Subscribe via RSS Feed

Author Page for Erik Loomis

rss feed

Visit Erik Loomis's Website

How Gilded Age Corruption Still Poisons Our Civic Life

[ 54 ] November 25, 2011 | Erik Loomis

Joshua Holland on the history of how corporations became “people.”

During the 19th century, however, the robber barons, aided by a few corrupt jurists deep in their pockets, took the concept to a whole new level in the United States. According to legal textbooks, the idea that corporations enjoy the same constitutional rights as you or I was codified in the 1886 decision Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. But historian Thom Hartmann dug into the original case documents and found that this crucially important legal doctrine actually originated with what may be the most significant act of corruption in history.

It occurred during a seemingly routine tax case: Santa Clara sued the Southern Pacific Railroad to pay property taxes on the land it held in the county, and the railroad claimed that because states had different rates, allowing them to tax its holdings would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The railroads had made the claim in previous cases, but the courts had never bought the argument.

In a 2005 interview, Hartmann described his surprise when he went to a Vermont courthouse to read an original copy of the verdict and found that the judges had made no mention of corporate personhood. “In fact,” he told the interviewer, “the decision says, at its end, that because they could find a California state law that covered the case ‘it is not necessary to consider any other questions’ such as the constitutionality of the railroad’s claim to personhood.”

Hartmann then explained how it was that corporations actually became “people”:

In the headnote to the case—a commentary written by the clerk, which is not legally binding, it’s just a commentary to help out law students and whatnot, summarizing the case—the Court’s clerk wrote: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The discovery “that we’d been operating for over 100 years on an incorrect headnote” led Hartmann to look into the past of the clerk who’d written it, J. C. Bancroft Davis. He discovered that Davis had been a corrupt official who had himself previously served as the president of a railroad. Digging deeper, Hartmann then discovered that Davis had been working “in collusion with another corrupt Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Field.” The railroad companies, according to Hartmann, had promised Field that they’d sponsor his run for the White House if he assisted them in their effort to gain constitutional rights.

Lemieux would be somewhat better qualified to speak on this matter than myself, but Field has always seemed to me one of the nation’s worst Supreme Court justices, especially considering his long tenure on the court.

Brownback

[ 31 ] November 25, 2011 | Erik Loomis

Poor Sam Brownback, an 18 year old is being mean to him on Twitter. And it really bothers his staff.

Leftovers

[ 12 ] November 25, 2011 | Erik Loomis

What are you doing with all of your leftover turkey? When I was growing up, I knew turkey leftovers well. We’d get a big turkey for Thanksgiving and then eat the leftovers for like 3 weeks. Then, my Dad’s work always gave us a Christmas turkey. So we’d start the ritual all over again. From November 24 or so until about January 15, we ate a lot of turkey.

It is therefore with great joy that my parents never tried this recipe for Jellied Turkey Pineapple Loaf recommended in a 1950s cookbook by noted chefs the Poultry and Egg National Board. I provide this for you all. A public service as it were.

Jellied Turkey Pineapple Loaf:

Pineapple Layer:

1 package lemon gelatin
¾ cup hot water
1 cup pineapple juice, drained from a No. 2 can crushed pineapple (2½ cups)
1¼ cups well-drained crushed pineapple
½ cup grated carrot

Turkey Layer:

1 package lemon gelatin
1 chicken bouillon cube
¾ cup hot water
1 cup cold water
Grated rind of 1 lemon
2 tbsp. lemon juice
1 cup finely chopped cooked turkey
1 cup finely diced celery
¼ cup sliced stuffed green onion
½ tsp. salt, or more

Pour hot water over lemon gelatin. Stir until gelatin is dissolved. Stir in pineapple juice, pineapple and carrot. Blend and cool until mixture is thickened. Pour into a 1½ quart mold. Chill until set. Pour turkey layer on top. To make turkey layer: Dissolve the gelatin and the bouillon cube in the hot water. Add cold water stirring constantly. Cool until mixture is thickened. Add remaining ingredients. Season to taste with salt. Pour mixture over top of set pineapple layer. Chill until firm. Turn out of mold on lettuce or other greens. Serve with salad dressing. 8 to 10 servings.

