The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975

Every month when I get my netflix bill I think about getting rid of this subscription I rarely use, but when I rent something like The Black Power Mixtape it all seems worth it. The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 is a documentary consisting of interviews conducted by Swedish television journalists; the footage remained buried in the archives of Swedish television for over 3 decades and has recently been edited and released.

The film brought back the intensity of those days when the world seemed to be coming apart—-the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, the killings at Kent State, a time when the forces of the state (J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, many local police forces) were out to destroy radical challenges to the existing order. The film includes interviews with Stokely Carmichael, Angela Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, among others.

By far the most powerful segment was the interview with Davis while she was awaiting trial on charges of providing the guns used in a California courthouse shooting that left four people dead. Responding to a journalist who raised the issue of Black Power advocates’ justification of violence, she bitterly attacked a society that ignored and in some cases condoned a history of violence against African-Americans. With cold fury she replies to the Swedish journalist: "When someone asks me about violence, I find it incredible. A person asking that can have no idea about what black people have gone through in this country."

For me the biggest surprise was the interview with Stokely Carmichael, especially the segment when he interviews his mother about the effects of poverty and discrimination on her family. Carmichael is clearly a man who loves and respects his mother. He comes across in the film as at times gentle, witty, ironic—very different from the angry militant I remember who famously said in response to a question about the position of women in the Civil Rights movement, “The position of women in the movement is prone.” This anecdote has been retold in countless feminist histories of the 1960’s and Carmichael has been roundly condemned for his sexism.

He later said it was a joke. I saw that as an attempt to defend the indefensible. But after seeing this film, I think it is entirely possible that the Carmichael portrayed here might have been joking. The very fact that he would make such a joke says volumes about the culture of the times—-the social movements of the 1960’s were riddled with gross sexism. However, Carmichael just might have been making a crude joke rather than issuing a proclamation on women’s inferior position.

The DVD includes additional interviews,including one with Shirley Chisholm which for reasons I cannot understand was not in the film. Perhaps this was because Chisholm was not using the incendiary rhetoric of the Black Panthers and other Black Power militants, but clearly she was an advocate of Black Power. If you rent the DVD, don’t miss the interview with Chisholm in the supplementary material.

Should Judges be Elected? PA House Judiciary Public Hearing on Merit Selection

On March 1, I attended the PA House Judiciary Public Hearing on merit selection on behalf of the Philadelphia Democratic Progressive Caucus. This is something I would never have squeezed into my schedule if I were not retired. Merit selection (an appointive system of choosing judges) is not one of those hot button issues that grab the attention of the public. I probably would not have taken any interest in this issue were it not for my almost three decades as a Democratic committeeperson—a job I enjoy EXCEPT for the task of recommending judicial candidates to my neighbors. It is extraordinarily difficult to get reliable information about judicial candidates and I’m uncomfortable making endorsements when I don’t feel I can personally vouch for these candidates.

Last January, Philadelphia Democratic Progressive Caucus Chair Gloria Gilman organized a meeting of a group of civic/advocacy organizations with representatives of the Philadelphia Bar Association to express our dismay at their recommendation of recently elected Common Pleas Judge Thomas Nocella, who has a well-documented history of ethics violations and other dubious practices. The officers of the Bar assured us they were making changes to their process which should prevent another such occurrence. But given the serious problems with our system of electing judges, an improvement in the Bar Association’s internal process for recommending judicial candidates is not enough.

Our coalition of civic/advocacy organizations has since met with Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts who presented the key features of a proposal (HB 1816) for an appointive system on the appellate level (Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts). They noted that Pennsylvania is one of only six states that elects all judges in partisan elections. The others are Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, West Virginia and Illinois . According to the PCM website, HB 1816 calls for “the creation a 15-member citizens-based Nominating Commission to screen candidates and develop a short list of potential nominees for the governor. Following nomination by the governor and confirmation by the state Senate, a judge would serve an initial term of 4 years and then stand before voters in a nonpartisan retention election. Voters would decide at that point, and every 10 years thereafter, whether the judge should stay on the bench.”

There seems to be some momentum in favor of the bill; however, change will not be easy. Moving to merit selection requires a constitutional amendment. The proposed constitutional amendment (HB -1815) can be read here, and the implementing legislation (HB -1816) here. The legislature must pass the bills in two consecutive sessions and the final decision is made by the voters in a referendum.

Why not include trial courts?

Several members of the House Judiciary Panel asked supporters of merit selection why they were not also advocating for merit selection for local trial courts. Given attorney Walter Philips’ passionate indictment of the Philadelphia Court system, his failure to advocate for inclusion of local courts was especially surprising. Philips described the swearing in ceremony of a man who “very much deserves to be a judge under any system we have of selecting judges.” According to Phillips:

…the gauntlet that he had to go through, which is the same for everybody running for Common Pleas Judge in Philadelphia, is unfathomable. It requires spending huge sums of the candidate's own money, payable to ward leaders and other political operatives, money which is euphemistically known in Philadelphia politics as "street money", and which is used to pay for what is also euphemistically known as "election day expenses." A state grand jury report of a decade ago and a Philadelphia Magazine article a few years back described the amounts spent by a judicial candidate for Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia as running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Presiding at the swearing-in was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice who took pains to recognize all the elected officials present, including ward leaders. One former Councilman and ward leader in particular that he singled out was Leland Beloff, who some years ago received a ten year federal prison sentence for trying to extort $1 million from a Philadelphia developer.

When it came time for the newly elected Common Pleas Judge to give his remarks, he devoted virtually all of his time to thanking those who had helped him get elected. In particular, he recognized a former Congressman and ward leader by the name of Ozzie Myers. Mr. Myers, the Committee may recall, was famously heard on tape in the Abscam bribery investigation saying to an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik, as he accepted a $50,000 bribe for selling out his public office, "Money talks, bullshit walks", words that were heard literally around the world and hardly put Philadelphia and its politics in a good light...

