Sunday, November 30, 2008

Obama’s Victory: A Socialist Perspective

[2 articles + lots of links]

Great expectations

http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/19/great-expectations

Barack Obama's election isn't the end of the process, but the start
of the possibility of bringing about real change.

November 19, 2008 | Issue 685

FOUR YEARS ago, a shroud of despair and fear descended after George
W. Bush's re-election.

Bush's victory--legitimate this time, as opposed to the stolen
election of 2000--was seen by many as a popular endorsement of his
administration's right-wing agenda at home and abroad, and
confirmation that the U.S. had become "red-state America," with
Republicans looking forward to a "permanent majority" in government.

Four years later, the mood could not be more different.

Obviously, reason number one is that the other side won. Barack Obama
beat John McCain by twice the margin that Bush managed over John
Kerry in 2004, and the Democrats added to their majorities in both
houses of Congress.

But it's how Obama and the Democrats won that has greater meaning now.

A country founded on slavery and maintained through systematic racism
elected its first African American president. Even McCain and the
Republicans were forced to recognize the historic meaning of the
victory of a man they reviled for "palling around with terrorists."

In this sense, the celebration of Obama's win isn't just of one side
beating the other, but of history being made. A generation ago--maybe
even a few years ago--it would have been impossible to imagine an
African American winning the presidency. Two generations ago, Blacks
across the U.S. South couldn't vote for president, much less hope to
become one.

But on November 4, that accepted truism of American politics was
upended, along with any number of others. Case in point: the idea
flogged in the media throughout Election 2008 that working class
whites wouldn't vote for a Black candidate. Instead, Obama won a
higher percentage of the white vote than any Democratic candidate
since the 1970s.

"Almost every assumption about America that was taken as a given by
our political culture on Tuesday morning was proved wrong by Tuesday
night," wrote New York Times columnist Frank Rich.

This larger political shift away from an era of conservative
dominance was as much a part of the Election Night celebrations as
Obama himself. "The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had
once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place--in cities all over
America," Rich wrote.

The hopeful enthusiasm has continued into the transition period
before Obama takes office. As USA Today summarized the results of its poll:

Expectations for Obama are high across the board. Eight in 10 said he
will improve conditions for minorities and the poor, and 76 percent
said he'll increase respect for the United States abroad.

About seven in 10 said he'll be able to improve education and the
environment. More than 60 percent said he will reduce unemployment,
bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, improve the health care system,
create a strong economic recovery and keep the U.S. safe from terrorism.

More than half said he will be able to bring troops home from
Afghanistan, reduce U.S. oil dependence, heal political divisions and
control federal spending.

Some of these conclusions are far ahead of what Obama has actually
said--he is, for example, on the record as favoring an increase of
U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

This is a critical development for anyone who hopes to see the
promise of change raised during the campaign become a reality. The
most important starting point of any struggle is the belief that
something different is possible--and that it matters what we do to
bring that about.

There's no better example of the new mood than the reaction to one of
the only bitter notes from the election--the passage of Proposition 8
in California, which strips same-sex couples of the right to marry
that they won earlier this year through a California Supreme Court decision.

Angry supporters of equal marriage rights--central among them, many
of the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who married after court
ruling--took to the streets starting the night after the election and
continuing every day for the rest of the week. On November 15, a call
for a national day of action on a newly created Web site led to
demonstrations in 300 cities across California and spreading around the U.S.

The contrast with 2004 couldn't be starker. Then, the right wing was
able to push through ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage in nine
states, as the leading edge of their agenda of social conservatism.
The gay marriage movement went into retreat, accepting the
conventional wisdom that by being too radical, it had given the right
wing an advantage to exploit.

This time, however, supporters of marriage equality are on the
offensive. One constantly repeated slogan on the demonstrations is
"Yes, we can"--a reference to the Obama campaign's message of hope,
an echo of the "Sí se puede" chants from the May Day mega-marches for
immigrant rights, and a symbol of the sentiment among supporters of
same-sex marriage rights that they will overcome this defeat because
they're on the right side of history.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OBAMA AND the Democrats recognize this mood of raised expectations.
But they regard it with a sense of concern. "It's important that
everybody understands that this is not going to happen overnight,"
said Robert Gibbs, a campaign strategist for Obama and soon-to-be
White House press secretary. "There has to be a realistic expectation
of what can happen and how quickly."

Why the nervousness? Because Obama's powerful message of hope and
rhetoric about change was never matched by a commitment to radical
policies and political positions.

Obama comes out of the political mainstream of the Democratic Party
leadership--so it's no surprise that he is staffing his White House
with veterans of the last Democratic administration of Bill Clinton.

Leading the way is Obama's choice for a chief of staff: Rahm Emanuel,
notorious as one of Clinton's political enforcers, particularly when
it came to whipping into line organized labor and liberal
organizations disgruntled with the administration's embrace of
center-right policies.

There will be plenty of other blasts from the Clinton past in the
weeks to come--including, according to rumors as this article was
being written, Hillary Clinton taking over as secretary of state.

But that doesn't mean we should expect a repeat of the triangulated
policies of the Clinton era. The difference is that Obama has become
president after the discrediting of the right-wing agenda that
dominated U.S. politics for the last three decades, including the
Clinton years.

On the economy especially, Obama faces a severe crisis that won't
respond to the tame government measures popular with policymakers in
the neoliberal era.

Even during the campaign, Obama had to shift from his cautious
response to the mortgage crisis, when he refused to call for a
moratorium on home foreclosures like Democratic rivals Hillary
Clinton and John Edwards.

Obama has said he wants Congress pass a further stimulus package, but
the price tag has risen continually--currently, his advisers suggest
a proposal that could add up to $600 billion. Plus, Obama has put his
stamp of approval on an attempt by congressional Democratic leaders
to give the ailing Big Three automakers access to funds from the $700
billion bailout bill for Wall Street.

In short, the scale of the problems and questions the U.S. faces--not
just economically, but in the areas of foreign policy and more--is
driving Obama toward a different agenda.

But the exact shape of that agenda will be determined by how much
pressure he feels from below.

Obama is certain to enact some changes right away, but others won't
go through without a fight. Thus, he will almost certainly extend
unemployment benefits. But will Obama take on the looming corporate
opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act that would dismantle
anti-labor laws and make joining unions easier?

Obama said he will close the Guantánamo Bay prison camp set up by the
Bush administration to evade rules and laws against torture. But will
he close the Guantánamo base altogether--and change the U.S.
government's hostile attitude toward the Cuban and Venezuelan governments?

Will his economic team at first fall back on familiar neoliberal
prescriptions, or will they turn to a more dramatic intervention?
Obama has said he will have a program for infrastructure
improvements, but will his proposal put a priority on creating
good-paying union jobs?

How those questions are answered will depend in important measure on
how our side organizes to make its hopes felt in Washington.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OBAMA'S ELECTION represents a historic change in U.S. politics. But
that change is just the beginning.

The dam on expectations erected through 30 years of conservative
dominance has broken. But this is only the first stage of the
struggle. The election of the candidate who promised change wasn't
the end of the process, but only the beginning of the possibility for
bringing about that change.

As the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass famously said:

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to
favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops
without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its mighty
waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one,
and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.

There are significant challenges ahead in mobilizing that struggle.
Conditions for working people have worsened steadily over the past
several decades, and unions and social movement organizations have
declined, both in numbers and influence, and in their political visions.

But that situation can shift rapidly, as we have already seen around
the issue of same-sex marriage in just the few weeks since the election.

The central importance of Obama's victory is that it has broken
through the bitter prejudice that nothing much can change in society.
If those committed to organizing for a different vision of society
can relate to the hopes that this has inspired--and the newfound
confidence that justice is on our side--then we can make the Obama
years an era of struggle and political progress.

--------

Obama's Victory: A Socialist Perspective

http://www.socialistaction.org/editors12.htm

A Socialist Action Editorial
November 2008

Barack Obama, a Black man, has been elected President of the United
States. Few, if any, thought his victory was even a remote
possibility in racist America when capitalism's two-party
multi-billion dollar electoral charade began twenty-one months ago.

When Obama's win was projected early on as a certainty by television
stations across the country Black America took to the streets in
jubilant celebration. Ninety-six percent had voted for Obama, the
highest percentage ever. In 2004 George W. Bush received 11 percent
of the Black vote. McCain in 2008, four!

Sixty-seven percent of Latino voters joined the Obama landslide,
which saw the nation's 44th and first Black president winning the
Electoral College by a margin of better than two to one and the
popular vote by an overall margin of 53 to 46 percent.

Sixty-two percent of the electorate cast 135 million votes,
surpassing the 2004 total by 13 million. By European standards voter
turnout, 62 percent, was low, but it was a significant increase from
the usual 50 percent or less that has been the U.S. norm in recent
decades. Indeed the turnout would have been higher, along with an
even wider margin for Obama, were it not for the racist voting laws,
procedures and practices that are kept in place to disenfranchise
oppressed nationalities and the poor.

The exuberant outpourings in cities and towns across the country
hailing the Obama victory were multi-racial and youthful, although
broad swaths of the general population joined in the celebrations. A
majority of white voters under 30 voted for Obama. They too
enthusiastically joined in the spontaneous mobilizations to register
their contempt for Bush-era politics. And they were one with Black
America in believing that Obama's promised "Change" was on the order
of the day.

