Morning Fun (and civic duty to resist)

The Coffee Shop Encounter by Jess Piper

A small town libertarian Read on Substack

I saw the email come in and I wondered why I wasn’t blocked from their list.

It was addressed to me from Americans for Prosperity, a group founded and funded by the Koch brothers. Kansas billionaires who changed the American political landscape with their wealth. Kansas brothers who have made this country worse.

There is only one Koch brother still living, Charles, and he continues with the mission of breaking the government. He is anti-union. Anti-public education. Anti-social safety nets. Anti-climate justice.

He is a committed libertarian.

Since the 1980s, the Koch brothers have steadily ramped up their political involvement and have constructed a vast network of organizations that pool hundreds of millions of dollars from their own pockets and other wealthy donors each year in support of the conservative idea generation, leadership training, election campaigning, and policy advocacy. Yet for all the groups the Kochs have created and funded, there is just one group that sits at the center of their network: Americans for Prosperity.

The email I received included an invitation to a local coffee shop about 25 minutes from home. Americans for Prosperity (AFP) was in town looking to connect with like-minded people who value freedom and community.

Free people. Free Missouri. Free coffee.

I decided I would go because if I love anything, it’s freedom. I can afford to buy my own coffee.

You probably already know this, but I don’t mind stirring the pot. I like to cause good trouble when I can. I like to be a burr under the saddle of those in power — a constant annoyance. I like to take up space and get in the way. I do this by giving no quarter and no space to the bourgeoisie who plan to plunder the resources of communities like mine.

I show up.

I knew I wasn’t the first to the meeting at the coffee shop that morning because I saw a car with a dented and battered Missouri license plate — a plate with a Gadsden flag. I knew a libertarian must be in close proximity. I was right.

I saw him sitting in the comfortable leather seat at the front of the coffee shop. I knew he was with Americans for Prosperity because it said so on his green hoodie. The color of money.

I smiled at him as I walked to the back to order my coffee. He smiled back…he looked familiar. He said, “Hi, Jess.”

Ope.

I was caught red-handed. Not that I was trying to attend the meeting incognito, but I didn’t plan on one of the Directors of the Americans for Prosperity calling me by name. My infamy precedes me…actually it’s my big mouth and my propensity for calling out Missouri Republicans. So be it.

I kept walking to the counter in the back.

I never know what to order at a coffee shop and I get a little anxious with a big menu. I drink most of my coffee at home because I am plain like that…steaming hot coffee from my old Bunn, poured into my old Lake Superior mug. I don’t take sugar, but I do mix in a couple of teaspoons of Walmart powdered creamer. Yes, I know.

Poor folks have poor ways.

I decided on a chai at the counter — the barista said she could make it a dirty chai. Who doesn’t like tea with espresso?

I returned to the front of the building to wait for the meeting to start. The AFP Director was on his phone. I noticed another local Democrat walk in. We chatted for a minute and my Democratic friend sat down next to me. We kept looking for folks to come in. They never appeared.

Not one person came to the meeting except the AFP Director and two Nodaway County Democrats.

I asked the AFP Director if I could pepper him with a few questions since there would not be a meeting. He kindly obliged.

He told me his name and I then realized why he looked familiar. He is familiar. He is from a town just west of mine. We know the same people.

He is a small town libertarian.

AFP is a libertarian organization that actually funds the GOP agenda in Missouri. They consistently endorse GOP candidates in races across the state. They also fund some of the most extreme Republicans running for office. Many of the candidates they endorse believe in abortion bans. They believe in book bans. They are anti-union and pro-privatization of institutions like public schools.

That is where I started.

Why do you want to defund public schools? He told me that defunding was not the goal, but that every parent should have a “choice” about where their kid attends school and that a voucher is useful for funding that choice.

I asked him where that choice was in Nodaway County. He didn’t have an answer, but I do. There is no choice. There is a K-8 private Catholic school in Maryville. It does not offer a high school or a non-religious curriculum. They also don’t offer Special Education classes.

There is no school choice in Nodaway County and the libertarian goal of school vouchers would be a death sentence to several rural schools in our county. Rural schools that support all kids, including those with a disability.