However, as long as we have a system of electing judges we will always have, and can expect to have, not only the infusion of vast sums of money, but the involvement of those who have gone to jail for violating their public trust, now posing as political operatives, profiting handsomely from the process and being recognized at swearing-ins. To borrow a line from the film Godfather II: "This is the life we have chosen." Well, this is the system Pennsylvania has chosen, so we can hardly complain if convicted felons play a role in it, since there is nothing to prevent them from participating and making money off the candidates who are running for judge.

The public, however, might be understandably upset if they knew how many bright, competent, honest attorneys are deterred from seeking the bench because they know what they have to go through to get there. The public might be doubly upset if they knew that under our system people who have been convicted of serious crimes involving a violation of their public trust play an integral role in how we select our judges. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to change the system.

I’ve quoted Mr. Philips' testimony at length because it was so compelling, one of the highlights of the hearing. It was surprising after this powerful testimony to hear his uncertain reply to the chairman’s question as to why he was not also advocating for merit selection for the local trial courts. He replied that people in other parts of Pennsylvania were not unhappy with their local courts. The representatives of PMC made a similar response when the question was posed to them. Both Philips and the PMC representatives assured the Judiciary committee that they were only advocating for change on the appellate level and had no plans to extend this to the trial courts. I assume they’ve done their research and came to the conclusion that the votes were not there for a bill which included trial courts.

The Opposing Arguments:

Although most of the testimony at the hearing was solidly in favor of both the principle of merit selection and the plan proposed in HB1816, there is considerable opposition out there. The opposing arguments fall into four main categories.

First, opponents argue that the bill will never succeed in its objective of taking money out politics. Supporters concede there is no way to take money completely out of the process but merit selection can prevent money from directly changing hands between trial lawyers and judicial candidates. If they are not independently wealthy, judicial candidates have little choice but to raise money from trial lawyers. The only people (other than the candidates’ friends and relatives) who give to judicial candidates are trial lawyers who might later appear before a judge to whom they had contributed. Judicial candidates are frequently indebted both to trial lawyers and to the Party machine; this hardly inspires confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

Robert Heim from PMC said this is only going to get worse with money unleashed by the Citizens United decision. He stressed the ever-escalating costs of state-wide judicial races, now well into 7 figures. Also according to PMC written testimony, “the magnitude of the problem becomes clear when one realizes how often campaign contributors actually appear before the judges they supported. In 2010 the American Judicature Society studied the 82 civil cases decided by the PA Supreme Court during the 2008 and 2009 sessions. In 60% of those cases, at least one of the litigants, lawyers, or law firms had contributed to the election campaign of at least one of the justices.”

Matt Berg of Justice at Stake also testified in support of the bill and cited a report written by his organization and the Brennan Center for Justice which documented skyrocketing spending on state Supreme Court elections. Pennsylvania is near the top of the list of the big spenders and “its total spending of 22.7 million dollars from 2000 to 2009 ranks third nationally coming in at number behind only Alabama and Ohio. Berg stated that “many judges often feel trapped in a bad system, forced to raise money from parties who appear before them.”


A second argument is that in a democracy the people should choose their judges. But that does not happen; voters have opted out of the process. In an off-year election when many local judicial candidates are selected, turn-out is often quite low—-between 15% and 20%. However, that figure is the number of people who came out to vote; cut that in half for those who vote in judicial elections. Even in my middle class Mt. Airy neighborhood, with a high percentage of educated voters, about half choose not to participate in judicial races. Committee people get the number of undervotes in each election—-that is, the number of people who did not vote in a particular race. I’ve been checking this for years now and the pattern is consistent. Participation drops off dramatically in the judicial races. One interpretation is that the people are sending a message that they do not want to elect judges.

Proponents of the bill argue that HB1816 gives the people the right to decide if they want to change the way judges are selected. The results of a popular referendum rather than the votes of legislators will determine the ultimate outcome. Also the people will have the final say in retention; although the initial appointment will be made by a nominating committee, the voters will make the decision whether judges should be retained. Unlike the present system in which judges do not come up for retention for ten years, under the proposed merit selection system judges will come up for retention after 4 years. If retained they will then have a ten year term. The bill builds in a relatively short probationary period.

Third, there is the slippery slope argument. If we take away citizens' rights to vote for appellate court judges soon we will be getting rid of elections all together. This was the argument presented by Temple University Law Professor Marina Angel in written testimony: “Why stop at taking away the right to vote for appellate judges? The same arguments can be made by a group called ‘Pennsylvanians for Modern Democracy’ for all elections. Voters don’t know who they are voting for and elections are too expensive, so let’s have the state and the country run by an elite group of the ‘merit-selected.’” This is quite a leap; judges are are different from legislators. As Andy Hoover, Legislative Director of ACLU PA, stated in his written testimony in support of the bill: “Too often, those most in need of protection under the law are not popular with the majority, including religious minorities, criminal defendants; lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people and ethnic minorities. Judges must be comfortable ruling on the law and not what will resonate in the next election.” Merit selection can (to a much greater extent than electing judges) insulate judges from the vagaries of popular opinion, thus affording greater protection to minorities.

The fourth argument made by advocates of electing judges is that women and minorities would not fare as well under an appointive system. Philadelphia Bar Association Chancellor-Elect Kathleen Wilkinson contended, however, that “the election of appellate judges can lead to less diversity. Appointive methods are more likely to value diversity... and to seek to nominate diverse judges to state appellate courts.’ (She cited Malia Reddick et al., Examining Diversity on State Courts, 2010.) Also according to PMC testimony, only three women have been elected to the PA Supreme Court and only one person of color has ever been elected to serve a full term on the PA Supreme Court. PMC cites research by the American Judicature Society that “of 340 judges on the highest state courts in the nation, 35 are minorities; 5 were elected while 30 reached the bench through some form of appointive system, including merit selection. Women too have greater success in reaching appellate courses in merit selection states. Of 340 judges on the nation’s highest state courts, 103 are women; 31 were elected, and 72 reached the bench through some form of appointive system.”