While not receiving a majority of white voters, Obama surpassed the
41 percent totals of John Kerry's 2004 campaign by three percentage
points, the highest white vote for a Democrat since the 1964 election
of Lyndon Johnson.

Obama's victory was at least in part a product of what might be
called a perfect political storm ­ the simultaneous combination of
massive attacks on working people as whole and Blacks in particular,
a capitalist economy in the early stages of a meltdown not seen since
the Great Depression of 1929, a war in Iraq and threats of war
elsewhere pursued with murderous vigor in the face of the majority
opposition, a looming environmental catastrophe and a Republican
Administration that appeared helpless in the face of all of it.

Never in memory has the contradiction been greater between the
illusions of the masses that change was possible with an Obama
victory and the reality of capitalist politics and prospects today.
Obama took great care during his Grant Park, Chicago victory rally of
120,000 to dampen hopes that change would come quickly, referring
vaguely to his next term as a possible timeline for significant
results. Illusions and great hopes aside, Black America understands
full well that racist inequality will not be erased from the American
scene without continued struggle.

he warmongering and racist Democratic Party will in the not to
distant future destroy whatever illusions remain as they once again
demonstrate that they are equally the party of the tiny ruling class
minority whose very existence depends on the exploitation and
oppression of the great majority.

Barak Obama can represent the interests of this vast majority no more
than capitalism can be transformed into anything other than the
predatory, racist instrument of the corporate ruling elite who run
this country.

Obama missed no opportunity to make this clear. He promised more
spending on war, "national security" repression and the military, not
less. He supported every measure proposed by the Bush Administration
to bailout the rich to the tune of unprecedented trillions of
dollars. He offered no let up in the racist ICE raids aimed at
terrorizing immigrant communities.

His initial appointments are creatures of the Clinton Administration,
which eliminated more social programs than the combined presidencies
of the three previous Republican Administrations.

Following talks with Obama's team, reports from top Iraqi officials
indicate that there will be "no fundamental change" in U.S. Iraq
policy and no firm timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops,
Obama's vague election promises notwithstanding. Whatever
"timetables" that are "negotiated" with the U.S. puppet government
will be subject to the interpretation of the occupiers.

The November 7 New York Times noted with some accuracy, "Mr. Obama
has said that a contingent of American troops would probably stay for
a more extended period ­ to train Iraqi forces, to protect the
American Embassy and to root out terrorists." In combination with
the largest "privatized" or mercenary army ever deploy, U.S. forces
will insure that American capitalist interests are defended with
whatever force and violence is necessary. Like President Bush,
President Obama will not leave Iraq in other than total colonial
subjugation, no matter how long it takes or how many lives are taken.

His chosen Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is an ardent cold warrior
hawk and an unqualified Zionist defender bent on backing Israeli's
every move toward the obliteration of the Palestinian people.

The $640 million Obama spent on his campaign exceeded any other in
history. Obama was the favored candidate of corporate America,
military-industrial complex America and the America of
institutionalized racism, sexism and homophobia.

Were this not the case, his carefully-orchestrated candidacy would
have been relegated by the corporate media and the billionaires
behind it to insignificance. Instead, the Democratic Party, the
historic graveyard of all progressive social movements, mobilized its
corporate sponsors to place in a timely manner a Black man of great
personal achievement in the office of the presidency.

Indeed, the ruling class has chosen a brilliant Black man to cover
the face of a cruel capitalism in crisis that has nothing in store
for working people other than more of the same and worse, much worse.
They have calculated that they can proceed with this task with the
least opposition and the longest possible "honeymoon" with a Black
Democrat holding the position of capitalism's chief executive officer.

Ralph Nader was off the mark when he stated on Fox TV following
Obama's victory:

"As the first African-American president we wish him well. The
question is, will he be Uncle Sam for the people or Uncle Tom for the
giant corporations which are driving America into the ground?"

Socialist Action has another view. We see Obama as the chief
representative of the Democratic Party wing of capitalist America's
bi-partisan attacks on all working people. We do not wish him well.
We stand in solidarity with the oppressed and exploited of this
nation who voted for Obama in the vain hope that his promise of
change would be fulfilled. But we did not join them at the voting
booth or lend credence to their illusions. Truth, however unpopular
at times, is essential in revolutionary politics. Socialists will
have their day when the masses are won to their liberatory cause and
prepared to fight for it. Lesser evilism, whether in the direct form
of the Democrats and Obama or the reformist politics of the Greens
and Ralph Nader, serve to disorient and mis-educate those social
forces who are essential for a real challenge to the capitalist order.

We fully understand that millions of Blacks, Latinos and others
believe that Obama's victory is an important blow against the racist
prejudice that permeates every aspect of American life. The fact that
unexpected millions of whites voted for Obama is an indication that
racism is on the decline and that working class unity has better
prospects in future struggles. But we do not share in the view that
prospects for Black and white America will be advanced by Barack Obama.

We disagree with Ralph Nader on a more fundamental question. In our
view, there is no "question" about what Obama can or will do. As with
all capitalist candidates before him, he will be the chief
representative of the ruling rich and not the people. There is no
"choice" in the matter of Obama's options.

Nader believes that Obama does have such a choice. He believes that
capitalism, can be reformed if only the right Democrats are in office
and if they return to the mythical values that he falsely believes a
kinder the gentler capitalism of the past once embodied. His has
always been the path of "third party" lesser evilism, crystallized in
his past two campaigns where he urged a vote for the Democrat in
close races and a vote for himself when it didn't make a difference.

Socialist Action, despite many important differences, supported the
presidential candidacies of three small socialist parties that posed
a working class and socialist alternative in the 2008 elections. We
urged a vote for Gloria LaRiva of the Party for Socialism and
Liberation, Roger Callero/John Harris of the Socialist Workers Party
and Brian Moore of the Socialist Party. The SWP received some 9800
votes, the PSL, 7400 and the SP 6600, all miniscule votes but
nevertheless votes of working class principle won in the full vortex
of an election whose outcome was made to appear as a historic turning
point in American politics.

Victories for working people of all races have never been the product
of the election of any ruling class candidate or party. They have
been and will continue to be the outcome of the independent and
massive mobilization of capitalism's victims on the field of struggle.

Socialist Action is an unswerving advocate of working people building
their own political party to defend and advance their own class
interests, a mass Labor Party based on a reinvigorated, democratic
and fighting trade union movement in alliance with the oppressed and
exploited everywhere. Karl Marx was on the mark when he wrote 160
years ago, "Capitalism creates it's own gravediggers." With no
solutions to the mounting and multiple crises before it other than
repression and deeper inroads into the quality of life of U.S.
workers, revolutionary socialists intent on mounting a fundamental
challenge to the capitalist order will find common ground with the
millions of fighters who will inevitably take the field and bring
about a new social order where capitalist plunder and barbarity will
become distant memory.

--------

Also, see:

Is Obama Killing his Honeymoon?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,592260-2,00.html

The Third Clinton Administration [by Ralph Nader]
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader11212008.html

Some Cyanide to Go With That Whine? Obama's Victory and the Rage of
the Barbiturate Left
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/some-cyanide-go-with-that-whine-obamas-victory-and-rage-barbiturate-left
[by Tim Wise]

This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in
Obama's White House
http://www.alternet.org/story/107666/ [by Jeremy Scahill]

Liberals Conned Again: Obama picks foxes to guard henhouse [by Robert Scheer]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/ED8114C8PU.DTL

Obama's "seamless transition" to endless war
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n18.shtml

Obama's transition: A who's who of imperialist policy
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n19.shtml

Obama appointees signal continuing aggression and war
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n26.shtml

The Gates appointment: Obama slaps antiwar voters in the face
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n28.shtml

Obama's victory and the inevitable struggle ahead
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10315

Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney Responds to Obama Win
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/5/green_party_presidential_candidate_cynthia_mckinney

An Open Letter to Barack Obama [by Ralph Nader]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21143.htm

The Obama '08 Phenomenon: What Have We Learned?
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=873&Itemid=1

Can We Talk About the Real Obama Now?
http://prorev.com/2008/11/can-we-talk-about-real-obama-now.html

The Climate for Change [by Al Gore]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html

Obama's Victory [by Institute for Policy Studies]
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/886

Barack Obama: The Empire's New Clothes
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=879&Itemid=1

Obama answers liberal critics on personnel choices
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/obama_answers_l.html

Obama: Change 'comes from me,' not his appointees
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56578.html

The 2008 Election [by Michael Lerner]
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0811/frontpage/ml

.

Folk Legend Pete Seeger sings out for justice

If I Had a Song

http://www.utne.com/2001-11-01/IfIHadaSong.aspx

Folk Legend Pete Seeger sings out for justice

November/December 2001
Craig Cox Utne Reader

Like Woody Guthrie before him, Pete Seeger has long been synonymous
with social justice and song. With such classic songs as 'If I Had a
Hammer,' 'Turn, Turn, Turn,' and 'Where Have All the Flowers Gone?'
to his credit, the 82-year-old folksinger has inspired generations of
people struggling for social change. Seeger, whose father was a
famous musicologist and conscientious objector, developed his
political views at an early age and aspired to a career in
journalism, inspired by radical writers Lincoln Steffens, Mike Gold,
and other contributors to his favorite magazine, New Masses. Mountain
music grabbed him when he heard a five-string banjo at a North
Carolina folk festival in 1936.

