictional individuals, functioning as the tools of very real individuals and the governments they often control, are becoming a law unto themselves in their effects on Earth’s environmental systems. Those who worry about the world being taken over by computer robots actually should have a more immediate concern.” (Ehrlich, 2004, 331) 

 

 

 

 

In his 1991 book, In the Absence of the Sacred, Jerry Mander observed we tend to anthropomorphize the corporation and wrongly attribute human motives and qualities to the purely mechanical, non-human corporation.

 

“Even when we hear such news [of corporate transgressions] our tendency is to respond as if the behaviors described stem from the people within the corporate structure – people who are irresponsible, dishonest, greedy, or overly ambitious. Or else we attribute the problem to the moral decline of the times we live in, or to the failure of the regulatory process.

 

“Seeing corporate behavior as being rooted in the people who work within them is like believing that the problems of television are attributable solely to its program content. With corporations, as with television, the basic problems are actually structural. They are problems inherent in the forms and rules by which these entities are compelled to operate. If the problems could be traced to the personnel involved, they could be solved by changing the personnel. Unfortunately, however, all employees are obliged to act in concert, to behave in accordance with corporate form and corporate law. If someone attempted to revolt against these tenets, it would only result in the corporation throwing the person out, and replacing that person with another person who would act according to the rules. Form determines content. Corporations are machines.” (Mander, 1991, 121)

 - Anthony Henry Smith

                                           

Anthony Henry Smith, Midsummer, c. 2001

Midsummer, 2009

 

#

 

“Promise of Fruit”

By Norma Charmaz

Norma Charmaz at a Samma Båt (Same Boat) rehearsal.© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Within each tiny apple seed
There lives a potent force.
One plants it in the friendly soil
And hopes it grows. Of course

One must water it with hope and faith
And in every passing day
We wait to welcome life anew
That points our future way.

A green finger then pokes boldly through,
Nourished by the rain and dew,

Greeted by the subtle sun,
Promise of fruit that’s sure to come.

- 1991

Concerning Harmful Aspects of On-line Incivility;

An Essay

by Anthony Henry Smith

 

 

 

 

 

Revised, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009
 

"Strive to keep alive within your breast that spark of celestial fire known as conscience." G. Washington

This is coming to you from the ninth year of the twenty-first century and the internet is in its infancy. The ways we communicate are changing rapidly.

For the purposes of this essay, I’m primarily addressing such incivility as might limit other participants in the reasonable exercise of their freedom to communicate through on-line postings and discussions.

On December 13^th, 2008, an individual appears to have been driven from participation in a well established on-line forum of many years standing. As it happens, she was not removed by the moderator. She appears to have been harassed into removing herself from the list by other participants. All this occurred in full view of the assembled on-line community.

In her terminal posting, she described the situation in these words:

“…this place has gotten out of control. It was great for a while — but not anymore, at least not for me. These days, the community here is a different make up, and now we have residents who engage in name theft, offline bullying, online bullying, threats…”

I think she exercised good judgment by leaving. I would not encourage her to return to a forum where good intentions provide insufficient protection.

Rules and order are necessary to freedom. There is no freedom without such protections.

The forum continues to be useful as a kind of an electronic graffiti wall where articles and announcements can be posted and where those who write what are essentially stand alone articles can be posted. It also performs some useful service as a place where persons of all stripes can vent anger and frustration. It also serves to re enforce that as much as we like to think so, clearly the combination of information and education alone is not the answer.

The main differences appear to occur among persons who hold very different deeply held values.

The on-line network in question did once serve as a place where people could discuss the social and emotional issues that attend serious discussions. Life as we experience it within our communities and within the network of interdependent life that surrounds us is certainly worthy of discussion.

Some restrictions are necessary to protect and defend the freedom of individuals to express themselves. (It’s not always intuitive that restriction is either part of or necessary to freedom, but then who would ever guess light can be both a wave and a particle?)

The concept of “freedom”  is an extremely difficult concept for many to grasp. Many think of “freedom” as a state in which there are no rules. If all were totally “free” it wouldn’t take long before someone would attempt to use force to silence someone else. That doesn’t give that person unlimited speech either, since we can only hear one person at a time. Free speech means no person shall be entitled to speak in a manner that gives that person more opportunity to speak than the others.

 
I’ll miss her participation. She posted much that helped keep me informed. Of course I enjoyed it when her opinions coincided with mine, and even when they didn’t, her opinions were interesting, sometimes helpful, and always welcome.

She did not hesitate to point out to me and to the readership that I personally am often at odds with many individuals and organizations at once. At the time, I supposed she meant to describe me as someone who really can’t get along with anyone.

Whatever her intent, her comments made me think about the fact that the specifics of the complaints I was raising are symptomatic of a deeper malaise within the environmental movement, locally, regionally, and nationally.

Perhaps this would have dawned upon me without her comments. But she did comment and those comments may have spurred me to reflection.

The issue of incivility is itself emblematic of deeper problems within what remains of the old environmentalism and foreshadows what I hope will become the new environmentalism gradually replacing the old. Changing values are at the foundation of all new endeavors and all that is now tradition was once change.

Environmentalism:

Environmentalism is thinking and acting in ways which support and enhance the changing biosphere as it responds to the ever changing Universe of which it is a part.