Merit selection has the potential to expand the applicant pool: how many well-qualified women and minorities who might make excellent judges have not run for election because they lack the financial resources and/or don’t want to participate in a process riddled with potential conflicts of interest? Advocates of electing judges often say that the electoral process provides an opportunity for a candidate who might never get through an appointive process. No doubt this is true, and this includes some seriously tarnished candidates like Thomas Nocella and perhaps some worthy candidates as well. However, many good candidates who might make excellent judges will not get down into that gutter.

This is going to be a long protracted struggle. Some of the opposition is principled; some is more self interested. Local judicial elections are big money-makers for the Philadelphia Democratic Party; it's not surprising that local party operatives have their own fears of a slippery slope.

Someone ripped our Obama bumper stickers off our car

Someone ripped our Obama bumper stickers off our car

Last week when Rick and I were at King of Prussia Mall, we returned to the parking lot and found that our Obama bumper stickers had been ripped off our car. One sticker was a really nice round rubber bumper sticker from 2008 that I had to make (what was for me) a large contribution to get. The other was a paper bumper sticker which the Obama campaign was apparently sending out to all the 2008 donors. Fortunately, I received two of them and was able to replace one bumper sticker.


That round sticker will be impossible to replace; we’ve been driving around with it for almost 4 years, including some deep red state areas—-southern Ohio and Indiana--with no problem.

My response was to make another online donation to Obama campaign and to buy several more bumper stickers. Has anyone else out there had his experience?

Primroses planted on Feb. 5: more evidence for climate change

On February 4, a friend gave me 2 primroses. On Feb. 5, I took a big gamble and planted them. Incredibly the ground was not frozen—as it usually is in early February. I didn’t expect the primroses to survive; their little roots would be vulnerable to the first frost. But they survived our light snowfall last week and although a bit bedraggled, the primroses are alive and well.

As an old person, unlikely to be on this beautiful planet for much longer, I am enjoying our mild winters. This is like a Seattle winter with a bit of sunshine. But what does all this mean???

Henry Ossawa Tanner exhibit at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts!

Before we retired, my husband Rick and I could never get it together to attend an exhibit at the Philadelphia Art Museum until the very last day. We were contending with huge crowds of procrastinators and we vowed that when we retired, we would make sure this didn’t happen. Unfortunately, we didn’t kick the bad habit in retirement. Last fall we went to a Rembrandt exhibit the very last day and once again spent time waiting in long lines and putting up with crowds. We once again vowed this will not happen again—after all, we’re retired; there’s no excuse.

I’m happy to report that we finally did it right with the Henry Ossawa Tanner exhibit at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.

We went a few weeks after it opened on a weekday and were among the very few museum- goers. We really had a chanced to enjoy the exhibit. However much as I liked not having to deal with crowds, it was a little disturbing that this first rate exhibit was so sparsely attend. Sure hope it’s different during the week end.

From the the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts website:

The subject of this exhibition is the career and life of the artist Henry O. Tanner (1859-1937) - including the pioneering African-American artist’s upbringing in Philadelphia in the years after the Civil War; the artist’s success as an American expatriate artist at the highest levels of the international art world at the turn of the 20th century; Tanner’s role as a leader of an artist’s colony in rural France and his unique contributions in aid of American servicemen to the Red Cross efforts in WWI France; his modernist invigoration of religious painting deeply rooted in his own faith; Tanner’s depictions of the Holy Land and North Africa interpreted through comparison with contemporary French orientalist painting and photography; and the scientific and technical innovations of the artist’s oeuvre.

Henry O. Tanner was a student at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts from 1879 to 1885. PAFA is proud to organize this exhibition, and especially to elevate Tanner’s reputation through new scholarship and to bring his greatest works together for the first time in a generation.

See the slide show of Tanner’s paintings at the PAFA website to get some sense of the range of Tanner’s work. His portraits are really powerful and the portrait of Booker T. Washington alone is worth the price of admission. Don’t miss this one!

She Was One of Us: Eleanor Roosevelt and the American Worker by Brigid O’Farrell

I just read /She Was One of Us: Eleanor Roosevelt and the American Worker by Brigid O’Farrell for my feminist/progressive book club. The book club is a small group but the women are terrific and we have a lot in common—all of us are progressive/feminist activists involved at various points in our lives in feminist, labor, civil rights and peace movements, in community organizing and in grassroots electoral politics. We range in age from 47 to 67 (I’m the old person in the group), and I think we all hope to continue social change work as long as we can.

I remember when I presented at /attended panels at Women’s Studies conferences on feminist activism and it was always so obvious which (usually a very few) panelists had actual experiences as activists. It’s so much more gratifying to discuss these issues with women who have walked the walk and bring their own activist experiences to the discussion.

She Was One of Us is no page turner, but it’s filled with fascinating information. I knew that ER (as she’s referred to throughout the book) was a supporter of the labor movement but I had no idea she was so closely allied to the labor movement and that she managed to form deep, long-lasting cross-class friendships with labor union women --friendships that lasted until the end of her life.

One goal of our group is to read books which will inspire and inform our activism. At my age I need inspiration to keep going. I’m not sure whether I was inspired (by ER's commitment) or depressed that we don’t have anyone like her around these days. At a time when we read story after story about labor’s declining membership and about right wing attacks on labor, it’s a very welcome relief to read about a time when the labor movement had such powerful allies.

There were a few surprises in the book: ER did not initially support public employees unions but eventually came around to the realization that they were necessary. Also, ER did not initially support the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). There were labor feminists who thought the ERA would wipe out the protections for women they had fought so hard to establish. But those protections came with a price—-barring women from higher paying jobs. ER along with the labor movement eventually came around to supporting the ERA.