A few years later, he was singing union songs in a group called the
Almanac Singers that he'd formed with Woody Guthrie and others. In
the '50s, Seeger enjoyed commercial success with the Weavers, then
collided with the House Un-American Activities Committee, which
subpoenaed him in 1955 as part of its campaign to rid the country of
communists. He refused to cooperate (citing his rights under the
First Amendment, not the Fifth), and a federal court in 1961
sentenced him to a year in prison for contempt. His conviction was
overturned on appeal the next year.

A veteran of most every major social movement in 20th-century
America, Seeger today lives with his wife, Toshi, in the Hudson River
valley and devotes most of his time to environmental and peace
issues. But he's still singing, as he proves with the recent release
of a new album, If I Had a Song. He's not sure how much longer he'll
be performing. 'My memory isn't very good anymore,' he says. 'I
forget the words to the songs.' Nevertheless, he was back on stage
two days after the World Trade Center catastrophe trying to lift the
spirits of a college crowd. The next morning, he spoke by phone with
executive editor Craig Cox from his home near Beacon, New York.

What have you been reading these days?

I read Granny D's book, Walking Across America in My Ninetieth Year,
not once, but twice. It's a very important book. I've also read
Seedfolks, a short but very good book by Paul Fleischman about a
community garden in downtown Cleveland, and Barbara Ehrenreich's
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.

What magazines and newspapers do you read regularly?

I look at several dozen. When I'm in an airport, I skim Forbes and
Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and many others. The
publications I'm not likely to find there are the ones I get at home:
Utne Reader, In These Times, UU the Unitarian magazine, and
Fellowship, the Fellowship of Reconciliation magazine.

You were involved in the launch of the folk music magazine Sing Out!,
weren't you?

Sing Out! started 51 years ago. Paul Robeson showed up to celebrate
with us that day. A little magazine that I helped to edit, People's
Songs, had gone bankrupt about a year and a half earlier, and Sing
Out! started up with a similar staff. The magazine slowly grew
through the '50s, and in 1964, during what's known as the Great Folk
Scare, they printed all of 20,000 copies for several issues, but I
don't think we sold more than 10,000. In the '70s the circulation
sagged, and in 1982 they too were about to go bankrupt. But this time
a batch of volunteers got together and saved it.

Do you look at TV news?

Hardly ever. In the last few days I've been looking at it, but I
mainly look at television in winter to see what the weather is going
to be to see if I can go skating. And in the summer, I'll see whether
it's going to rain or not. But I really don't bother looking at TV
for the news or for other things.

Does your town have a local newspaper?

Not anymore. There is a weekly free paper, mainly advertisements,
church notices, and a few other things, and I do read it every few
weeks or so. They have a rather lovely historical column, and the
woman who writes it asked me to read the Declaration of Independence
two or three years ago to mark the Fourth of July. Every year for 200
years, someone has read the Declaration of Independence on the main
street of nearby Fishkill. Four hundred people turned out. One person
elbowed his way up to the front and read a statement: 'It is
outrageous that this man, who is an enemy of the United States, is
being allowed to recite this year.' But he was booed. I wrote him a
letter and said, 'I'm sorry they booed you; you had a right to speak.'

A friend of mine told me he wrote to you years ago after seeing you
perform and was astonished to get a reply. Do you correspond with a
lot of people?

I write very short letters that I often put on postcards. I write
mostly with a pen. I don't know how to use a typewriter well anymore,
and I don't have a secretary. But if I read something that I'm
enthusiastic about­something good or bad­I try to respond.

Your new album, If I Had a Song, brings together some marvelous
talent, from Steve Earle and Joan Baez to Billy Bragg and Dar
Williams. It must be gratifying to see younger folks committed to
carrying on the work you've nurtured over the years.

There are some extraordinary young people writing songs­of course, I
say anyone under 50 is young­like John McCutcheon, Greg Brown,
Stephan Smith, and Pat Humphries. And there's Holly Near out on the
West Coast. After the murder of Harvey Milk in San Francisco about 20
years ago, she wrote an extraordinary song she sang at the funeral,
'We Are a Gentle and Angry People and We Are Singing, Singing for Our
Lives.' That song will go down in history.

.

Is it OK to be liberal again, instead of progressive?

Is it OK to be liberal again, instead of progressive?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/21/liberals/index.html?source=newsletter

Come out of the closet, liberals. Stop using the fashionable
euphemism "progressive" and relaunch the old, tarnished L-word.

By Michael Lind
Nov. 21, 2008

If the conservative era is over, can liberals come out of their
defensive crouch and call themselves liberals again, instead of progressives?

In the last two decades, Democratic politicians, including Barack
Obama, have abandoned the term "liberal" for "progressive." The
theory was that Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush --
and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan -- had succeeded in
equating "liberal" in the public mind with weakness on defense,
softness on crime, and "redistribution" of Joe the Plumber's
hard-earned money to the collective bogey evoked by a former Texas
rock band's clever name: Teenage Immigrant Welfare Mothers on Dope.

I've always been uncomfortable with this rather soulless and
manipulative exercise in rebranding, for a number of reasons.

Objection No. 1. Futility. It's not the name of the center-left that
the right objects to, but the policies and values. Suppose the
defeated Republican minority decided that it needed to rebrand itself
by replacing "conservatism" with "traditionalism." Would anybody on
the left or center be fooled, if traditionalism was defined by
exactly the same synthesis of free-market radicalism, anti-Darwinism
and support for a neoconservative foreign policy?

The center-left is going to be trashed by the right, whether the
right adopts one term or another. If conservatives continue to call
the new progressives "liberals," then the right wins, by implying,
correctly, that progressives are liberals who are ashamed to admit
what they really are. If, on the other hand, "liberal" becomes as
extinct as "Whig" and conservatives agree to use the term
"progressive," then what has the center-left gained? Nothing. The
same conservatives who formerly denounced liberals as tax-and-spend
appeasers would now denounce progressives as tax-and-spend appeasers.
What then? Would wimpy progressives then abandon progressivism and
hope to avoid the wrath of Limbaugh by disguising themselves with a
new alias -- reformists, or pragmatists? Your enemies will caricature
you, no matter what you call yourself.

Objection No. 2. Progressivism as neoliberalism. Some have sought to
distinguish progressivism from liberalism in content. This was the
project of the disproportionately Southern "neoliberals" like Bill
Clinton and Al Gore and Dave McCurdy and the Democratic Leadership
Council and Progressive Policy Institute in the 1980s and 1990s.
Instead of using the obvious term, "moderate" or "centrist," they
sought to co-opt the term "progressive," even though they weren't
very. In their analysis, liberalism was too identified in the public
mind with organized labor and big-city machine bosses like the first
Mayor Daley. They struggled and largely succeeded in creating a new
Democratic Party based among upscale suburban whites and financed by
the Industry Formerly Known as Wall Street rather than private-sector
labor unions.

Fine by me. While the New Democrats were too conservative for my
taste in some ways, a majority party has multiple factions or wings,
and in the late 20th century the only way that the Democratic Party
could grow was by appealing to centrists as well as liberals. If the
DLC had been granted exclusive franchising rights for the term
"progressive," then it would have meant simply the pro-corporate
right wing of the Democratic Party, whose left wing was pro-labor and
populist. We would then be speaking of conflict and also
collaboration within the Democratic coalition between liberals on the
left and progressives on the right.

Unfortunately, Democrats on the left insisted on calling themselves
progressive too. Instead of meaning a moderate Democrat, progressive
came to refer to any Democrat. So by the 1990s anti-labor, pro-NAFTA
progressives were battling pro-labor, anti-NAFTA progressives. Fiscal
conservatives who wanted to invade Iraq were progressives -- and so
were democratic socialists. The left, center and right of the
Democratic Party simultaneously gave up the name of the tradition of
FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Humphrey, all because Ronald Reagan
and Rush Limbaugh denounced liberals.

Objection No. 3. Progressivism as the radical left. What made all of
this even more confusing was the fact that the term "progressive,"
which center-right Democrats like Will Marshall of the Progressive
Policy Institute sought to capture, had been identified with Marxists
and other groups on the extreme left during the previous
half-century. If you were a progressive in the '30s and '40s, like
many supporters of Henry Wallace's Progressive Party, you were likely
to find redeeming qualities in the Soviet Union's social experiment
and to think that FDR was a pawn of the capitalists. If you were a
progressive in the '60s and '70s, you were likely to think that
Truman and Johnson were warmongering "corporate liberals" under the
control of the "military-industrial complex" and that the Democrats
and Republicans were indistinguishable. For the moderate and
conservative Democrats of the DLC to call themselves the new
progressives was the equivalent of moderate, secular Republicans
calling themselves the new fundamentalists.

At least the far-left progressives were honest. They genuinely
despised the mid-century American liberals, whom they viewed simply
as another species of bourgeois imperialists. This is another one of
the reasons I dislike the term "progressive." Why should I call
myself by the name preferred by deluded radicals who despised the New
Deal and the Great Society liberals I admire? Why share a label with
anyone who romanticized Ho Chi Minh or Fidel Castro?

Objection No. 4. The early 20th century progressives. Now that
"progressive" is widely used as a euphemism for "liberal," there is a
natural tendency to link the progressives of the early 2000s with the
Progressives of the early 1900s, like Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey.
The problem is that while the modern center-left is the child of
mid-century Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson liberalism, it is only
the grandchild -- or perhaps grand-nephew or grand-niece, twice
removed -- of the Progressives of the 1900s.