Geese above College Hill, Poughkeepsie, 14NOV2005, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 

 The Old Environmentalism:

The original 1960s grassroots movement grew from the need to organize and respond to the reality that what we were doing was harmful to large portions of the biosphere, including humans.

The Storm King Mountain case became the basis of environmental law in the United States by establishing the right of citizens to sue the government to protect natural resources. Gradually, the original volunteers within the movement were displaced by specialists and careerists.

Armed with law and strengthened with donations from a growing membership base and strong foundation support, as well as funds realized through lawsuits and legal settlements, what had started as a popular movement with broad support became increasingly specialized, professionalized, and adversarial.

Now, more than a quarter of a century after the Storm King decision, environmental careerists far too often align themselves with power bases composed of celebrities and politicians with private agendas. Professional environmentalism has degenerated into a muddle of organizations poorly led by individuals whose careers are predicated on a continuance of the problems they are charged to resolve. Guided more by egos than by science, professional environmentalism has adopted the values and methods of the very culture the original Movement had hoped to reform.

 “Enlightened self interest” was the term used to describe those who saw environmentalism as a way to enhance the money making options of the corporations while benefiting “the environment.” 

The New Environmentalism:

Properly executed, environmentalism is participatory world government by another name.
   

Democracy:

Democracy can be defined as a principled social process informed by the principles of equality, mutual respect and kindness, personal responsibility, and shared decision making.

The principled democratic process is the exercise of the art of relating to one another within the context of the biosphere of which we are a part and upon which we depend.

If the principled democratic process were difficult, it wouldn’t be very useful. Fortunately, democracy is something that can and does happen frequently and naturally, when people come together for the purpose of working, learning, and problem solving, especially among friends.

 The principled democratic process serves to expedite the acquisition and utilization of knowledge. Knowledge thus obtained can inform the political process.

Environmental ethics:

Environmental ethics concern how we ought to think and act within the context of interdependent life, including what we owe to one another and what we can and cannot expect from one another.

The single most important issue in environmentalism:

The single most important issue in environmentalism is how we treat one another; what we owe to one another; and what we can and cannot expect from one another. ALL else follows from this. Although we are not the center of the universe, neither are we apart from the universe.

The single most important issue in government:

The single most important issue in government is the promotion and protection of Life, Liberty (as freedom) and Justice (as fairness) for all of life throughout the biosphere of which humanity is but a part.

The goal is to obtain a place for humanity within the context of an orderly and well regulated biosphere of which humanity is but a part.

One purpose of government is to facilitate the preservation of freedoms through the exercise of the mandate (given by the consent of the governed) to restrict freedoms to prevent them from impinging upon the freedoms of others to exercise and enjoy their own freedoms. These restrictions may take the form of orders, customs, laws, regulations, and the internal controls of conscience.

Implicit in the responsibility of government to preserve freedom is the mandate to restrict freedoms to the extent that they impinge upon the freedoms of others to exercise and enjoy their own freedoms. The principled democratic process derives from and is protected by this important mandate.

Properly executed, environmentalism is participatory world government by another name.

 Science and Religion:

The new environmentalism requires no specific religious belief and is compatible with many religions and belief systems.

“…from the perspective of human well-being, science and spirituality are not unrelated. … I wish to emphasize to the millions of my fellow Buddhists worldwide the need to take science seriously and to accept its fundamental discoveries within their worldview…. certainly some aspects of Buddhist thought – such as its old cosmological thought and its rudimentary physics – will have to be modified in the light of new scientific insights.” - His Holiness the Dalai Lama, (The Universe in a Single Atom, 2005, pp. 5-6, ISBN 0-7679-2066)
The new environmentalism does require faith. All science is predicated on the faith that order or structure exists, even though that has not been proved. So far, it seems to be a fact.

© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 Aftonstjärna, 30 Adriance Avenue,
Poughkeepsie, New York, 12601 

Here we were taught by men and Gothic towers Democracy and Faith and Righteousness and Love of Unseen Things that do not die.

 

What Happens to the Idea Of Law?

Essay by Anthony Henry Smith

 

Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 

 

(Anthony Henry Smith’s response to Stanley Fish’s “One Man’s Opinion,” (N.Y. Times OP-ED June 30, 2003) and related topics. Stanley Fish is author of “The Trouble With Principle” and is Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences the University of Illinois at Chicago.)

 

HAM.  “Denmark’s a prison.”

ROSENCRANZ. “Then the world is one.”

HAM. “A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ th’ worst.”

ROS. “We think not so, my lord.”

HAM. “Why then ‘tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.”

 

(Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, scene ii)

 

Hamlet’s statement would be entirely out of character for a person as bound by traditions and religious convictions as Hamlet appears to be unless he’s

really insane. 

 

Is Hamlet mad or pretending? Rosencranz doesn’t know for sure and at this point in the play, neither do I. Perhaps Hamlet’s “good or bad” statement is Shakespeare’s personal world view.

 

What you think of any situation depends on how you look at the specifics. The specifics in the play are that Hamlet’s either mad or pretending to be, or possibly he alternates between madness and sanity. He’s either religious, or perhaps just superstitious, or perhaps an existentialist who believes existence precedes essence.

 

Each possible set of specifics can direct the audience and the play toward different and interesting conclusions. In the end, it’s always a matter of venturing one’s best guess consistent with the specifics as one chooses to interpret them.