This is an important book and I hope that it manages to get into the required reading lists of Women’s Studies courses—especially to get into the reading lists of the Introduction to Women’s Studies courses I taught for many years. These courses usually do not assign books but rather anthologies with a snippet of this and a snippet of that. Probably the only way O’Farrell’s valuable material will make it into the intro courses is if she works with a documentary filmmaker to translate her material into film. This is the easiest ( and most effective ) way to get the message out. It’s a very important message for those of us in the 99%.

Citizen groups meet with Bar Association to discuss judicial elections, but is it possible to improve our deeply flawed process of electing judges?

I have been a committeeperson for almost three decades—a job I enjoy EXCEPT for the job of recommending judicial candidates to my neighbors. It is extraordinarily difficult to get reliable information about judicial candidates and I’m uncomfortable making recommendations when I don’t feel I can personally vouch for these endorsements.

Last week a group of civic/advocacy organizations which endorse candidates met with representatives of the Bar Association to express our dismay at their endorsement of recently elected Common Please Judge Thomas Nocella, who has a well-documented history of ethics violations and other dubious practices. . The officers of the Bar assured us they were making changes to their process which should prevent another such occurrence.

The Nocella appointment was unusual due to the last-minute resignation by a sitting judge, which allowed the Democratic Party to make an election eve appointment. Because the Bar Association recommendation is good for three years, Nocella could make his last-minute entrance into the race as a recommended candidate. Well, a lot happened in those three years, including citations by the Ethics Commission. Also, the last minute appointment of Nocella was particularly egregious as he had been previously rejected by the voters three times.

The Bar Association acknowledged that there were flaws in the process which they intend to correct. They described their process to us and it was apparent that they spend considerable time and effort on judicial recommendations. Several of us expressed concerns about the secrecy surrounding the process. Voters are given a recommendation of endorsement or non-endorsement without knowing the reasons why. (A rejected candidate gets that information but not the source of the information. The public simply gets the recommendation.) The representatives of the Bar Association made a good case for the necessity of confidentiality-—principally the difficulty of getting accurate information without guaranteeing confidentiality.

However necessary confidentiality may be, there are serious tensions between guaranteeing confidentiality and the democratic process. It’s clear that if we are to elect judges we need some independent agency to certify that candidates are at least minimally qualified. But the Bar Association recommendation is often trumped by Party affiliation, and both are trumped by ballot position! The Party this year, according to some news reports, waited until candidates had received their ballot positions before making endorsements, thus making it more likely that Party-endorsed candidates would win. Judicial elections are money-makers for the Party. If its candidates don’t win, its endorsement no longer seems so necessary, and more candidates might balk at paying 35,000 for a Party endorsement.

Advocates of electing judges often say that the electoral process provides an opportunity for a candidate who might never get through an appointive process. No doubt this is true, and this includes some seriously tarnished candidates like Nocella and perhaps some worthy candidates as well. However, many seriously good candidates who might make excellent judges will not get down into that gutter. If they are not independently wealthy, they have little choice but to raise money from trial lawyers. The only people (other than the candidates’ friends and relatives) who give to judicial candidates are trial lawyers who might later appear before a judge to whom they had contributed. Judicial candidates are frequently indebted both to donors and to the Party machine; this hardly inspires confidence in the independence of the judiciary. Opponents of appointing judges say that politics and money would be still involved in an appointive process. True, but at least we would not have money directly changing hands between trial lawyers and potential judges.

Advocates of electing judges argue that in a democracy the people should choose their judges. But that does not happen; voters have opted out of the process. In an off-year election when many local judicial candidates are selected, turn-out is often quite low—-between 15% and 20%. However, that figure is the number of people who came out to vote; cut that in half for those who vote in judicial elections. Even in my middle class Mt. Airy neighborhood, with a high percentage of educated voters, about half choose not to participate in judicial races. Committee people get the number of undervotes in each election—that is, the number of people who did not vote in a particular race. I’ve been checking this for years now and the pattern is consistent. Participation drops off dramatically in the judicial races. One interpretation is that the people are sending a message that they do not want to elect judges.

Another argument made by advocates of electing judges is that women and minorities would not fare as well under an appointive system. The research I’ve done is inconclusive, with some studies contending that women and minorities do better in appointive systems, others indicating they fare better under an elected system. Since I lack a subscription to Law Library Journal, there are many studies I can’t access. Presumably this is an empirical question, as we have a sample of states in each category. A much more difficult question: how many well-qualified women and minorities who might make excellent judges have not run for election because they lack the financial resources and/or don’t want to participate in a process riddled with potential conflicts of interest?

Several representatives of the groups involved in the meeting with the Bar Association spoke informally after the meeting about these questions, and there does seem to be sentiment towards working together to change the way we choose judges. I realize that some progressives think that election of justices is in the best interest of progressive politics. Getting a consensus and action plan around this issue will not be easy.

There was great deal of outrage about Nocella but, as one officer of the Bar said, one good thing about the Nocella debacle is that a better process may emerge. The Bar Association will no doubt improve its process and we will be able to rely on their recommendations with a greater degree of confidence. But is it possible to significantly improve our deeply flawed process of electing judges????

I never, never expected in 1973 that we would still be fighting to protect abortion rights 39 years later!

Yesterday I forced myself to go downtown on a on a bitterly cold (although thankfully sunny) day to a demonstration in support of abortion rights. When you are 67 you find out which causes matter most to you—these are the demonstrations you go to no matter what the weather. Tomorrow will be the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. I never, never expected in 1973 when I was a young woman that we would still be fighting to protect abortion rights 39 years later!