The small town libertarian listened politely as I spoke and I listened politely as he spoke. I pointed to a particular habit of speech he consistently used when speaking of public schools: He called them “government schools.” I asked him why he doesn’t refer to private schools who receive taxpayer money as “government schools” and his answer shocked me…

He said private schools receiving taxpayer money are not “government schools” because they don’t follow state standards for schools.

Oh my god.

They don’t have to answer to anybody. They don’t have to take standardized tests and they don’t have to produce results. If they are good, parents will flock. If they are bad, parents will find another school. It’s the market, stupid.

I had to think about closing my mouth. My jaw hung open in horror.

Market solutions do not work in education. Kids aren’t coffee. Or blueberries.

If they attend a bad school that closes, they just lost a year of education. It isn’t a minor flaw in the school choice design. It’s part of the scam. Make money with choice schools…find a community and open a fly-by-night school in an old Pizza Hut or in a church basement. Accept the taxpayer dollars, produce no results, close the school, and then run out of town with the money.

This wasn’t the only topic of our conversation. The small town libertarian relied heavily on philosophers to make his points. He asked me often if I had read this philosopher or that one and I noticed that we actually agreed on several topics.

I was at the coffee shop for nearly an hour. On my way home, the scene played out in my head. I am an overthinker. I came to a very quick conclusion about the reason the libertarian and I had disagreements — libertarians have no plan for poverty. Or disability. Or women. Or any community that is oppressed or marginalized.

The ideal libertarian comes across as selfish. And privileged. They would likely deny both.

I know the only way out of our current political position is to be in our communities. To physically meet folks — to look them in the eye and talk about our shared and common needs.

But, it’s not easy when I know I can’t change their minds — at least not in just one encounter. Maybe I can make them think, though? Maybe I can put a thought or two in their head? Maybe I can also learn not to be so rigid in my own ideas?

The first rule is “do not obey in advance” and in my mind, it looks like showing up and pushing back.

I don’t know that I changed anything with my meeting with the small town libertarian, but I know it didn’t hurt.

This feels like progress.

~Jess

Lunchtime Reading

The links are priceless to read on their own, but there is fine info when we click.

Lastday Lounge Losers Licking Lips …

Science on Saturday

“Whale-ship collision hotspots: 93% have no protection measures”

November 22, 2024 Evrim Yazgin

A global survey has found that shipping traffic overlaps with almost the entire range of all whale species but only 7% of the areas with the highest risk of whale-ship collisions have protection measures in place for the whales.

“Whale-ship collisions have typically only been studied at a local or regional level … and patterns of risk remain unknown for large areas,” says lead author Anna Nisi, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Washington in the US. “Our study is an attempt to fill those knowledge gaps and understand the risk of ship strikes on a global level.”

Three maps showing whale and shipping overlap — Credit: Nisi AC et al. Science. Nov. 22, 2024 print edition. DOI: 10.1126/science.adp1950

The research, published in Science, focused on 4 species: blue, fin, humpback and sperm whales.

It found that the highest risk areas lay along the coasts of the Americas, southern Africa and parts of Asia.

The team found mandatory measures to reduce whale-ship collisions were very rare. These overlapped with just 0.54% of blue whale hotspots and 0.27% of humpback hotspots. Such measures had no overlap with any fin or sperm whale hotspots.

The findings are “timely” and “not surprising”, according to Vanessa Pirotta, a researcher at Sydney’s Macquarie University who was not involved in the study. (snip-MORE)

Peace & Justice History for 11/23

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorynovember.htm#november23

Peace & Justice History for 11/21:

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorynovember.htm#november21

Peace & Justice History for 11/20:

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorynovember.htm#november20

Peace & Justice History for 11/19:

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorynovember.htm#november19

Letters From An American for 11/17:

This is pretty cool to read!

November 17, 2024 by Heather Cox Richardson Read on Substack

Tonight is a break from the craziness of the news.

I often say that 1883 is my favorite year in history because of all that happened in that pivotal year, and one of those things is the way modernity swept across the United States of America in a way that was shocking at the time but that is now so much a part of our world we rarely even think of it….

Until November 18, 1883, railroads across the United States operated under 53 different time schedules, differentiated on railroad maps by a complicated system of colors. For travelers, time shifts meant constant confusion and, frequently, missed trains. And then, at noon on Sunday, November 18, 1883, railroads across the North American continent shifted their schedules to conform to a new standard time. Under the new system, North America would have just five time zones.