 

A.A. Milne has described the problem from a child’s point of view:

 

 ”Pooh looked at his two paws. He knew that one of them was the right and he knew that when you had decided which one of them was the right, then the other one was the left, but he could never remember how to begin.” (Milne, 1928, “The House at Pooh Corner,” ISBN: 0-114-036122-7)

 

In both Shakespeare and life, starting points often seem arbitrary, but with this difference: in most real life situations a stand must be taken. Life allows few opportunities for neutrality; freedom allows none at all. Because we in the United States don’t usually think of “freedom” in terms of restriction, an explanation is in order.

 

There’s simply no way one can be neutral about freedom. Your “freedom” is purchased at the price of restrictions placed on those who would ordinarily interfere with you in ways that would deny you the exercise of that freedom. Remove the restrictions and you lose the freedom.

 

In the normal course of the pursuit and maintenance of freedom, sides must be taken. The only remaining issue is to consider what one can do to prevent or to minimize bloodshed.

 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson

It’s interesting to consider that the prevention of bloodshed was not necessarily an enlightenment value. Sides were taken for and against “freedom” and bloodshed was a reality. The “La Marseillaise,” the French national anthem written in 1792 uses the word “blood” or “bloody”  4 times. And consider this quote from Jefferson:

 

“What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

 

Regicide Peace Sky, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

The need to prevent bloodshed was seldom more clear than it was at the end of our American Civil War. It was then the pragmatist philosophers Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and John Dewey, “working along with others … helped to make tolerance an official virtue in modern America.” (Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club, pg. 440)

 

Civil War Fountain, Poughkeepsie, NY, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

In the spirit of tolerance, we act on our beliefs, recognizing in all humility that our beliefs might be wrong. But since we know we might be wrong, can our acts be justified?  Menand believes they can.

 

“But the moral justification for our actions comes from the tolerance we have shown to other ways of being in the world, other ways of considering the case. The alternative is force. Pragmatism was designed to make it harder for people to be driven to violence by their beliefs” (Metaphysical Club, pg 440)

 

It is important to note this pragmatist view depends upon compromise, the kind of compromise that makes it possible to act, even though one is acting upon a best guess rather than an eternal truth. 

 

In his recent essay “One Man’s Opinion,” (N.Y. Times OP-ED, June 30, 2003), Stanley Fish reflects upon Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent to the majority opinion upholding the affirmative action at the University of Michigan’s Law School.

 

Fish, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and author of The Trouble With Principle, is no stranger to Justice Thomas or to the subject of affirmative action.

 

Fish comments:

 

“If, as Justice Sandra Day O’Conner predicts, in 25 years the interests cited by the law school will be found to be insufficiently compelling to pass constitutional muster, then they cannot pass constitutional muster today, for ‘the Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months.’”

 

Fish continues:

 

“If it doesn’t, Justice Thomas would say, what happens to the idea of law?”

 

The real subject here isn’t the idea of law, it’s the idea of infallible law, handed down as holy writ. The United States is not a religious institution, and the law isn’t a sacred document, although it has approximated being one from time to time.

 

Here’s another point of confusion: the law alone is not “justice,” but rather serves as a guide toward justice. In matters of law, one size cannot fit all; the interpretation and tailoring is what judges and juries are for. To obey the letter of the law is to guarantee injustice in most specific situations. To obtain justice, it is necessary to act in a manner consistent with the spirit and intention of the law as revealed by usage (precedent) in similar situations or as established or interpreted by judge and jury. In the common law tradition, written law performs an important service as both a guide toward justice and a reminder of the backdrop of history against which to view the present specifics.

 

A legal system depending on interpretation of the law is vulnerable to abuse by rulers, powerful individuals and special interests. It is a matter of concern that a common law system can be abused by judges who would interpret so broadly, they would in effect be making new laws from the bench and thus usurping the authority of the legislature. However, abuse can be impeded by close reliance on the common law tradition and further mitigated by the judicial system supported by a system of appeals and review.

 

“Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex and soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and colour to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they supply them, or they totally destroy them.”

-Edmund Burke, 1796

 

(“First Letter on a Regicide Peace,” The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. IX, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991, p. 242)

 

Rear view of Vincent's grave, Dutchess County, NY, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Much of what started here in the Hudson Valley as our local heritage has, in the fullness of time, become our national heritage. Among other things, that heritage includes a three part legacy derived from English Common Law and observed by us since colonial times. This legacy has been described by England’s Lord Justice of Appeal, John Fletcher Moulton, First Baron of Bank in a speech delivered shortly before his death in 1921 and printed as “Law and Manners” in the July 1924 Atlantic Monthly magazine as consisting of three parts or “realms.”

 

The first realm consists of free choice, within which one has complete freedom to choose as one will, as in whom to marry, what religion to follow and the like.

 

The third realm consists of positive law. This is law you must obey, like stopping for a red light, and observing speed limits.

 

But between free choice and positive law there is the second realm that determines most of our conduct.  This consists of a large body of unenforceable law, sometimes called “manners” or “ethics.”

 

Unenforceable law consists of choices we make guided by our sense of the “right” thing to do.  “Obedience to the unenforceable” is vital to a healthy civic life.

 

When the Titanic sank, no one could possibly have enforced the unwritten rule that women and children should be saved first, yet most were guided by that custom.