Hubert Humphrey, liberal, championed integration and federal
enforcement of civil rights. Woodrow Wilson, Progressive,
resegregated Washington, D.C. The Warren Court liberalized abortion
and censorship laws. The early 20th century Progressives campaigned
to outlaw alcohol and outlaw abortion and many of them favored
eugenic sterilization of the "feeble-minded." New Deal liberals
celebrated Americans of immigrant stock. Progressives like Woodrow
Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were horrified by "hyphenated
Americans." Roosevelt and Truman inherited a disturbing progressive
fondness for executive prerogative but by the 1960s and 1970s civil
libertarianism and a renewed interest in checks on the imperial
presidency became part of the liberal tradition.

Today's center-left Americans can find a usable past in the liberals
of the New Deal and Civil Rights eras. They will search in vain for
philosophical ancestors among the snobbish, nativist, technocratic,
authoritarian, segregationist Progressives of the early 20th century.
Which leads me to:

Objection No. 5. It's too German. The term "progressive" entered
English from 19th century German politics. The first progressive
party in the world was the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei, founded in
Prussia in 1861 ("Fortschritt" means "progress"). The American
Progressives like Woodrow Wilson who translated the term into English
believed that Bismarck's Imperial Germany was superior in many ways
to the United States and Britain. They sought to graft German-style
bureaucracy onto what they considered to be an antiquated political
system crippled by 18th century Enlightenment notions of local
government and civil rights. In other words, they saw statist,
technocratic German progressivism as an advance beyond Anglo-American
liberalism.

The older Anglo-American tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick
Douglass, of the Founders and John Locke, is called "liberal" with
good reason. "Liberal" comes from the Latin word for "free." The
antithesis to liberalism is servility. A liberal society is one in
which everyone is free and nobody is a serf or slave. In the late
19th and 20th centuries, the New Liberals in Britain and the New Deal
liberals in the U.S. saw the need for social insurance and national
regulation of business. But social welfare programs were added to
civil liberties, which are what define liberalism. The radical left
in the old days could excuse Fidel Castro's tyranny because of his
free hospitals, but no genuine American liberal believes in a
tradeoff between civil liberties and social welfare. You can have
universal healthcare and personal liberty, but if you have to choose,
personal liberty is more important. On that point, liberals of the
left, who don't think you have to choose, agree with libertarians.

In his book "Freedom's Power," Paul Starr says that he prefers the
term "liberal" to "progressive" because modern liberals are the
heirs, not just of 20th century welfare state liberalism, but of
centuries of Anglo-American liberalism, going back before the
American Founding to Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1689. He is
right, I think, to insist that the history of evolving personal and
political freedom should not be ceded to libertarians, who represent
the extreme right wing of liberalism. American liberals, it might be
said, are Lockean libertarians who recognize the need for social
insurance and regulation; they have never had anything
philosophically in common with Marxists or post-Marxist social
democrats in Europe, support for universal healthcare and various
public services notwithstanding.

Objection No. 6. "Progressive" implies progress. Like "conservative,"
"progressive" is a term associated with a particular view of history.
The conservative wants to stand still or go back; the progressive
wants to move forward. Progressivism implies a view of history as
perpetual progress; conservatism, a view of history as decline from a
better world in the past. Needless to say, nobody who actually thinks
this way could function. In the real world, self-described
progressives aren't mindlessly in favor of everything new, just as
self-described conservatives aren't indiscriminately in favor of
everything that's old.

Unlike progressivism and conservatism, liberalism is not a name that
implies a view that things are either getting better or getting
worse. Liberalism is a theory of a social order based on individual
civil liberties, private property, popular sovereignty and democratic
republican government. Liberals believe that liberal society is the
best kind, but they are not committed to believing in universal
progress toward liberalism, much less universal progress in general.
Many liberals have been skeptical about the idea of unlimited
progress and have believed that a liberal society is difficult to
establish and easily changed into a nonliberal society.

Because liberalism refers to a particular kind of social order, and
does not depend on any implied relationship of the present to the
past or future, liberals can be either progressive or conservative,
depending on whether they seek to move toward a more liberal system
or to maintain a liberal system that already exists. For that matter,
liberals can be revolutionary, if creating or establishing a liberal
society requires a violent revolution. Liberals can even be
counterrevolutionary, if they are defending a liberal society from
revolutionary radicals, including anti-liberal revolutionaries of the
radical right like Timothy McVeigh or Muslim jihadists.

Those, then, are six arguments in favor of using liberalism to
describe the center-left. I've reserved the seventh for last. The
word "liberal" is a badge of pride. What is more embarrassing in
2008, to be associated with self-described liberals like Roosevelt
and Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr. and Barbara Jordan, or with
conservatives like Reagan and George W. Bush and Tom DeLay? I much
prefer the public philosophy of the mid-century liberals, for all
their blunders and shortcomings, to that of the three movements in
American history that have called themselves progressive: the
moderate-to-conservative progressives of the Democratic Leadership
Council in the 1980s and 1990s; the deluded pro-Soviet progressives
of the mid-20th century; and the Anglo-Protestant elite progressives
of the 1900s, who admired Bismarck's Germany and wanted to keep out
immigrants and sterilize the native poor.

But don't listen to me. Listen to John F. Kennedy, accepting the
endorsement of his presidential candidacy by New York's Liberal Party
on Sept. 14, 1960:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"
If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone
who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government,
and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of
this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of
"Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead
and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid
reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their
health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights,
and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break
through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies
abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to
say I'm a "Liberal."

--

Michael Lind is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America
Foundation and the author of The American Way of Strategy: U.S.
Foreign Policy and the American Way of Life.

.

Remembering the Sixties

Remembering the Sixties

http://www.bangornews.com/detail/93375.html

11/17/08

It was truly a revolutionary era, and the University of Maine at
Presque Isle has done an outstanding service in conducting a six-day
"1968 Retrospective" for the benefit of the many who are too young to
recall it.

For many who lived through it, the Sixties were a disaster. Drugs,
profanity, resistance to any authority, and random, indiscriminate
sex seemed to be everywhere. Kids seemed to be taking over the
schools, the colleges and the streets. Blacks joined black power groups.

For others, the era was a long-overdue revolt against the Vietnam
war, against oppressive government and institutions, against
meaningless rules, against arrogant authority, against inhibitions
about language and action and sex, and against nicey-nice habits of
dress and behavior.

It is credited, perhaps too much, with forcing an end to a seemingly
endless war. But, much as most young people hated to admit it,
President Nixon's halting of the military draft took some of the fire
out of the anti-war movement.

While it did bring a new freedom and independence of mind to young
men and particularly young women and to African Americans, it also
brought a resentful backlash among many rural residents and
blue-collar workers. Many of them gravitated to political
conservatism and became part of the coalition that twice elected
Ronald Reagan president.

More directly, the anti-war activities of the era spurred President
Nixon to create the "Plumbers," a secret corps of spies and
enforcers, whose crimes led direction to Mr. Nixon's near impeachment
and resignation.

In a far longer range sense, the Sixties revolution may have laid the
groundwork for the unprecedented election this year of a black
president. The scenes at Chicago's Grant Park were far different. In
1968 there were riotous demonstrators, club-wielding police, fumes of
teargas, along with thousands of wildly enthusiastic supporters of
Eugene McCarthy.

This year, there was none of the violence or repression but a
similarly wild enthusiasm over the Obama victory. But the opening of
minds in that Sixties revolution must certainly have helped lead the
way toward this year's clean break with past politics.

Has this year's political revolution hastened the end of the current
seemingly-endless war in Iraq? And has it brought an end to a period
of secretive and intrusive government that spied on its own citizens
and repeatedly violated the guarantees of the Constitution? Or, like
that other revolution, will it bring a political backlash?

Much depends on one man, Barack Obama. The Sixties produced three
possible national leaders, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin
Luther King, but all three were assassinated and, therefore, unable
to see their visions become reality.

Barack Obama, who remains determined to change Washington after a
long, tiring and sometimes bitter campaign soon will begin a new
presidency. He has brought fresh hope to a nation that needed it.

How that hope is translated into policy will help define this era.

.

Utah Phillips, security risk

Utah Phillips, security risk

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=882550

FBI documents show agency spied on famous folksinger for most of the 1960s

By Robert Speer
roberts@newsreview.com
[27 Nov 2008]

In his remembrance of U. Utah Phillips, the folksinger and songwriter
who died at the age of 73 on May 23 ("U. Utah Phillips leaves the
stage," CN&R, May 29), Alan Sheckter writes about the "ill will"
Phillips' leftist political leanings created in his adopted state of Utah.

In a 2005 interview with Sheckter, Phillips had described how he was
working as a state archivist in 1968 when he ran for the U.S. Senate
in Utah on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket. "I took a leave of
absence from the state and took 6,000 votes," he said. "The upshot
was my job was no longer there. I was blackballed."

Actually, it turned out to be "a godsend," Phillips said. He followed
friends' advice and hit the road as a "traveling troubadour,"
becoming an almost legendary figure among American folksingers. He
finally settled in Nevada City.

Interested in learning more about Phillips' early years in Utah, and
particularly about the political animosity toward him, the CN&R
submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking Phillips' FBI records.

Several months later, in mid-November, a packet arrived containing
more than 40 pages of material, all of it going back to Phillips'
Utah days. Phillips, it turned out, was under intense surveillance
for several years.