Although we have a pro-choice majority, a well-organized, vocal minority has managed to chip away at a women’s right to control her won body. But as I wrote in last year’s anniversary of Roe v. Wade post:

There is some good news. Fortunately, there is a generation of young feminists out there ready to fight for reproductive rights. I don’t think young women are going to meekly stand by and accept the loss of hard fought rights. But women in my generation thought at one time that we had spared them the necessity of that fight.

We must elect a pro-choice President and Congress next November and finally put this issue to rest.

This post is part of the We've Had Enough Campaign's Roe v. Wade Blog Carnival. See other posts on the importance of Roe and the attacks against women's health here: http://www.wevehadenoughpa.org/blog.html

Report on January 2012 PA Democratic State Committee meeting

I spent the weekend at State College at the PA Democratic State Committee meeting. My husband and most of my friends can’t believe I enjoy this, but yes this is my idea of a good time and one of the reasons I retired—more time for politics.

First, some good news: the PA Democratic Progressive Caucus is up and running; bylaws have been passed and officers elected. Bruce Slater, the chair of the caucus, wants to address the issue of Tracey Gordon, a duly elected committeeperson the party refuses to seat, as a state-wide issue. Apparently Philly is not the only place where the Democratic Party violates basic democratic principles. So the remedy for Tracey Gordon is being pursued on two tracks—in court and in Democratic State Committee.

Also, thanks to the efforts of Brad Kirsch, the Senior Caucus is up and running. Brad made a powerful case for the importance of the Senior Caucus. Seniors used to be a reliably Democratic voting bloc, but as Brad put it, the Republicans “have stolen them.” He plans an aggressive campaign around the state to get the Democratic message out to seniors.

In the bad news category, at the Progressive Caucus meeting, Daniel McCaffrey, a candidate for Attorney General, referred to one of his opponents, Kathleen Kane, as “a sweetheart.” Philadelphia Party Chair Bob Brady, when discussing the candidates with the Philadelphia Caucus, referred to her as "somebody named Kane—can’t remember her name.” Considering that signs for Kathleen Kane were plastered all over the convention hotel, it’s hard to believe he couldn’t remember her first name. When she arrived to address the group, Brady did manage to remember her first name but introduced her as “the young lady.” Maybe I’m being overly sensitive but those "sweetheart" and “young lady” references rankled.

The real action at the State Committee meeting was the Attorney General’s race. There are three strong candidates for Attorney General. I was torn between two candidates, Patrick Murphy and Kathleen Kane. I thought Murphy gave the most powerful presentation on the issues, and made a good argument about his electability and willingness to take tough stands for which he might pay a political price. Murphy was the first Congressperson outside of Illinois to endorse Barack Obama. He spoke very movingly about the impact of having lost 19 persons in his division in Iraq, and added that his very early endorsement of Obama was based largely on Obama’s stand against the Iraq war. My husband, who is a Murphy supporter, made a very good point: an Attorney General needs guts and Murphy has demonstrated that he has the courage to stand up for what he believes is right. Murphy is an impressive candidate.

But having written articles and made presentations about the importance of electing women, and having invested time and money in organizations which encourage women to run for office, when a very well-qualified woman runs, how can I not support her?

So I went back and forth, unable to decide what to do. However, from a source least expected, a solution arose. At the Philadelphia Caucus meeting, Chair Brady was giving out proxy votes—perhaps because he was concerned there would not be a quorum. He asked the group if any delegates had driven to State College with anyone who was not a delegate and would like a proxy vote. I raised my hand and said, "My husband was good enough to drive me here and he would like a proxy vote." So my dilemma was more or less resolved. In a sense I had 2 votes; Rick would vote for Patrick Murphy and I would vote for Kathleen Kane.

Daniel McCaffrey was number 3 on my list. At the Philadelphia Caucus meeting, Chair Brady introduced him as someone who wanted to run before “but we told him to wait—now it’s his turn.” This is the way the Philadelphia Democratic Party machine works: a potential candidate does pro bono work for the party, demonstrates the requisite loyalty and then waits for his/her turn. I’m very happy there are stellar candidates like Murphy and Kane who are willing to step forward and not wait until the Party machine decides it’s their turn.

McCaffrey stressed his extensive experience and told the Philadelphia Caucus “Don’t vote for Kathleen Kane because she’s a woman; don’t vote for Patrick Murphy because of his stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Base your decision on which candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican in November.” McCaffrey reckons that because of his experience as a prosecutor he is that candidate. Yes, experience matters, but so do energy, enthusiasm, and a fresh perspective.

Brady’s impassioned plea for McCaffrey ended with the argument that McCaffrey was from Philadelphia and Philadelphians had to stick together. Not a convincing argument, from my point of view. Rick thought that Brady did a good job of making the case for McCaffrey. I didn’t, but I was the minority in that room. The Philadelphia delegation was clearly receptive to McCaffrey.

Brady ended the Philadelphia Caucus meeting by stating he would not retaliate against anyone who did not vote for McCaffrey: “I do look at the names on the ballots but I won’t hold it against anyone if you don’t vote for McCaffrey.” (Delegates must sign their names to the ballots.) Reassurance or veiled threat? You decide.

The actual balloting took a while, as there is a roll call vote, with each delegation stating how its members would vote. This was quite interesting because you could tell where each candidate’s base of support was if you were familiar with the location of the counties. Next time I’ll bring a map of PA counties with me. Fortunately, Rick somehow knew where most of these counties were located and so we could piece together a pattern. Kane’s support appeared to be primarily in her home base of Northeastern PA, McCaffrey’s primarily in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas, and Murphy’s spread throughout the state. Of course this doesn’t necessarily reflect the voters in the Philadelphia area. With support from Mayor Nutter, Congressman Chaka Fattah and other Philadelphia elected officials, Murphy could very well win in Philadelphia in April.