 

On September 11th, nothing in positive law could have compelled those heroes to dash up the stairs of the World Trade Center and risk their own lives in an effort to save others. They acted in accord with their sense of what they believed to be “right.”

 

For the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or any other authority to obtain legitimacy, obedience to positive, written law alone is not enough.  It is absolutely necessary to respect the unenforceable manners and customs we call “ethics.”

 

Tempering the Letter of the Law to Obtain Justice in the Hudson River Valley

 

In order to obtain justice, the law must be interpreted in view of the specifics of the present situation. For example, pardons could be a valuable tool for justice, but they will probably continue to be abused until it is understood that pardons are not for the purpose of showing mercy.

 

“Pardons should be used not to temper justice with mercy, but to achieve justice when the judicial system has failed to do so.” ( Kathleen Dean Moore, author of “Pardons” 1989, Oxford University Press. Taken from  a N.Y. Times OP-ED article, “When Mercy Weakens Justice”)

 

On August 21, 2003, Kathy Boudin who served 22 years in prison for her part in the deaths of three men who were killed during a 1981 armored car heist in Nyack, New York, was granted parole. She was convicted of felony murder; in other words, if you are present at a killing, you are considered to be as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger.

 

Gary McGivern, who coedited the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater’s newsletter, “The Navigator,” was convicted on the same basis, with this important difference:

 

Kathy Boudin chose to put herself in company with people who might kill in a situation where they might be expected to kill. McGivern did not choose to be in the car when the police officer was killed, he was forced to be there.  He was being transported by the police with other prisoners. There were two officers and three prisoners. A prisoner took an officer’s gun. At the end of the shooting, one officer and two prisoners survived. The two prisoners said the shooting was done by the prisoner who died. The surviving officer accused McGivern of the murder of the officer. The only thing that could be proved was that McGivern and the surviving prisoner were present at the time of the murder and by law, were guilty of felony murder, just as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger. It was only necessary to prove they were present to convict them.

 

Much of what started here in the Hudson Valley as our local heritage has, in the fullness of time, become our national heritage.© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

It took prosecutor Michael Kavanagh three trials, but with the focus of Inspector Javert in Les Miserables, he finally got his felony murder conviction. Kavanaugh, now an Ulster County Supreme Court Judge, apparently sees no conflict between  following the letter of the law and obtaining justice. He says “they were as guilty as sin.” They were. Kavanaugh demonstrated well beyond any reasonable doubt they were guilty as sin of being present. So were all the people in Ford’s Theater when Lincoln was shot, any one of whom may have been complicit.

 

Kavanaugh appears to remain thoroughly convinced of the deed he could not prove, that the prisoners McGivern and Culhane both killed the sheriff’s deputy.  Here’s how Kavanaugh was quoted :

 

“His whole life was a waste. It was a life totally devoted to crime and whatever indulged him. He hurt a lot of people,” said Michael Kavanagh, the man who prosecuted McGivern and co-defendant Charles Culhane.

 

“He and Culhane were both very bright people. That was how they were able to attract the rich and famous to support them despite the fact they were guilty as sin,” said Kavanagh, now an Ulster County Supreme Court judge. “He fooled a lot of people. He didn’t fool me.”

(Paul Brooks in the Times-Herald Record, “Gary McGivern, murderer who got clemency, dies” Nov. 20, 2001)

 

After 21 years in prison McGivern was unprepared for life as a free person. He quickly ran afoul of the law and society and was imprisoned for violation of parole. Here’s how it was reported by Paul Brooks at the time of McGivern’s death at age 57 in prison:

 

“McGivern served 21 years in state prison in connection with the 1968 slaying of a Westchester County sheriff’s deputy. He, Culhane and another prisoner were being transported by the deputy along the state Thruway when one or more of the inmates tried to escape.

 

McGivern and Culhane blamed the third inmate, who was killed in the incident, for slaying the officer.

 

Both Culhane and McGivern were eventually found guilty of capital murder and placed on death row before their convictions were struck down on appeal. They were later convicted of felony murder.

 

McGivern was the beneficiary of a well-publicized clemency campaign in the mid-1980s that was boosted by support from such celebrities as singer Pete Seeger and conservative columnist William F. Buckley. Police supporters contended that McGivern and Culhane were as responsible for the deputy’s slaying as the dead prisoner.

 

Cuomo granted McGivern clemency in 1985, and McGivern won parole in 1989.”

 

The deaths of Sgt. Edward O’Grady and Officer Waverly Brown of the Nyack Police Department and Peter Paige, the Brink’s guard left 9 children fatherless. There can be little doubt Kathy Boudin, knowing that murder was a possibile outcome, chose to participate and to facilitate the activity that resulted in three deaths. During her incarceration, Kathy Boudin has been visited by her son, who was also a victim of her actions.

 

I had an uncle who lived in New Milford, Conn., a tall, powerfully built man. He worked on a train as a guard for Wells Fargo many, many years ago. When confronted by actual robbers, my uncle got a case of “buck fever” and was unable to pull the trigger. The holdup men told him to sit down and relax as they took all the money they could carry and fled. My uncle was charged as being an accomplice, but the judge hearing the case realized he was dealing with a big, dumb kid and let him go.

 

I tell this story for a reason. Country bumpkin that he was, my uncle knew he might be killed by holdup men from the day he took the job as a guard. Does it matter in any way that the people who were killed knew from the beginning that they might be killed and took the dangerous job nevertheless?