Fifteen minutes before the time of the shift, the telegraph company Western Union shut down all telegraph lines for anything but the declaration of the new time. It identified the moment the new time went into effect in telegraph messages to local railroad offices and to the jewelers known in cities for keeping time. In offices that got the message, men had their timepieces in their hands and ready to reset when the chief operator shouted “twelve o’clock!”

In Boston the change meant that the clocks would move forward about 16 minutes; in New York City, clocks were set back about four minutes. For Baltimore the time would move forward six minutes and twenty-eight seconds; in Atlanta it went back 22 minutes.

The system was a dramatic wrench for the rural United States, bringing it into the modern world. Uniform time zones had been proposed by pioneering meteorologist Cleveland Abbe, who developed the U.S. system of weather forecasting. Having joined the United States Weather Bureau as chief meteorologist in 1871, he recognized that predicting the weather required a nationally coordinated team and worked with Western Union to collect information about temperature, wind direction, precipitation, and sunset times from across the country.

Coordinating that information required keeping time across all the stations he had set up. To do so, Abbe divided the United States into four time zones, each one hour apart, and in 1879 he suggested those zones might smooth out the chaos of the railroad systems, each trying to coordinate schedules across a patchwork of local times. Railroad executives, who were concerned that if they didn’t do something, the government would, listened to Abbe, and by 1883 they had concluded to put his new system in place.

Members of the new professional class who traveled by train from city to city were on board because they thought the need to regularize train schedules was imperative. But standard time was controversial. In the United States, people had operated entirely by the rhythms of the sun until the establishment of factories in New England in the 1830s, and most people still lived by those rhythms, their local time adjusting to solar time according to their geographical location.

Telling the time by sundial and history not only was custom, but also was understood as following God’s time. The idea of overriding traditional timekeeping because of the needs of the modern world seemed positively sacrilegious. “People…must eat, sleep and work…by railroad time,” wrote a contributor to the Indianapolis Daily Sentinel. “People will have to marry by railroad time…. Ministers will be required to preach by railroad time…. Banks will open and close by railroad time; notes will be paid or protested by railroad time.”

The mayor of Bangor, Maine, vetoed an ordinance in favor of standard time, saying it was unconstitutional, that it changed the immutable law of God, that the people didn’t want it, and that it was hard on the working men because it changed day into night. Those planning for a switch to standard time tried to ease fears by providing that Americans would operate on both local time and standard time, with both times represented on clocks.

On November 18, no one quite knew what the dramatic wrench into the future might mean.

What did it mean to gain or lose time? Many people expected “a sensation, a stoppage of business, and some sort of a disaster, the nature of which could not be exactly ascertained,” a New York Times reporter recorded. As the great moment approached, people crowded the streets in front of jewelers to see the “great transformation.”

They were disappointed when, after all the buildup, the future arrived quietly.

The New York Times explained: “When the reader of THE TIMES consults his paper at 8 o’clock this morning at his breakfast table it will be 9 o’clock in St. John, New Brunswick, 7 o’clock in Chicago, or rather in St. Louis—for Chicago authorities have refused to adopt the standard time, perhaps because the Chicago meridian was not selected as the one on which all time must be based—6 o’clock in Denver, Col. and 5 o’clock in San Francisco. That is the whole story in a nut-shell.”

—

Notes:

Chicago Daily Tribune, “At Noon today Most of the Railroads Will Discard the Old and Adopt the New,” November 18, 1883, p. 12.

Boston Daily Globe, “Modern Joshuas: They Make Clocks, If Not the Sun, Stand Still,” November 19, 1883, p. 5.

Boston Daily Globe, “At the Railroad Stations, At the Churches,” November 19, 1883, p. 5.

Washington Post, “New Time in Other Cities,” November 18, 1883, p. 1.

Chicago Daily Tribune, “Standard Time,” November 19, 1883, p. 1.

Indianapolis Daily Sentinel, November 21, 1883, p. 4, Quoted in Ian R. Bartky, Selling the True Time: Nineteenth-Century Timekeeping in America (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 144.

New York Times, “Time’s Backward Flight,” November 18, 1883, p. 3. https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5748

Robert E. Riegel, “Standard Time in the United States,” American Historical Review 33 (October 1927): 84–89.