The results of the first ballot were:

Philadelphia CountyKane: 1(my vote!); McCaffrey: 40; Murphy: 8
All counties: Kane: 58; McCaffrey: 99; Murphy: 161

Endorsement requires a 2/3 majority for endorsement. If no candidate gets a majority, the two highest vote getters go on to the second ballot. The results were:

Philadelphia County: McCaffrey: 40; Murphy: 9
All counties: McCaffrey: 125; Murphy: 191

No candidate received the 2/3 majority necessary for endorsement (211 votes were required), and so there was no endorsement. As a result, there will probably be a 3-way primary in April. The good news is that all three candidates are well qualified and all three have positions consistent with Democratic values on social issues. Unifying the party around the eventual winner should not be difficult.

The bad news (for me) is that I will have to make a tough choice between two strong candidates. I won’t get to vote for both Murphy and Kane in April. At this point, my bet is on Murphy as the eventual winner—-both because of his broad-based support and because he is such a hard worker. One revealing incident: while the second round ballots were being handed out, Murphy was going around asking people for their vote on the second ballot, not letting a minute go to waste. McCaffrey was standing around chatting with Brady. Kane was not in my line of vision, so I have no idea how she was spending this time. She was no longer a candidate but the rumor (and I have no direct knowledge of this) was she was encouraging her supporters to vote for McCaffrey so that neither candidate could get 2/3 of the vote, thus ensuring an open primary.

Although all the attention was on the Attorney General’s race, there were other votes for candidates unopposed in the primary: Bob Casey, U.S. Senate; Eugene DiPasquale, Auditor General; Rob Mc Cord, Treasurer. To me, the most impressive was Rob McCord who is smart, funny, a natural politician. We Democrats have some seriously good candidates—-a real contrast to the ideologically confused, ethically challenged candidates the Republican Party puts up.

Landreth Seed Catalogue: the most beautiful seed catalogue I’ve ever seen

January is the time when gardeners curl up with seed catalogues and fantasize about the prefect garden. A friend gave me the most beautiful catalogue I’ve ever seen, Landreth Seed Catalogue. Landreth’s was founded in 1784 and specializes in heirloom seeds.Unlike most catalogues which arrive unsolicited in our mailboxes, this is one you have to buy, but it is a work of art and definitely worth the $5.00. From the catalogue:


Tomatillos, Chinese lanterns

I don’t grow as much from seed as I once did. For one thing, my garden is so over-planted, there’s no room for new plantings. But as long as I’m capable of gardening I will grow some things from seed. There is something so magical about putting this tiny little speck in the ground (or in a pot) and seeing it turn into a gorgeous head of lettuce or a spectacular larkspur.

A tip for new gardeners: grow annuals (cosmos, zinnia, larkspur, and cleome are among the easiest) and grow salad greens from seed. Never buy over-priced super market arugula; it grows like a weed, by far the easiest salad green to grow. But buy perennials from the garden centers; perennials are so much harder to grow from seed.

The gardening season will be here before we know it!

I enjoyed the holidays,but I’m so glad they’re over

I enjoy the holidays BUT there’s still that element of stress and I’m really glad they’re over. Two years ago, I wrote a post, No longer haunted by holiday depression. I stand by that post and now would put it more positively. Not only am I no longer “haunted” but I actually (for the most part) enjoy the holidays.

When I had a young child, the holidays were high stress. I wanted my son to have the “perfect Christmas” (whatever that is) and knocked myself out buying presents and putting up a Christmas tree, decorating the house etc. It was seriously high stress—especially with major marital problems that always worsened during the holidays. When the marriage ended, there was the tension of the joint custody years with all those negotiations about how my son would spend the holidays.

My life is so much less stressful now and the holidays reflect that. My son and my nieces don’t want presents—just checks-- which makes life easier, and I no longer feel any need to decorate the house. My sister still does that Christmas thing and I’m always taken aback when I see all the Christmas decorations in her house. My sister's house during the holidays:






Even the dog is in Christmas finery:


For me it’s just a poinsettia, but in a way I enjoy my sister's celebration of Christmas.

We had a great New Year’s Eve—an amazing party right in the neighborhood. It was a multi-generational event (which as an old person I really appreciate) with live music and dancing. I hadn’t been to a party like that for a while and I’d forgotten how much fun it is to dance. I was a little reluctant at first, but “Black Magic Woman" got me to my feet.

The only holiday entertaining Rick and I do is an open house on New Year’s Day. We used to have a New Year’s Eve dinner, but a few years ago after Rick had spent the whole day cooking a fantastic dinner, only 2 of our dinner guests showed. They were ill, were worried about the weather, uncomfortable about driving at night. We spent the next day driving around to deliver food to those friends who hadn’t come.

We decided that a lot of our friends were getting too old to be reliable New Year’s Eve guests so we switched to an open house on New Year’s day which has worked out very well. We don’t cook; we just buy hors d'oeuvres and our friends bring wonderful dishes. Some of the best pastry chefs in the city were there, bringing wonderful baked goods. (Thanks, Kathy.)

But there’s no way around it—-entertaining is stressful for the hosts. I fell down on the job and got so involved in conversations, I didn’t notice we had run out of clean wine glasses and utensils. Rick can deal with paper plates for hors d’oeuvres, but he insists on real glasses and utensils—which means monitoring the glasses and throwing some in the dishwasher if necessary. Fortunately some of my friends took up the slack and I found them washing glasses and utensils in the kitchen. I’ll never be the perfect hostess—too scattered for that.

So we got through the holidays and although I enjoyed them, I’m so glad they’re over and so happy to settle back into routine.

The first congressional district, represented by Bob Brady, has the most dramatic change in racial composition of any of the state's 19 congressional

I had promised myself I’d stay away from political blogging during the holiday season-–but there’s one recent development I just can’t refrain from writing about. This was one of the reasons I retired—more time for politics. So here goes: my last political post until after Jan. 1.