 

Kathleen Dean Moore reminds us in her book “Pardons” that the tradition of pardons has come down to us from medieval times. Then, a pardon was a gift from a king. It was the king’s law that had been violated and he had the right to forgive the offense if he wished. In modern times, a pardon is properly used to correct an injustice.

 

Until last year, it was still legal to execute the retarded in the United States. Prior to the change of that law, an executive have used the power of the pardon to bring justice to a retarded person under sentence of death. It’s an example of how pardons might be used to bring sense and humanity to bear on the human interactions, even when the law itself is the obstacle. 

 

 The United States Constitution was never intended to be a “stopped clock,” sure to be right only twice daily, but rather to be a living document, one that would always be subject to cautious, thoughtful interpretation and revision as needed. No one in the 18th century was foolish enough to imagine he was participating in the creation of an infallible document to serve as a center piece for a state religion. Interpretation and revision by amendment was anticipated and provided for.

 

“Neutral Principles”

 

Fish states:

“A proper assessment (of Justice Clarence Thomas’ arguments) might begin by challenging the assumption that neutral principles, abstracted from history, are capable all by themselves of deciding issues that arise only in historical circumstances.”

 

Neutral principles are open to challenge. As Fish points out in his book “The Trouble With Principle”, a “principle,” by its very definition is not neutral. It takes a stand. A principle cannot exist without favoring those who agree with the principle over those who don’t. Therefore, principles cannot be neutral. Consider “fairness” as a neutral principle. To exercise fairness as a neutral principle to both sides in an issue, one must act in such a way as to give neither side an advantage. But “being fair” implies there is something to “be fair” about. At some point a side must be taken. One may as well not act at all, if every action favoring one side must be balanced by a corresponding action favoring the other.  But principles are never neutral. They take sides by definition. Principles must favor principled action over any other action.

It’s easy to lose sight of the issue at stake.

 

The principle of “fairness” is sometimes taken to mean both sides of an issue are heard. In fact, it isn’t being “fair” simply because you’re following a procedure with rules any more than it’s “fair” that we stop for lunch at a scheduled time. 

 

Fish states:

 

“Although Justice O’Connor, like her colleagues, speaks, and is expected to speak, in the timeless language of principle, she is in fact alert, as her deference to the briefs from industry and the military shows, to the real-world consequences of what she decides.

 

 Justice Thomas is not the only one in search of timeless tools to deal with the untidiness of the situations time throws up. It is the law’s claim precisely to base itself in such tools. But I believe this search has failed, and therefore we will always be engaging in the ad hoc, pragmatic reasoning of which Justice Thomas accuses the majority.”

 

The concept of neutral principles enters the discussion in response to our need to discover something we know for certain to serve as a starting point; a foundation upon which to build an edifice of ethics/values. Neutral principles, if they existed, would exist as timeless truths, separate from any immediate situation and independent of history.

 

And yet it seems that almost any starting point must be arbitrary since so little can be known for certain. (Descartes’’ “I think, therefore I am.” comes to mind. Poor, mad Ophelia in distributing flowers, includes pansies: “And there is pansies, that’s for thoughts.”) Indeed, most of modern ethics could be described as “faith based,” starting from points grounded in thoughts of actions and outcomes for which we hope, or are willing to accept completely on faith. Our very lives are lived out in accord with a script of “useful fiction,” a story we tell ourselves about what will most probably happen if things work out to be at least an approximation of the events we anticipate. We cross the swift moving current of daily events stepping carefully from one certain fact to another and filling in the great void of the unknown between with “useful fiction” to smooth our way. Without that simple fiction filling in the void, life would be terrifying and overwhelming. Ordinary events like taking a trip in a car would require heroic effort.

But it would be a grave error to mistake the difference between a timeless truth and a useful fiction. 

 

“The Intent of the Law versus the Letter of the Law:

(To Mine or Not to Mine?)”

 

 

 Here’s a statement I delivered at a press conference held by the Fishkill Ridge Caretakers on March 26, 1999 at the Van Wyck Homestead Museum, in Fishkill, New York:

 

“The story of the proposal to mine Fishkill Ridge has been treated as a comic piece in which there are only three players, a property owner, the State of New York and the Department of Environmental Conservation.  We’re all supposed to laugh because the State of New York and the Department of Environmental Conservation are portrayed as fools who use the saving of a few endangered rattlesnakes as an excuse to deprive an honest citizen  of his right as a property owner to completely destroy the mountain he owns. It’s almost as if the rest of us don’t even exist. What this fiction overlooks is the public interest and the common good. We, the public , are completely ignored.

 

The Revolutionary War heroes whose sacrifice hallowed not only the Fishkill Ridge, but this very ground upon which we now stand, fought for the common good, a concept which has become a part of the fabric of American society. The fact is that part of the Fishkill Ridge is Montfort property and by and large the law presently supports his (Mr. Montfort’s) right to dispose of that property as he sees fit. But laws change. Who has the right to own a mountain ?

 

There was a time, right here in Fishkill, when a person could own another human being. Those slaves were his property. He had the right to dispose of them any way he wished and it was all supported by law. But laws change.”