CBPP Statement: November 14, 2024 – For Immediate Release

Republican Economic Proposals Would Harm the People Trump Promised to Help

Statement of Sharon Parrott, CBPP President, on key priorities for the 2025 policy agenda

While the new President and new Congress will not take office until early next year, they have already put forward an agenda — through Project 2025, Republican budget plans, and campaign proposals — that would increase poverty and diminish opportunity. Their proposals would raise costs for basics like housing, food, and health care and take health coverage away from people; slash funding for schools where our children learn, roads and bridges we use to get to work, and scientific and medical research that improve our health and strengthen our economy; double down on tax giveaways for wealthy households and corporations while imposing tariffs that fuel inflation; and further widen already glaring differences in people’s well-being and opportunity across income, race, and ethnicity.

These policymakers campaigned on promises to make the economy work better for people without big bank accounts who are trying to get ahead. But their proposals to date seldom match those promises.

Instead, a policy agenda designed to advance economic opportunity and racial justice and help families make ends meet would:

Make it easier for people to afford housing, food, health care, and prescription drugs.
Support children and families with an expanded Child Tax Credit, especially for children who don’t get the full credit today because their families’ incomes are too low; more affordable child care; and investment in our schools so that all of our nation’s children get what they need to thrive.
Invest in the things that will keep the economy strong and growing, including basic building blocks like roads, bridges, and research, as well as protections that keep our communities’ food, air, water, and workplaces safe.
Support these investments with a fairer federal tax system that requires wealthy households and corporations to pay their fair share and strengthens our fiscal outlook.
Create an immigration system that recognizes the critical role that immigrants and their families play in our communities and the economy, eschewing harsh deportation regimes that separate families and embracing reforms that provide people with a workable opportunity to gain legal status and a pathway to citizenship.

This kind of policy agenda would build toward a nation where everyone — regardless of their income or their background — can get the health care they need, afford to put groceries on the table, live in safe homes and strong communities, and have the income, education, and child and home care they need throughout their lives. And it would reflect the truth that our nation succeeds only when all of us succeed.

We are eager to work with policymakers who put forward policies that advance this agenda and we — together with our partners — will work hard against policies that make people less economically secure, less healthy, and have less access to opportunity.

Could “Rosie the Riveter” Be Chinese American?

Despite having their citizenship withheld before the war, Chinese American women in the Bay Area made significant contributions to the wartime labor force.

Could “Rosie the Riveter” Be Chinese American?

By: H.M.A. Leow

Amid the social upheaval of World War II, women entered the American workforce on an unprecedented level. And, for younger Chinese American women in the San Francisco Bay Area, the war made it possible to smash not just entrenched gender barriers, but racial ones as well.

“To a large extent, the war provided an entry for Chinese American women into the larger American society, something for which their ancestors had struggled a hundred years,” writes historian Zhao Xiaojian, who argues that second-generation Chinese American women “grasped the wartime opportunity to enter the larger American society” by joining the Bay Area’s defense industry.

“Partly because of a scarcity of English-language sources on this topic, some scholars simply have assumed that Chinese American women did not share the experience of ‘Rosie the Riveter,’” she reports. But she uses newspapers, company records, and oral histories to push back on this view.

Many Chinese American women already worked out of economic necessity. Yet racial discrimination and social isolation typically restricted them to jobs in Chinatown enclaves.

“It was difficult for many Chinese American women to go outside their communities to work, even when they wanted to,” Zhao explains. “The decades-long isolation had also limited the ability of immigrant Chinese working women to communicate with the outside world.”

During the war, women were also encouraged to adopt domestic roles—preparing “nutritional food” for their families and “show[ing] our fighting men that we are… absolutely behind them.”

But World War II still marked a major turning point—especially for younger, unmarried daughters of Chinese immigrants. Many of these women had either a high school or college-level education.

“With relatively few household responsibilities, in contrast to their mothers, they had the freedom and independence to work outside the home,” Zhao writes. “Since most of them were already living in the Bay Area before the war, these younger Chinese American women were among the first American women to join the Bay Area’s defense labor force.”

In fact, Zhao’s research turned up only four women who were older than forty during their wartime jobs. Still, those wives and mothers capably juggled their duties at home and on the home front. (snip-More; it’s a worthy click!)