Thanks to Azavea, the web-based software design firm that developed the Redistricting the Nation project, we now have the demographics of the old and new Pennsylvania congressional districts.

The first congressional district, represented by Bob Brady, has the most dramatic change in racial composition of any of the state's 19 congressional districts. Brady's district is currently 31.8% White and 48.0% black. His new district will be 46.9% white and 35.5% black. (The Asian and Latino percentages have changed very little.)

Across the state, most of the changes in racial composition were relatively small—generally no more than a few percentage points. The only other district which had significant change was the 14th congressional district, which contains the entire city of Pittsburgh. In the 14th, the percentage of white voters was 69.4% % in the old district, 77.37% in the new; the percentage of black voters was 24.5% in the old district, 16.53% in the new. The shift in racial composition in the 14th is not as dramatic as in the first congressional district and it does not change the racial dynamics of the race. The 14th district was and remains a district which favors the election of a white candidate. The first district has gone from a district which was very favorable terrain for a black candidate to one in which a black candidate would be significantly less competitive.

News reports suggested that Brady may have had something to do with this. Cris Brennan reported in the Daily News on 8/20/11:

U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, chairman of the Democratic City Committee in Philadelphia, says that one hot rumor circulating in Harrisburg about his 1st Congressional District is way off the mark.

The rumor: Brady offers a weak Democratic candidate for a special election for the state House's 169th District in Northeast Philly if the Republicans controlling the General Assembly and redistricting redraw his district in a fashion he favors…

Republican and Democratic sources in Harrisburg confirm that the rumor about Brady seeking a deal is swirling.

One senior Democratic source put it this way: "Every House Democratic leader is extremely frustrated that you have the leader of the Philadelphia Democratic Party attempting to sell out a Democratic seat just to help himself."

Doron Taussig in the "It's our Money Blog" reported on 12/19/11:

John Micek, Capitolwire reports on U.S.Rep. Bob Brady’s efforts to get the state’s current congressional redistricting plan passed. The report says Brady got State Sen. Tina Tartaglione to cast a key vote to get the new map out of committee, and that the congressman is now trying to drum up support for the plan among Philly’s state House delegation.

Brady is doing this, Capitolwire says, in spite of the fact that the congressional redistricting plan “masses the largest number of urban Democratic voters into the smallest number of districts.”

Why would Brady do such a thing? Isn’t he Mr. Democrat? Maybe, but the proposed map isn’t nearly as bad for Brady as it is for Democrats generally: “it let(s) him shoot up the Delaware River to capture more capture more white Democrats, giving him some protection against future black primary challengers.”

Did the Democratic Party Chair push for something so contrary to the interests of his party just to insure that he had a district with more white voters? Most political folks I know think Brady could have been beaten by a well-known, well-funded black challenger in the old district with 48.0% black voters. It will be significantly more difficult with 35.5% black voters. Brady now has a district which will make it a lot harder for an African-American challenger for the foreseeable future, as the new boundaries are good for 10 years.

Could a shift in the racial demographics this dramatic (compared to other districts) be in violation of the voting rights act? The demographic shift in the first congressional district certainly decreases the likelihood of another African-American congressional representative in Pennsylvania. Although more voters are crossing racial and ethnic lines in voting—particularly in high profile races like the presidency and governorships—voters are much more likely to vote for someone who looks like them in down ballot races.

I expected that the Republicans would use their control of the redistricting process to gerrymander their way to increased representation. I did not expect the Chair of the Philadelphia Democratic Party to work with Republicans to guarantee himself a district which would be less competitive for an African-American challenger. Of course, given that redistricting is not an open, transparent process, we well never know for certain if this was the case. There is no smoking gun. But there sure is evidence pointing in that direction.

Nostalgia for the Light: worth all the money I’ve wasted on a largely unused Netflix subscription.

I thought when I retired I would actually use my netflix subscription instead of wasting money every month on a video rental service I never used. Well, it hasn’t quite worked out that way. A netflix film can still be around the house for weeks before I get around to it and the little Roku box I bought for streaming video has been used exactly once. Most nights I would just rather read.

But there are some things film can do that a book cannot and thanks to Netflix I have seen some amazing films from around the world. A visually breathtaking and deeply moving film I stumbled on last week was Patricio Guzman’s Nostalgia for the Light. I’ve watched all of Guzman’s documentary films about Chile. I was inChile in 1972, a year before the brutal coup which destroyed Salvador Allende’s non-violent democratic revolution. Chile has had a hold on my imagination ever since— although my return trip in 2006 was something of a disappointment.

Guzman is still haunted by the horrors of Pinochet’s dictatorship. Set in the Atacama Desert where the dry air creates ideal conditions for astronomers, the film works on 2 tracks —the astronomers who describe themselves as archaeologists searching for the past in distant galaxies and the mothers of Pinochet’s victims also searching for the past in the Atacama, site of one of Pinochet’s concentration camps. The women wander the desert with shovels searching for the remains of their children. One says she wishes the gigantic telescopes looming in the desert landscape could also look deep into the earth and find her son.

The two strands merge in a young woman whose parents were killed by Pinochet and who now studies astronomy. She finds consolation in the stars; although her sorrow is not diminished, there is a measure of peace in seeing her personal tragedy in a larger perspective.

The shots of distance galaxies were astonishing and for the first time in my life, I thought maybe I would like one of those flat screen TV’s. (Rick and I are the only people we know who have yet to succumb to the lure of a giant flat screen TV.) Nostalgia for the Light was worth all the money I’ve wasted on a largely unused Netflix subscription.

Social Security Disability Benefits:No subsitute for Medicare!

I received some very thoughtful comments about my post, Raising the Retirement Age: Bad for the Old, Disastrous for the Young. Carol and Nance raised points I should have included in my post:

From Nance:

"I have seen so many teachers, social workers and nurses who are exhausted by the emotional demands of their jobs..." Count me among these. I loved my private psychotherapy practice, but there came a time when arthritis made long hours in the chair impossible and the long, slow accumulation of residue from years of vicariously experienced traumas had begun to declare itself.