 

Developers work to find loopholes in the law to make it possible to exploit the public commons for personal gain. The public organizes to prevent that exploitation and use the same process of finding technical errors in their favor. Meanwhile, the intent of the law protecting the environment and the public interest is trampled into foolishness, simply because no one has authority to interpret and defend the law’s clear intent.

 

All my friends thank you!My entire family thanks you!

 

But most of all, I thank you!

© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

Trevlig Midsommar!

Looking Across the Hudson on Midsummer's Eve

 

 

Happy Midsummer!

 

A traditional may pole in Dalarna, Sweden, 1987, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

(Midsummer begins Sundown, Saturday, June 20^th, and lasts to Sundown Sunday, June 21^st, 2009)

 

Midsummer Eve

 

From the moment of the June solstice, nights in the Northern Hemisphere become gradually longer, while days become correspondingly shorter. Gradually, the axis of the earth points further and further away from the sun, and things resume their more accustomed appearance. The December solstice, when the earth’s axis is tilted so the North Pole points most directly away from the sun, marks the end of fall and the beginning of winter. In the Northern Hemisphere days begin to lengthen again.

 

Midsummer 1984, Scandinavian Choir

The night before the June Solstice is marked by many in the Northern Hemisphere as Midsummer Eve or Midsummer Night, the shortest night of the year. This is followed by Midsummer Day, the year’s longest day.

 

This Maypole is on the West Coast of Sweden. Photo 1988, Sweden, Bohuslan, photo© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Traditionally, revels are held at this time in celebration of the ending of spring and the beginning of summer. It is thought to be a time especially associated with changes and new beginnings.

 

This poster celebrated the 4ooth anniversary of Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream!

Shakespeare’s play “A Midsummer Nights Dream” is filled with traditions of magic and fairy lore associated with the time. The play is thought to have had its first performance at a wedding held on Midsummer Day, 1596.

 

Mary Tengstrom and "Bottom" translated into an ass. (Mache ass head by AHS.) © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

"Bottom" as an ass frightens his fellow players. Shadow puppets and screen by AHS. © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Four hundred years later to the day, Folkevirke Appleseed, a learning community, held an anniversary performance of that play in the old Dutch Barn at Mount Gulian, New York. Mount Gulian, now a museum, was the ancestral home of Gulian Verplanck, the first American scholar to be recognized for his definitive commentaries on Shakespeare’s works. The Acting company was “Witches’ Brew,” a company organized and directed by Ruthy Rosen. She worked from my scripted, shortened version called “ A Masque Version of Shakespeare’s Midsommar Nights Dreame.”

 

Jill and the shadow puppets, 1996 © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

I realized we didn’t have enough men available to play all the necessary male parts. I also realized we could make up the difference by creating a very large shadow puppet screen to be used in the section when the tradesmen go to the woods to rehearse their play. I rewrote the scene to be played almost entirely by shadow puppets. Once “Bottom,” has been completely transformed into an ass, he frightens off his fellows and is left alone. He starts to wander in search of his companions and emerges out in front of the screen and in full view of the audience! It’s a great moment, much magnified by the happy anniversary.

 

Flora Jones, long time Folkevirke Appleseed member celebrates Midsummer at Boughton Place in Highland, NY. © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009Anthony Henry Smith, c. 1989

It was once the custom of our ancestors to mark each day’s end exactly at sunset, and this is the reason Midsummer’s Eve is the period of darkness that precedes Midsummer Day, just as Christmas Eve is the period of darkness associated with Christmas Day.

 

AHS Mariann Elizabeth Grey Smith, c. 1989© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Some Christians associate Midsummer’s Eve and Midsummer Day with the birth of Saint John the Baptist, much as the December Solstice is associated with the birth of Jesus Christ. In Scandinavian countries, many of the songs traditionally sung while circling the flower laden Maypole at midsummer are exactly the same songs used  in December while circling the Christmas Tree.

 

Midsummer Maypole celebration at Van Wyck Homestead in Fishkill, New York, © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

These slab roofed chambers are oriented to mark solar events. When the sun is correctly aligned, a shaft of light reached the back wall of the chamber. They may be very ancient. This one's in Putnam County.

(The Swedish name for the flower laden pole at the center of the midsummer festivities is “majstång,” a word translated as “Maypole,” even though it’s widely used at midsummer in June. However, the Roman goddess “Maia,” for whom the fifth month is named, seems to have been associated with the spring. The phrase “to go a-Maying.” seems to have meant “to go to gather flowers”)

 

Debora A. Carlson, Bridge Street Midsummer© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Since ancient times Midsummer’s Eve and Midsummer Day have been noted and celebrated as a time of contrasts, of magic, and of change.

 

Billy Goats Gruff, Midsummer, puppets and screen by AHS© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Candace Coates at Midsummer, 2004

It was Midsummer Day in 1687 at Falun in central Sweden when the copper mine called Stora Kopparberget, (“The Great Copper Mountain”) caved in almost completely, leaving only a very huge pit. The mine had been in nearly continuous operation, both day and night, since somewhere between 850-1080, and by 1687 consisted of many tunnels separated and supported by thin walls. 

 

L-R Norma Charmaz, Bernice Silver, Max Charmaz, Henry Blid, Art, Devon Seekamp© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Amazingly, no one was hurt.  The mine was completely empty at the time, but only because all the workers were safe above ground, celebrating Midsummer. Any other day, possibly excepting Christmas and Easter, as many as a thousand workers might have been expected to be at work in the mine. There would have been no possibility of escape. Those who experienced the event from their positions of safety considered it to be nothing less than a miracle.