Bruce Duncan Phillips, as he was then named, first came to the FBI's
attention in 1961, when he was part of the group "Life for Garcia"
calling for the commutation of the death sentence of a convicted
murder (it eventually was commuted). By the mid-1960s, Phillips was
showing up at anti-Vietnam War rallies, where he often participated
by singing union and anti-war songs.

The FBI duly noted his attendance, as well as the sponsoring groups'
relationship, always highly tangential, with the Communist Party of Utah.

Meanwhile, the FBI was interviewing Phillips' co-workers at the Utah
Historical Society, in Salt Lake City, where he was an archivist. One
informant said he considered Phillips "self-centered; that his peace
and related ideas have the basic purpose of attracting attention to
himself, and that he does not think through his activities and attitudes."

Another noted that Phillips was "an adequate employee but [was] a
problem to the state because of his interest in peace activities and
anti-capital-punishment activities."

Under the heading "Miscellaneous Subversive Activities," the dossier
noted Phillips' attendance at meetings of the Utah Council for
Constitutional Liberties and the Public Affairs Forum of Utah County,
two groups focused largely on anti-war activities. He also attended
meetings of the April Committee, a student anti-war group, and other,
similar groups. The FBI apparently had informants at all of them.

In February 1968, Phillips organized the People's Party and became
its chairman. Soon renamed the Poor People's Party, it had a goal of
getting candidates on the November ballot. By July, it had merged
with the Peace and Freedom Party of California.

At a state convention held Aug. 24, Phillips was selected to run for
the U.S. Senate. He did so only after party members agreed to come up
with the $480 a month in lost income when he took a leave of absence
from his archivist job.

Phillips traveled the state campaigning, with the FBI dogging his
trail much of the time. After the election, in which he got just
under 2 percent of the vote, he was out of a job.

During the years when it had Phillips under surveillance, the FBI
talked with him twice. On Aug. 2, 1967, he told agents he was engaged
in civil-rights, anti-Vietnam and related activities and that he
"deplore[d] any resort to extremism which could involve violation of
law or violence," according to FBI documents. And on Jan. 2, 1968, he
described his anti-war goals, adding that he was "personally opposed
to communists, as are most of the peace people."

What's clear from the FBI reports is that the agency had an almost
pathological obsession about the doings of the Communist Party of the
USA, a group that by 1968 had little influence and dwindling numbers.
Clearly, though, it served as a raison d'être­a kind of
full-employment act, so to speak­for the FBI, which spent vast sums
of money chasing down what amounted to ephemera.

Certainly it never had reason to scrutinize Utah Phillips. Finally,
in February 1969, after Phillips had left Utah and embarked on his
full-time music career, the bureau acknowledged as much. That's when
it decided he no longer met the criteria for the Security Index­the
list of people the FBI monitored as possible security risks­and
stopped spying on him.

.

Cheech & Chong back on the road

Cheech & Chong back on the road

http://www.straight.com/article-172352/smoke-new-fire?rotator=1

By Guy MacPherson
November 27, 2008

After more than two decades apart, legendary stoner-comedy
trailblazers Cheech & Chong are seeing double once again
--

When a mixed-race Calgary R & B band took a floater out of town in
the early 1960s­run out by the mayor, no less, because of an overly
rambunctious show at a local legion hall­it wound up in Vancouver,
leaving this city with sole claim to the biggest stoner comedy act in
show-business history.

By all accounts, the Calgary Shades were a tight band. "It was one of
the best bands around," says Tommy Chong, the half-Chinese,
half-Scottish guitarist for the Shades. Chong would spend the next 10
years in the Lower Mainland, and would eventually meet Cheech Marin,
the yang to his comedic yin. "The only trouble was we were limited.
And we never had proper management.…We were the Stones without an
education, you know?"

Chong was a decent musician, though. In Vancouver he met a
16-year-old kid, Henry Young, who had recently been given the boot
from high school for riding his mufflerless Harley down the hall.
Young, who was just learning guitar, had a job at a garage, where
he'd park his hog. Chong would walk by and admire it, and the two
became friends.

"I used to fix his car for him, and he showed me some hot guitar
licks and that kind of stuff," Young says on the phone from his home
in North Van. "As I plodded along, he gave me the odd gig here and
there, subbing for him." He must have been a decent teacher, because
Young became a full-time musician and went on to play with jazz great
Nina Simone on and off for 25 years.

Young, who eventually lived with Chong for a time, remembers Chong as
more of a Casanova than a court jester in the early days. "You know
something? To tell you the truth, he never was really that funny," he
says. "Tommy was more or less a lady's man. He was very good-looking,
very charming.…I guess when he smoked dope, he was like a total
different person. And I guess he'd seen his calling, which was to do
the comedy thing."

Chong's wife, Shelby, a standup comic in her own right, is not as
charitable in her description of the young musician. Ten years his
junior, the teenaged Shelby Fiddis lived next door to Chong and his
first wife on East 15th Avenue. "He was married and bought a house
with his wife," she says on the phone from Nevada the day Cheech and
Chong were to be roasted at the Las Vegas Comedy Festival. "That's
how I met him. It's kind of a sick story. Actually, Tommy was an old
pervert in those days. There you go. He was very cool and wore suits,
kept his hair back, wore tons of cologne. He owned a club. For him,
it was love at first sight. For me, it was like, 'You know what?
You're married. I'll be your friend.' All my friends were little East
15th girls. He'd get us in the club for free. So that's how it all started."

His Lothario reputation and musicianship notwithstanding, there was a
hint about his future forte. When Young was living with the Chong
family, Chong would dictate what was on the tube.

"He used to say, 'Oh, no, you can't watch wrestling. You gotta watch
Dick Van Dyke,' " Young remembers. "He was a fan of Dick Van Dyke. He
loved, loved Dick Van Dyke and that kind of stuff."

Chong went on to play in Big Daddy and the Bachelors, which morphed
into Four Niggers and a Chink (under pressure, the band was renamed
Four Ns and a C.) In the mid-60s, Chong became part of the legendary
Bobby Taylor and the Vancouvers­house band at the Elegant Parlour, an
after-hours bistro run by Chong­which eventually signed with Motown
Records. In 1968, he got into the comedy game by way of a topless
improv troupe, City Works, that he formed at the Shanghai Junk, a
Main and Pender strip joint managed by his brother.

Chong and first comedy partner David Graham, both longhaired hippies,
were looking for a shorthaired straight man. Enter Rich "Cheech"
Marin, an American who was both writing for a Vancouver rock 'n' roll
magazine called Poppin and delivering carpets. The pair immediately
hit it off and Marin was hired to join City Works. Comedy and
strippers? What could be better?

"Oh, man, it was so much fun you couldn't believe it!" Marin recalls.
"We didn't get discovered by anything other than perverts, but it was
unbelievable."

When the troupe broke up, Chong and Marin stayed together. Chong
loved Marin's attitude more than anything else. It was, for lack of a
better description, American. Chong always had a big dream of making
it in show business. He got a taste of it when Bobby Taylor and the
Vancouvers reached number 29 on the U.S. pop charts with a tune
cowritten by Chong called "Does Your Mama Know About Me" (which could
easily have been about his relationship with Fiddis, because, she
says, "My mom did not have a clue, until he got famous, then she was
like, 'I like him now' "). But by then the band was no longer in
business. Comedy­not to mention THC­was in his blood now.

"Canadians are weird," Chong says, talking to the Straight while
driving with Marin from Portland to Eugene, Oregon, as part of their
Cheech & Chong Light Up America and Canada tour, which hits the Queen
Elizabeth Theatre on December 5. "Canadians, they get too
comfortable. They don't want to move. That's why bands break
up­because you get good enough but no one wants to go down to the
States; no one wants to cut the record. They're just content where
they're at. Cheech was from the States. And I had a big urge to make
it big time. And I knew if you were going to make it big time, you
had to go down to the States.…Cheech was the only one who still
wanted to do it."

Chong thought music still might be his ticket to fame. He and Marin
put a band together, "but our comedy was so strong that we never got
around to playing any music," he says.

So after all of two shows as a duo in Vancouver, Cheech and Chong
headed south with "stars in our eyes and holes in our pockets",
according to Marin.

It was a bold move, to be sure. In 1969, comedy wasn't yet booming,
and drug humour certainly wasn't in the mainstream.

As big a fan as Shelby was, she couldn't see the success coming. "A
Mexican and a hippie?" she asks. "Who'd ever think? That's incredible
when you think about it."

But it makes perfect sense in hindsight. Although hip and sick comedy
had taken hold through the old-school masters, there had yet to be
comics speaking to the stoned generation. The comedy team was
embraced by their fans, grateful to see anyone reflecting their own lifestyles.

"The audience said, 'Hey, we got our own culture; now we have our own
comedians­our very own,'" Chong says. "We weren't comedians doing
stoner material; we were stoners being comedians."

While Vancouver supplied the drug references, Los Angeles allowed
them to develop the other key aspect of their act.

"We had pot material," Marin explains. "We didn't have that whole
Chicano element, because up in Vancouver there weren't any Chicanos.
So in L.A. we started incorporating that into it, and it was great.
And all of a sudden the pot element really caught on."