When I retired, it was time. I was turning 60 in a job most folks would say you could do into your eighties. When I think of returning to it, I feel sick.

Everyone I've ever talked to who is past sixty has begun struggling with notable physical decline in some form and longs for the day they can change gears to meet their own physical needs.

From Carol:

I loved the column, but you should have mentioned that in our post-60's, health problems like diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, etc. tend to kick in, so not only will older people working make it less likely for younger ones to get jobs -- but also it is inhumane for a society to expect people to continue working when they may be frail or battling serious illnesses.

The advocates of raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare usually counter that those older folks who are disabled can apply for Social Security Disability Benefits. I asked a couple of my friends who worked for organizations advocating for the elderly and they both said, “It’s not so easy.” Unlike Medicare, which we are automatically entitled to at age 65, and Social Security retirement benefits, for which we are automatically eligible (at a reduced rate, to be sure) at age 62, there is nothing automatic about Social Security disability benefits. To qualify, applicants must be severely disabled, and even then there is a very high rate of rejection; getting approval takes forever. The arthritis Nance described would not be sufficient to qualify.

An article in the latest issue of AARP Bulletin, Waiting for Social Security Disability confirms what my friends said:

About 60 percent of cases are initially rejected. Applicants can ask for review by an administrative law judge, hire an attorney and wait months for a hearing… By last fall, 840,000 initial applications were pending.

Part of the problem is the sour economy. Applications have soared since late 2007 as workers with disabilities lost jobs and couldn't find new employment. At the same time, more boomers — many of them unable to find jobs — have applied for disability benefits.

All told, about 8.5 million workers and about 2 million adult children, widows and widowers were receiving disability benefits as of August. The average age of a disabled worker in the program now is 53. No one gets rich from the program: The average monthly benefit is $1,070.20.

Social Security Disability can not be counted on as a fallback for the infirm elderly if the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security are raised. The idea that people who are not doing heavy physical work should be able to work well into their late 60’s and 70’s is cruel for all the reasons Nance stated. We can’t let this happen.

Raising the Retirement Age: Bad for the Old, Disastrous for the Young

It almost seems as if there’s a conspiracy to normalize the idea of working longer. Every time I pick up a newspaper, there’s another article about how we all have to work until we drop. Rather than dwelling on the familiar argument we just can’t afford to fund Social Security and Medicare, Edward Glaeser in his recent New York Times article,“Goodbye, Golden Years” puts a happy face on working well into old age.

Despite the current crisis in youth unemployment, Glaeser cheerfully tells us that“it’s counterintuitive, but the forever work life of older Americans may turn out to be a good thing for young workers.” He argues against what he calls the “lump of labor fallacy”-- that there are just a fixed number of jobs which the economy can generate:

If the economy needed only a lump of labor, the spectacular expansion of America’s female work force would have led to vast male unemployment. But it didn’t. In fact, the number of working women rose by 87 percent in the 25 years between 1975 and 2000, during which time total male employment also increased, by 41 percent.

However, the entry of women into the labor force occurred during a time of economic expansion (Yes, we had a recession in the early 80’s, but the 90’s were fueled by the dotcom boom.) Times are very different now as we remain mired in deep recession with increasing numbers of jobs out sourced to low-wage economies.

Not only does Glaeser downplay the grim reality of a jobs crisis, he paints a rosy picture of seniors starting businesses:

…by at least one measure, the elderly are often the most entrepreneurial Americans. Self-employment rises significantly with age. West Palm Beach, a retiree haven, has the highest self-employment rate of any metropolitan area in the nation… Self-employment is particularly natural for older Americans, because it provides so much more control over working hours and conditions. …Gradually, our image of 70-year-olds needs to change from Florida retirees to Florida entrepreneurs, who find ways to make a bit of cash doing something a bit more fun than their former work.

The message seems to be that, yes, we can cut their Social Security checks because they’ll be making extra cash with their small businesses. What makes Glaeser think that people who have not been entrepreneurs all their lives will suddenly develop this interest and talent in their golden years? How many retirees will be willing to gamble their nest eggs to start a business? The appetite for risk for most folks decreases with age. And finally most small businesses fail in their first year. Entrepreneurship among the elderly is not likely to compensate for decreased Social
Security checks and increased Medicare costs.

If our social policies force more elderly workers to remain in the work force longer, the greatest consequences will be felt by the young. Those young French men and women knew what they were doing when they were demonstrating in favor of retirement at 62. Don Peck’s article in the March 2010 Atlantic points out the consequences of long-term joblessness:

The effects of pervasive joblessness—on family, politics, society—take time to incubate, and they show themselves only slowly. But ultimately, they leave deep marks that endure long after boom times have returned. …If it persists much longer, this era of high joblessness will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults—and quite possibly those of the children behind them as well.

We need to spread the jobs around. Our society has been pushing workers to stay in the paid work force by gradually raising the age at which they are eligible for full retirement benefits and now policy makers are proposing raising the eligibility age for Medicare But either we pay more in Social Security and Medicare by encouraging older workers to leave the workforce or we’ll be paying more in unemployment compensation--not to mention the range of social ills resulting from a generation of young people who can’t find steady employment.

Of course, seniors who love their jobs and want to continue working should do so. But most do not, and it’s not just those with physically demanding jobs who long to retire. I have seen so many teachers, social workers and nurses who are exhausted by the emotional demands of their jobs but are hanging on for fear that there will be steep cuts in Social Security and Medicare. A social contract across the generations is sometimes discussed in terms of fewer entitlements for the old and more for the young. A better way to think about this is sharing what has become an increasingly scarce resource—a job and all that means for family and community stability.