 

The collapse even exposed new veins of copper to be mined. The Great Pit continues to be a major tourist attraction. In fact, the word “turist,” the Swedish word for “tourist,” was first used at Falun in 1824. “The Great Copper Mountain,” possibly the world’s oldest corporation, continues to exist as “Stora Enso.” It is now famous as the world’s largest paper marketer. It always did take trees to shore up the mine and to make charcoal to process the copper, so the corporation has been in forestry at least as long as it had been in mining.

 

Midsummer, 1988, Bohus Fortress on the Goeta Alv © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

 

Goeta Alv

By Anthony Henry Smith

 

( Goeta River; An “alv” is a slow moving river.)

 

Goeta alv, keep on rollin’ on, mighty river to the sae;

Bright mirror of the dawn, gliding gently, free.

 

Bohus, darped in violet sky; flushed by golden rays of sun;

Mid-summer’s drawin’ nigh; deep the waters run.

 

Night comes and the shadows fall,

The river flows beneath the wall

Out to a place beyond recall

And it keeps on flowing.

 

My people, ever moving on; mighty river to the sea;

Though I may seem far away, all are joined to me.

 

                                      -   ©Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

This song was written a few days after midsummer while seated high on a cliff overlooking the Bohus Fortress at Kungalv, Sweden. My days were spent in classes with the Nordic Academy at the folk high school, but the short midsummer nights and long twilights were spent high above the Goeta river, watching its progress past the ancient stone fortress, and thinking of the many sons and daughters of Bohuslan who followed that river to the sea and beyond; following the highway of the sea to America and other destinations far distant from the mists and spray and mystery of this coast.

 

 THE NECK

This is Sivert Ackerstrom’s carving of a water spirit. Early versions of this musical monster show him playing a harp. Violins followed the horse cultures and later representations of the Neck show him as he’s represented here, with a violin. He is thought to take the shape of a horse from time to time. Many musicians are thought to have acquired their skill from him. The water monster Grendal who was killed by the hero Beowulf is thought to be his relative. The poem Beowulf is set in Bohuslan on the Swedish West Coast.

The Neck, by Sivert Ackerstrom, playing beside a waterfall.© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Carl-Erik Forsslund's farm on the lake. ©Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

STREW WITH FLOWERS

Words and Music by Carl-Erik Forsslund

English version by Anthony Henry Smith

 

Now all the world’s bedecked with flowers; one rainbow kingdom fair;

The sun looks o’er his wealth below; there’s not a corner bare.

Now grasses sprout; green fields burst out; the scent of lilac is all about; And lillies everywhere.

 

The South wind blows the dandelion down; the grasses gently sway;

Each tuft of down spins round and round; And sails upon its way.

This lovely show falls like blooming snow; Upon the gardens down below; To bloom another day.

 

Apple blossoms white flakes fall; Around the tree trunks grey;

They dance on toe, small dancers all; And lightly float away.

This sun-warmed snow is so fragrant, Oh! With velvet-smooth soft steps we go; white petals pave our way.

 

We go in sunlight’s brilliant glance; we move through fragrance fine;

We go in song, we go in dance, we go in joy sublime.

So let us ring the earth scattering Those apple blossoms and seeds that bring Life’s blessing to our time.

 

Our gentle South wind sings a song of passions colored bright;

Our warm sun knows it won’t be long before the cool of night.

Our warmth o’er flows; life no limit knows; Age and death are but helpless foes Before a flower’s might.

 

So seek not after name so fine and be no slave to power

And open wide your heart and mind And pick both leaves and flowers.

Old, old are those who with hearts kept closed; on wind and wave let your blossoms go; Your own midsummer shower.

Commentary:

One hundred and ten years ago, Carl-Erik Forsslund and a few friends founded the Brunnsvik Folk High School during the Mid-summer celebration. This song has been closely associated with both Midsummer and the Brunnsvik Folkhogskola ever since.

Its message is simple: Live a life in harmony with nature; get the most you can from the experience; don’t hide your light under a bushel; open your heart; and “On wind and wave let your blossoms go!” Good advice for anyone.

Happy Midsummer!

Aftonstjärna, 30 Adriance Avenue,
Poughkeepsie, New York, 12601

 © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Poster for A Masque Version of Shakespeare's MSND by Anthony Henry Smith © Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

“Tick! Drum!”

 

by Anthony Henry Smith

 

A Hudson River Valley Fairytale

Composed in Celebration of the Marriage of

Candace Droguett and Jakob Abrahamsson

At St. Erik’s Cathedral, Folkkungagatan, Stockholm,

June 15^th 2007

 

 

Tick! Drum!

Here they come!

Fairies join the Wedding now.

Fire-flies

Light the skies!

Daisies dip and bow!

 

Listen to the drumming of the fairy troops a’ coming

And they’re merrier than most are as they’re coming ever closer, and it’s

 

Boom! Crash!

The cymbals flash!

The Bass Drum and the Tambourine!

Bells sound!

Joy Abounds!

Laughter reigns supreme!

 

Come and see the swirling of the silken skirts all twirling, and they’re

Green and Gold and Purple as they spin around the circle, and it’s

 

Boom! Crash!