But Cheech & Chong didn't abandon its home town. According to Chong,
the duo developed some memorable bits at Oil Can Harry's, the Thurlow
Street club that ran from 1966 to 1977. And at the peak of their
career, when films came calling in 1978, they made their celluloid
arch nemesis an incompetent boob of a cop by the name of Sgt.
Stedenko, a nod to Abe Snidanko, the legendary Vancouver RCMP narc.

"Vancouver was very racist, very, very racist," Chong says. "And they
had these cops imported from Ireland and Scotland.…They had a
right-wing approach to everything. Like, I had friends do time­a year
in jail­for selling a dime bag of weed. That kind of thing. And
Snidanko, the guy that's in Up In Smoke, he was head of the narcs in
Vancouver and he was always trying to bust us for smoking pot or
anything. That's why I made him famous."

But fame had its drawbacks. "When he got famous, he got shipped off
to Turkey for 17 years. Then he came back and he was on the force for
a while, and then they finally retired him. The narcs here called me
down in L.A. and had me autograph a poster and send it up for his
retirement present," Chong says with a laugh.

Cheech & Chong broke up in 1985. Like an old married couple, they
eventually wore each other down. In interviews they gave
individually, it seemed like they might never get back together. In
2006, Marin told the Straight: "It's two real strong personalities
that clash. If we ever want to do anything else, we have to figure
out a way around that clash. But at some point, it's just not worth
the trouble."

Today Chong says, "We were working too hard. That's a catch-22, you
know? You've got a lot of money but you got no time to enjoy it. And
so you have to break up the band or break up the comedy team or
whatever. Then you have too much time and not enough money."

Now, thanks to a whole bunch of money and some nifty shenanigans from
Shelby and their son Paris, Cheech & Chong are back. There had been
plans to reunite in the past few years, but the two would always
start bickering and nothing would happen.

"We sort of took over Tommy's e-mails and I had my son answer [Marin]
without him knowing it," Shelby explains. "Tommy had written this
kinda not really nasty e-mail, but saying some things that if you
were the least bit sensitive, you'd get upset. So I said, 'Paris,
forget it. Erase it.' He said, 'You're kidding, Mom.' I said, 'Yes!
Just do it.' So we did it. And the next thing you know, Cheech wrote
him a nice e-mail back."

And, of course, the money eased any potential conflict. "It's twice
the fun for half the work. I love it," Chong says. "We spread out the
work and we get paid a lot of money. It's great; it's win-win all the way."

They also reached deep to find what drew them together in the first
place. "We decided not to argue any more," Marin says. "Things that
went on, went on, and let's see what we can do in the future. And
there was enough money there." He laughs. "We both realized that we
each had half of a treasure map and we could not access the treasure
without putting those two halves together."

So on September 5, Cheech & Chong made their triumphant return, after
more than two decades apart. According to Marin, the first time back
on-stage, in Ottawa, was incredible. "It was great! It was like we
had never left. Like we'd been off weeks, not 30 years."

The tour, which Marin wanted to call Catch Them Before They Croak,
keeps on rolling until March. A movie is also in the works. But will
they be at each other's throats before then?

"No, not at all," Shelby insists. "They love each other and they're so happy."

And she is taking no credit for getting the act back together.

"It was meant to happen," Shelby says. "They both wanted to. They
just needed a little nudging here and there. You know how that
happens. They have that magic. And who knows what that is? Who knows?
When they get together, it's just magic."

.

Students of color converge

Students of color converge

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2008/nov/21/students-color-converge/

Elaiza Torralba (Contact)
Published: Friday, November 21, 2008

UCLA will host the 20th annual Student of Color Conference this
weekend, a conference which aims to increase the number of students
involved in on- and off-campus community work and organization and
emphasizes diversity on campus.

"Call to ACTION: Educate, Empower & Implement!" is this year's theme.

Sponsored by the University of California Student Association, the
conference is expected to be "the biggest SOCC thus far," SOCC
Committee Chair Stephanie Roberts said.

"We are expecting 1,030 students and are really looking to mobilize
students around important issues that we face everyday on the
statewide and national level," Roberts said.

The conference, which lasts three days, consists of a film screening,
club night, workshops, caucus spaces and cultural performances, she added.

The conference will begin tonight with a screening of the film "41st
and Central," a documentary about the Black Panther Party movement in
Los Angeles that addresses the role that the Black Panther Party
played at UCLA during the 1960s.

The opening ceremony on Saturday will be followed by performances,
caucuses and three workshop sessions on race and equality. Titles of
some of the caucuses are, "Differently Abled," "Working Class" and
"Gender Nonconforming/Transgender," said Dina Mahmood, SOCC committee co-chair.

Various ethnic caucuses will be held as well, including the
African/Black Coalition, Latin@/Chican@/Raz@, Asian/Pacific Islander
Unity and Middle Eastern caucuses. These will be held in various
rooms of Haines Hall and Royce Hall.

Performers include Los Rakas, a hip-hop, reggae and dancehall music
duo, Bambu and Aesthetics Crew. Workshop titles include "Applying to
Professional Schools," "Women of Color Incarcerated" and "Redefining
Hip-Hop as a Tool for Social Change," according the SOCC 2008 program booklet.

"There are over 60 different workshops at the conference covering a
wide range of topics that address education, organization and
advocacy," Mahmood said. "These caucus spaces should serve as a safe
place for students of similar representations to discuss issues that
face their communities as well as ways to advocate for them."

On Sunday, the final day of the conference, there will be a rally
held in Bruin Plaza about stopping another fee increase proposed at
this week's UC Board of Regents meeting at UC San Francisco, Mahmood said.

"We will be marching from Bruin Plaza to the Federal Building where
our closing ceremony will be held," Mahmood said. "The Federal
Building will serve as a backdrop to why we are students, bringing
everything into the bigger picture: why are we students, what are we
fighting for and how is everything connected."

Roberts emphasized the importance of the four main topics of the
conference: education, empowerment, organization and activism.

"We want change not only in areas that affect UC students of color
but our communities as well, such as socioeconomic to health care,
homelessness, high incarceration rates, environmental injustices and
more," Roberts said. "We believe that by having over a thousand
students of color and allies from all the UCs that the Student of
Color Conference is a powerful space that will produce opportunities
for us to build coalitions and mobilize for change."

.

The Lasting Impact of a Civil Rights Icon's Murder

The Lasting Impact of a Civil Rights Icon's Murder

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Indelible-Images-Moment-of-Reckoning-200812.html

One of three civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in 1964 was
James Chaney. His younger brother, Ben, would never be the same

By Hank Klibanoff
Smithsonian magazine, December 2008

In the 44 days that his brother and two other young civil rights
workers were missing in Neshoba County, Mississippi, 12-year-old Ben
Chaney was quiet and withdrawn. He kept his mother constantly in
sight as she obsessively cleaned their house, weeping all the while.

Bill Eppridge, a Life magazine photographer, arrived in Neshoba
County shortly after the bodies of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner
and Andrew Goodman were pulled from the muck of an earthen dam on
August 4, 1964. Inside the Chaney home in nearby Meridian, Eppridge
felt that Ben was overwhelmed, "not knowing where he was or where he
should have been," he recalls. "That draws you to somebody, because
you wonder what is going on there."

On August 7, Eppridge watched as the Chaney family left to bury their
eldest son. As they awaited a driver, Fannie Lee Chaney and her
husband, Ben Sr., sat in the front seat of a sedan; their daughters,
Barbara, Janice and Julia, sat in the back with Ben, who hunched
forward so he'd fit.

Eppridge took three frames. As he did so, he could see Ben's
bewilderment harden into a cold stare directed right at the lens.
"There were a dozen questions in that look," Eppridge says. "As they
left, he looked at me and said, three times, 'I'm gonna kill 'em, I'm
gonna kill 'em, I'm gonna kill 'em.' "

The frames went unpublished that year in Life; most news photographs
of the event showed a sobbing Ben Chaney Jr. inside the church. The
one on this page is included in "Road to Freedom," a photography
exhibit organized by Atlanta's High Museum and on view through March
9 at the Smithsonian's S. Dillon Ripley Center in Washington, D.C.,
presented by the National Museum of African American History and
Culture. Chaney, now 56, cannot recall what he told Eppridge in 1964,
but he remembers being livid that his mother had to suffer and that
his father's generation had not risen up years before so that his
brother's generation wouldn't have had to. "I know I was angry," he says.

Ben had lost his idol. Nine years older, James Earl Chaney­J.E., Ben
called him­had bought Ben his first football uniform and taken him
for haircuts. He had taken Ben along as he organized prospective
black voters in the days leading to Freedom Summer. Ben, who had been
taken into custody himself for demonstrating for civil rights,
recalls J.E. walking down the jailhouse corridor to secure his
release, calling, "Where's my brother? "

"He treated me," Ben says, "like I was a hero."

After the funeral, a series of threats drove the Chaneys from
Mississippi. With help from the Schwerners, Goodmans and others, they
moved to New York City. Ben enrolled in a private, majority-white
school and adjusted to life in the North. But by 1969 he was
restless. In Harlem, he says, he was elated to see black people
running their own businesses and determining their own fates. He
joined the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army.

In May 1970, two months shy of 18, Chaney and two other young men
drove to Florida with a vague plan to buy guns. Soon, five people,
including one of their number, were dead in Florida and South Carolina.

Chaney said he didn't even witness any of the slayings. He was
acquitted of murder in South Carolina. But in Florida­where the law
allows for murder charges to be brought in crimes that result in
death­he was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to
three life terms.

One of his first visitors in jail was Bill Eppridge. Before setting
up his cameras, Eppridge fired off a quick Polaroid. His editor liked
the Polaroid best. Life readers saw Ben Chaney with his eyes framed
by prison bars. "He just looks scared," says Eppridge, who, after the
weekly Life folded in 1972, went to work for Sports Illustrated.

"I can imagine I was afraid," Chaney says. "I was in jail."

He served 13 years. Paroled in 1983, he started the James Earl Chaney
Foundation to clean up his brother's vandalized grave site in
Meridian; since 1985, he has worked as a legal clerk for former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the lawyer who secured his parole. He
envisions creating a Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner Center for Human
Rights in Meridian.

In 1967, eighteen men faced federal charges of civil rights
violations in the slayings of Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Seven
were convicted by an all-white jury, eight were acquitted and three
were released after jurors deadlocked. The state of Mississippi
prosecuted no one for 38 years. But in 2005­after six years of new
reporting on the case by Jerry Mitchell of the Jackson
Clarion-Ledger­a sawmill operator named Edgar Ray Killen was indicted
on charges of murder.

On June 21, 2005, exactly 41 years after the three men were killed, a
racially integrated jury, without clear evidence of Killen's intent,
found him guilty of manslaughter instead. Serving three consecutive
20-year terms, he is the only one of six living suspects to face
state charges in the case.

Ben Chaney sees it this way: somewhere out there are men like
him­accomplices to murder. He did his time, he says, they should do
theirs. "I'm not as sad as I was," he adds. "But I'm still angry."
--

Hank Klibanoff is the author, with Gene Roberts, of The Race Beat,
which received the Pulitzer Prize for history last year.

.

Beginning of Afro-American studies

Beginning of Afro-American studies

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2008/nov/26/beginning-afro-american-studies/

Though the interdepartmental program has gained prestige, the
formation was tumultuous

Ravi Doshi, Bruin reporter (Contact)
Will Weiss, Bruin senior staff (Contact)
Published: Wednesday, November 26, 2008

At the start of what was then known as "Negro History Week" in
February 1967, members of the Black Student Union, then known as
Harambee, lined Bruin Walk in silent protest.

They stood quietly, not taking questions from reporters or passers-by
for one week, letting only the slogan on their shirts speak for them.
The shirts read "Why one week?" and encapsulated the feeling of many
of the black students on campus at the time, who believed it
inadequate that their history be commemorated in only one week.

"We believed that the injustice that we experienced was particularly
based on the lack of knowledge, on the ignorance of the white
students at the time," said J. Daniel Johnson, a UCLA student and
activist who helped lead the push for the formation of an academic
study center, what would eventually become the Ralph J. Bunche Center
for African American Studies at UCLA. "So, we requested that
instruction be provided and that all students be required to take it."

With that, the movement had gotten underway among committed black
students to form a center for the academic study of African American
history and culture.

By fall of 1967, the administration, under then-Chancellor Franklin
Murphy had allowed for the teaching of the course on African American
history. Students from across the campus and from a variety of
backgrounds enrolled in the course, taught by Professor Ronald Takaki.

Yet, for the student activists, a singular course was not enough. The
movement continued, utilizing campus publications, including content
in the Daily Bruin and the creation of the African American special
interest paper NOMO to push their cause among the campus community.

"We felt we could use the column (in the Daily Bruin) as a bully
pulpit to lobby for an academic study center," Johnson said of the effort.

The effort was not in vain. During the summer of 1968, the decision
was made to create not only an African American studies center, but
also a broader Institute for American Cultures, which could
eventually encompass all ethnic study centers on campus.

The question that remained, however, regarded who would lead the
organization in its inaugural term.

For the students, the choice was clear. Professor Charles Hamilton,
an African American professor of political science was the obvious
choice. Yet, as it would turn out, Hamilton's chairmanship would not
come to fruition due to contract disputes.

Thus, the search continued to find a leader for the new center.

To this end, meetings were then held in January to determine who
would head up the new center.

But the selection was far from seamless.

On Jan. 17, 1969, Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter and John Huggins, two
UCLA students and members of the Black Panther Party, were murdered
in Campbell Hall in what was an act of violence that served as a
great setback to the center's progress.

"It's alienating to have an experience of violence in your midst, and
it made people wonder where this center was going," said Claudia
Mitchell-Kernan, vice chancellor and dean of the graduate division,
who served as director of the center from 1976 to 1989.

And yet, despite the setbacks, the center continued. By 1974, it had
helped create the independent interdepartmental studies program in
Afro-American Studies, and throughout the decade, was gaining
national and international prestige.

"By the 1980s, we were thought of as a real model in the country,
with people visiting from around the world, holding major symposia
and conferences on academic issues, and hosting forums on prominent
contemporary issues," Mitchell-Kernan said.

And, despite its title, the program's initial class was as diverse as its aims.

In 1980, during the inaugural year of the interdepartmental master's
program, two students graduated: one black, one white.

Since that time, not much has changed in this regard, with students
from throughout the campus community enrolling in courses offered
through the Afro-American studies program.

"In spite of periodic and severe budget cuts and lack of funding, the
Afro-American Studies Interdepartmental Program has maintained a
consistent, vibrant enrollment not only of African American students
but students from across the campus who wish to be well-informed
about issues of race and ethnicity," said Dr. Lisbeth Gant-Britton,
student affairs officer of the Afro-American Studies Interdepartmental Program.

But, for those original founders and leaders of the program, there
remains work to be done.

"I think we are a better society today than we were 40 years ago in
terms of inclusiveness, but we still have issues surrounding the
treatment of African Americans, Mexican Americans, other immigrant
groups – now gays and lesbians with the passage of Proposition 8.
These are enduring issues for complex societies such as our own, so I
see the issues that were the impulse for creating the center as
enduring issues," Mitchell-Kernan said.

For Johnson, who still remembers the conversations, protests,
meetings and proposals surrounding the creation of the center in the
1960s, the sense of pride at the accomplishment of forming the center
is met with disappointment regarding its unmet potential.

"I'm very proud of what we did. (The Center) is stronger, but not as
strong as it could have been."

For him, the loss of some of the early programs and research
interests championed by the Center, such as the High Potential
Program, are painful to bear.

"If we look at the problems that plagued, and increasingly continue
to plague the African American community, we need it more than ever,"
said Johnson.

.

Mick Jagger on the trials of life at 65

Not fade away:
Mick Jagger on the trials of life at 65

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/not-fade-away-mick-jagger-on-the-trials-of-life-at-65-994413.html

It's not very rock'n'roll, but Mick Jagger, the man who brought us
'Sympathy for the Devil', supermodel girlfriends and skin-tight
jeans, recently acquired OAP status. So has he mellowed with age?
James Mottram finds out

Saturday, 8 November 2008

Before Mick Jagger enters the hotel room, I'm half expecting to be
reminded of the opening line of The Rolling Stones' old number
"Mother's Little Helper". You know the bit, as Jagger whines in that
unmistakable voice of his, "What a drag it is getting old". This has
been, after all, a watershed year for the Stones' lead singer.
Turning 65 in July, all those jokes about the wrinkly rocker being
old enough to collect his pension finally came true. Sir Mick – as he
became in 2003 – is now officially an OAP. Not that he's ready to
curl up with his cocoa just yet.

It's around 2pm when he finally arrives, a good half-hour late. "I
didn't go to bed until five o'clock," he says, with a measure of
pride, perhaps because it runs contrary to the image painted of him
in the tabloids by his ex-wife Jerry Hall, that of a couch potato who
likes an early night. He had spent the night partying with the other
Stones in Berlin; if it got out of hand, it doesn't show. While the
excesses of a rock'n'roll lifestyle may have taken their toll on his
fellow band member Keith Richards, Jagger looks in remarkable shape.
Rather like his slightly sucked-in cheeks, Jagger's torso, I imagine,
is almost concave, as if he's had the flesh vacuumed out of him.

The Dartford-born singer puts his preternaturally skinny physique
down to being raised in the aftermath of the Second World War. "It's
the diet we had when we ......... were children," he smiles. "There
was very little food, basically, and no junk food and no sugar."
Never mind that his father, Joe, was a games teacher and relatively
affluent compared to some. "Yeah, but that didn't get you any more
food," he adds. "Teachers don't earn much money. Not to labour the
point, but they think this is one reason why our generation doesn't
get fat – unless you drink lots of beer, of course."

While the only things plump about him are those famous lips – more
pink than bright red, as the Stones marketing might have us believe –
he says "there's no secret" to staying fit. "You just have to do a
bit of work when you get over 30. You have to go to the gym. Before
30, you don't really have to worry." Dressed in a striped shirt,
lilac jumper and black jeans, lines already clustering around those
ice-blue eyes, Jagger wisely makes no attempt to look younger by
dressing up in rock-star clobber.

This is the third time I've encountered Jagger, though it's as if
I've been in the presence of three different men. The first was pure
accident, as I glimpsed him mooching around Selfridges' furniture
department about five years ago. Making no attempt to conceal his
identity with sunglasses or the like, he looked disarmingly ordinary
– perhaps that's why he was able to browse through the store almost
unnoticed. The second time, I saw the side most of us know: Jagger
the Showman, doing what he does best. It was on stage during the
Stones' recent A Bigger Bang tour, a two-year marathon jaunt around
the globe that, after reportedly taking $558m, has become the
highest-grossing tour of all time.