A lightning flash!

Tinkling Fairy Finger Cymbals!

Night sounds!

Life abounds!

Gently may you dream!

 

May you find the liquid pearl of dewdrops in the field below;

Be enriched by burnished gold of sun above a winter’s snow

May you dream the laughter of a waterfall; a floating leaf;

May you dream the mystery of forests on Midsummer’s Eve!

 

Tick! Drum!

Starlight must

Fall to Earth as Fairy Dust!

 

Tick! Drum!

Moonbeams fall!

Fairy blessings on you all!

 

Tick! Drum!

Ting-a-ling-a

 

Tick. Drum.

Ting-a-ling-a

 

Tick. Drum.

Ting-a-ting-a

Ching!

 

 

© Anthony Henry Smith, 2009

Aftonstjärna, 30 Adriance Avenue

Poughkeepsie, New York

Tick! Drum! Starlight must Fall to Earth as Fairy Dust!

 

 

 

Here's Helyn at Sandy Hook. The arm around her belongs to Bruce Springsteen.Helyn Chrobocinski

In Memorium:

Helyn Chrobocinski 1943 – 2007

by Anthony Henry Smith

 Since 1987 the collection of activist art at the Brunnsvik Folk High School, (located in Ludvika, Sweden) has included a beautiful batik picture of the Clearwater.

The batik was created by Helyn Chrobocinski especially as a backdrop for the performances of Walkabout Clearwater. It serves as a reminder of the Midsummer of 1987 when 14 Walkabout Clearwater participants represented Clearwater at the 75th anniversary of that school’s founding.

Brunnsviks Folkhögskola, or “Folk High School,” is located on the shore of scenic Lake Vasman. The school specializes in nontraditional, lifelong learning. In many ways it resembles our community college systems.

Helyn’s batik can be seen behind performers in the photo that appeared in the local newspaper, the “Ludvika Tidning.” It was reproduced on page 9 of the SEPT/OCT 1987 “Navigator.” Helyn is pictured on page 7 in the group photo in that same issue. This is one of the few times in her life Helyn was ever seen on the far right of anything.

Our Clearwater group had been invited by Henry Blid, an instructor at the school. He hoped we would participate in the anniversary and also assist him in developing a special text he was creating to use the English language to describe the Swedish Study Circle.

For many days both before and after Midsummer, we met daily in a classroom. We quickly became Henry’s very willing pupils. But not every day. Some days were spent on special tours provided by our Brunnsvik hosts. We ate strawberries at the top of Troll Mountain and traveled to the depths of the ancient copper mines at Falun, with any happy diversions between the two.

In 1989, Henry published “Education By The People – Study Circles.” More importantly, Henry had taken the concept one step further. As part of his explanation of study circles, he had explicated the democratic process as being a principled process by which we obtain and utilize knowledge. It’s an important work, and Helyn was among the 14 Americans who contributed to its creation.

On the night of June 14th, 1987 Helyn was in very large cabin on the shore of Lake Vasman together with me and Meg Smith, Lynne Knudsen, Max and Norma Charmaz, Moshe Rothenberg, and Bernice Silver. We were rehearsing the songs we would use for a performance on June 20th, Midsummer’s Eve. At home, we often sang “What y’ gonna do with a Drunken Sailor?” but now we hesitated. Everyone in our audience under the age of 30 would have had English in school and would absolutely know what we were singing. We knew the founders of the school had strong ties to the Temperance Movement. Perhaps a song about a drunken sailor might offend some of the audience. But then again, perhaps we would sing it anyway! There is such a thing as being too sensitive. After all, it was a good song, very easy to sing, and we enjoyed doing it. We were almost evenly divided.

Helyn had an idea that satisfied everyone. We could keep the tune. All we had to do was to write some new verses. And we could easily see she was correct, because on very short order we had a “new” song! I no longer recall who contributed what, but it was all in good fun and really didn’t matter, especially at the time. Here are some of the words:

“What will we do with a dir-ty riv-er, (3x) ear-lye in the morn-ing?

“Light it with a match and set it blazing,” (3x)

“Pave it over for a super highway,” (3x)

“Pull out the drain plug, start all over,” (3x)

“Clean it so it’s fit for swimming,” (3x)

“Clean it so it’s fit for drinking,” (3x)

“Clean it so it’s fit for living,” (3x)

As far as I know, this song was never performed anywhere else ever again, but we didn’t make it for that purpose. We had hoped to get at least some of the people in our audience singing along with the song leader (some did) and to make the rest as happy to hear us as we were to be there.

We knew the audience would include little Swedish children who hadn’t yet learned English. Bernice Silver made wonderful puppets from papers and rags especially to communicate with them. It was all done against the combined backdrops of Helyn’s batik and her beautiful voice, now leading, now supporting; doing what Helyn did best throughout her life, harmonizing with others.

In countless unseen ways Helyn continues as a presence and an inspiration within the Clearwater community! She leaves a legacy to treasure.

(In addition to Helyn Chrobocinski, the Walkabout Clearwater Group in Sweden, 1987, included: Max Charmaz, Norma Charmaz, Marguerite Culp, Shirley Keller, Lynne Knudsen, Moshe Rothenberg, John Seekamp, Gert Seekanp, Devon Seekamp, Bernice Silver, Anthony Henry Smith, Meg Smith, and Art Weslowski.)