If you read anything about Jagger, it usually centres on his
remarkable stage energy, undiluted despite his advancing years. Even
now, there's still something animal about him in the spotlight. Does
he see performance as an almost sexual act? "Is it like sex?" he
ponders. "I don't know. Is there an orgasmic moment? Not that there
necessarily has to be in sex. It's a different kind of thing. Often
times, you have to be more calculated about what you do." It recalls
Truman Capote's comment in light of touring with the band; that
everything he saw "had been coolly and efficiently manufactured by
the Stones and their managers". You don't get to last 46 years in the
music business by leaving things to chance.

It's Jagger's vim and vigour that fuels Shine a Light, the band's
first concert movie since 1983's Let's Spend The Night Together,
which has just been released on DVD. Directed by long-time Stones fan
Martin Scorsese, it captures the band's gig at New York's Beacon
Theatre, a pit-stop during the Bigger Bang tour. Even with Scorsese's
involvement, it doesn't come close to touching the likes of the
notorious fly-on-the-wall documentary Cocksucker Blues, which
detailed the band's drug-fuelled 1972 US tour, or Gimme Shelter, the
seminal account of the 1969 Altamont gig when a Hell's Angel stabbed
a fan to death. Not that Jagger wanted another behind-the-scenes
documentary. "It's a bit of a cliché, Marty and I felt, doing the
backstage stuff. Everyone's done that."

If the film is primarily a straight-up concert movie, it does hint at
what a giant corporate machine The Rolling Stones have become, with
Jagger leading the charge. One early shot sees him sitting in First
Class, sipping champagne and working on the set-list for the show. As
tongue-in-cheek as it is, it highlights a core truth: much of the
Stones' success comes down to Jagger micro-managing the band's
business affairs. As he puts it, "I don't think anyone else in the
band is the slightest bit interested in that part of it. As long as
it's successful." It was he who pushed the Stones into becoming the
first band to truly exploit the money to be made from tours and merchandise.

Estimates vary, but Jagger's now worth in the region of £150m – and
it's certainly convenient to think of the former economics student as
an omniscient control freak, a man the US press dubbed "the greatest
businessman in rock'n'roll history". In person, he's aloof and wary,
not......... the charming stumble-drunk that is Keith Richards.
Rarely given to introspection, he's uncomfortable being interviewed.
Thus, in Kevin Macdonald's documentary Being Mick, showing him up
close and personal with his numerous children, it was almost a given
that this was an entirely manufactured exercise. Or as Jagger
explains, slipping into a Nazi commandant voice as he does so, "It
was all within my control."

It's understandable, given how little control he has over the reams
of tabloid column inches his life has generated. Jagger has been
painted as so many different personas: the gangly, blues-loving teen,
the Crowley-esque dabbler in diabolism (inspired by the classic track
"Sympathy for the Devil"), the sexually promiscuous rock star (dating
everyone from Carla Bruni to Sophie Dahl), and the cricket-loving
country gent. As he puts it, "People seem to find it hard to accept
that you can be several people at the same time." Not least playing a
gyrating hipster on stage. "Of course it's a different persona," he
argues. "If you came to a dinner party as your stage persona, he
wouldn't be a very welcome guest!"

Currently dating the stylist L'Wren Scott, who is more than two
decades his junior, Jagger likes to promote himself as the doting
father. There is Karis, who came from his brief affair with the
singer Marsha Hunt; Jade, from his first marriage to Bianca; his four
children with Jerry Hall – Elizabeth, 24, James, 23, Georgia, 16, and
Gabriel, 11. Then there's nine-year-old Lucas, the product of a
three-month affair with the Brazilian model Luciana Morad that
effectively ended his two decades together with Hall. At one point,
when discussing the band's former bassist Bill Wyman, he tells me, "I
saw him at my kid's 16th birthday party." The mind boggles at what
this bash was like – Jagger playing responsible parent to a bunch of
rowdy teens is an amusing prospect.

Now nearly teetotal, there's nothing he likes more than eight hours
sleep a night and Jagger is far removed from the likes of Jimi
Hendrix and Jim Morrison, who lived fast and died young. "Most people
did survive," he counters. "It's how you came out the other side and
what shape you're in, I suppose." In Jagger's case, he'd been a
whipping boy for the establishment – after the Stones became involved
in a landmark drugs bust when Richards' Sussex mansion was raided in
1967. "Looking back it was very funny," he reflects, "but it wasn't
at the time very funny. It completely took over our lives creatively.
We couldn't do this or that. You had to spend all your time dealing
with the police. We definitely were being targeted. It was quite a
common thing really."

For the record, Jagger doesn't believe narcotics were particularly
helpful in the songwriting process that he and Richards got down to a
fine art. "I think they're overrated as a creative method," he says.
Certainly, having watched his former band member, Brian Jones, head
down a path into narcotic-fuelled oblivion before he wound up dead in
a swimming pool, Jagger has been wise to remain relatively
restrained. Far more dangerous to him was the aftermath of the
Altamont gig. It was revealed earlier this year that a bunch of
Hell's Angels plotted to kill Jagger after he sacked them as stage
security following the concert stabbing. Plotting to raid his Long
Island property by boat, their plan was foiled when a storm nearly
sunk their craft. Yet in many ways, this sort of incident only serves
to further the media mystique that surrounds Jagger and the Stones.

"I think journalism helped make the Stones dangerous and respectable
all at the same time," he says. "After you've been around for 10 or
15 years, you can't be either a) new or b) subversive. People that
try to be subversive for more than 10 years, you'll never get
anywhere. So people get used to that whole idea. By the mid-1970s, it
was very difficult. That's why punk tried to remake this subversive
rock moment." So how does he see rock'n'roll now? "It's another time,
but there are people still doing what we did. There are tons of
bands, looking like they're playing guitars! Millions of them. I see
them all the time." .........

Another side to Jagger is his movie work. Shine a Light aside, Jagger
has enjoyed a rather indifferent career as a movie producer,
beginning in 2001 with the Second World War code-cracking thriller
Enigma for his company Jagged. This year, he produced The Women, a
remake of the 1939 George Cukor comedy starring Rosalind Russell and
Joan Crawford. Despite a cast including Meg Ryan, Annette Bening and
Eva Mendes, the film took just $26m in the US and garnered some
scathing reviews ("a witless, straining mess," said the New York
Times). "It gives me a different outlet," he explains, vaguely, when
I ask him why he does it.

One can't help but think that Jagger is in it merely to dabble –
rather like his four solo albums, including 2001's much-maligned
Goddess in the Doorway, or his intermittent acting career. While his
screen debut as a debauched rock star in Performance was hardly
stretching him, his follow-up as the lead in 1970s outlaw story Ned
Kelly left him looking faintly ridiculous in a wispy beard and iron
helmet. Since then, his roles, from a time-travelling bounty hunter
in Freejack to a cross-dressing cabaret owner in Bent, have been
idiosyncratic to say the least.

So what attracts him to a part? "I don't know," he shrugs. "Sometimes
I get offered little quirky roles and if I like the idea and I feel
good at the time, I'll just do them. You never know how a film is
going to turn out. There can be great people involved and it can turn
out rubbish, so it's always a leap in the dark." Still, it's
understandable why he does it: Jagger, by nature a performer, can't
always be on stage. He is certainly aware of just how addictive it
is. "You don't really want to be doing it all the time. Like when
you're young, you think if you're not having sex, you're wasting your
time. But as you get older you realise everything has its place."

It's the same thing with performance, he says. "You don't want to be
thinking, 'I'm not performing tonight. Why am I not performing? I'm
just going out to dinner with my friends – I should be on stage
somewhere!' So it's a great thing to do but you don't want to be
doing it all the time. But a lot of people are like that – a lot of
actors. They do eight shows a week on stage. It's addictive. And if
they don't go straight into the next one, they don't think that their
life's worth living. I mean, you go to dinner with some comedians and
they're trying out their jokes on you. They're still on. I'm not
saying I'm boring, but you have to have a regular life. You don't
want to be a performer all the time. You don't want me on the table singing."

It must be strange for Jagger, who now has homes all over the world –
from the Loire Valley to Mustique and beyond – to realise how far
he's come. After the Stones' first single, their 1963 cover of Chuck
Berry's "Come On", Jagger admits he had no conception the band would
last the next two years, let alone any further. "You didn't expect
the work to go on and keep coming. You just do it for a year or two
... but it wasn't like we were going to break up or anything." Yet
the band came close to implosion in the 1980s, when Jagger began to
pursue a solo career and he and Richards began squabbling over
songwriting credits. In the end, after Jagger's 1988 US solo tour was
cancelled due to poor ticket sales, the Stones embarked on their
hugely successful campaign to promote Steel Wheels, arguably the last
album of any value they produced.

The Stones have lasted a further two decades, despite the departure
in 1993 of Wyman, and show no signs of stopping. Does he know why
they stuck it out?

"Because we were successful," he says. "I don't think we stayed
together only for the success, but if we hadn't had the success, we
wouldn't have stayed together. You need those two things – the love
of doing it and the love of other people wanting you to do it." While
Jagger claims he doesn't "feel there's a pressure to go on being
sexy", I wonder if he wakes up at night, worrying about not being
able to deliver on stage?

"Sure," he replies, "but don't look at the clouds of tomorrow through
the sunshine of today!" Now that's sound advice from Sir Mick.
--

'Shine a Light' is out now on DVD

.