If this doesn’t sound tasty enough for you, there’s also a recipe for a scrumptious turkey mousse!

Self-Actualization

[ 59 ] November 24, 2011 | Erik Loomis

I thought everyone might need their feelings reassured for Thanksgiving. Luckily, the Denver Westword has provided us with some extra-special classroom posters from 1973. Now, let’s all gather around and talk about our feelings.

Fail.

I recommend drinking.

A better way? Setting the plane and the book on fire with the gasoline from Dad’s lawnmower.

Tear Down This Wall!

[ 33 ] November 23, 2011 | Erik Loomis

Exhibit 4,000,000 in why the border wall is worthless, driving people into the desert to die while not even slowing down drug smuggling.

Be Safe and Such

[ 20 ] November 23, 2011 | Erik Loomis

Weather is pretty not great in New England, a lot of people are on the road across the country including myself in about 5 minutes. Be safe, blah, blah, etc.

And if you think I wrote this post as an excuse to embed some Bill Monroe, well, I guess I’ll have to live with your contempt.

Breillat

[ 15 ] November 23, 2011 | Erik Loomis

I have always wanted to like Catherine Breillat’s films, but never have. I find her a cut-rate Eric Rohmer, trying and failing to equal Rohmer’s dialogue about sex and love and making up for it with shock value. People liked “Fat Girl” and most of it was pretty good but the ending was the kind of bullshit stunt she pulls way too often. Her other movies have see-sawed from incredibly boring (“Sex is Comedy”) to one of the most wretched, loathsome films I have ever seen (“Anatomy of Hell”). That said, I still occasionally sit down to watch one of her films with the hopes that her occasionally good dialogue will combine with her feminism and frank discussions of sex to create a truly good movie.

And last night that paid off when I watched her 2001 film “Brief Crossing,” which works very well. The story of a woman in her late 30s hooking up with a 16 year old boy on an overnight crossing from France to Britain has the potential for the typical Breillat disaster–making us feel uncomfortable instead of delivering us a solid film. But the dialogue works, the story works, the actors are good, and the twist at the end isn’t grotesque like the end of “Fat Girl,” but instead makes a lot of sense within the world of the character.

Paul Motian, RIP

[ 18 ] November 22, 2011 | Erik Loomis

The jazz world and the drumming world weeps tonight.

The French Studio System

[ 59 ] November 22, 2011 | Erik Loomis

Last night I watched “Mesrine”, the 4 hour film on the life of the notorious French gangster of the 60s and 70s, Jacques Mesrine. It was very good, but not great, suffering from some of the problems many bio-pic faces, primarily the need to stuff a lot of different incidents into the movie in order to follow the complexities of a real life. Being far, far better made than your standard Oscar-ready American studio bio-pic, it was still very enjoyable and a fine entry into the gangster film genre.

I have a question though that perhaps readers can help me answer. Like so many big-name French films, it had a huge number of the most prestigious actors in France–Vincent Cassel, Cecile de France, Ludivine Sagnier, Mathieu Amalric, Gerard Depardieu. What, no Juliette Binoche? Sadly, no proper role for a woman of her age or I’m sure she would have made an appearance too.

I’m curious about why most of the prestige films from France with international distribution tend to have the same actors in them. I know the French treat their best actors (and especially actresses) like deities, but is there something institutional about it? Does the French studio system choose a film or two a year and make sure all the A list names are in it?

This is as opposed to the U.S., where George Clooney might headline a film, but the rest of the actors are essentially character actors. The American equivalent would be to have Clooney, Streep, DeNiro, etc., in every American prestigious film. And then also essentially choosing which of the younger generation would be the next Streep. Because de France and Sagnier basically became the chosen next Deneuve and Binoche by the age of 24.

This Day in Labor History: November 22, 1909

[ 20 ] November 22, 2011 | Erik Loomis

On November 22, 1909, approximately 20,000 garment workers in New York City went on strike against the horrendous conditions of their sweatshops. This strike, known as the Uprising of the 20,000, was the largest strike led by women in American history to that time.

New York City was America’s immigrant center in the early twentieth century, but work in the Big Apple was quite different than the big factories we usually identify with American industrialization and immigrant labor. Because land was so expensive in New York, large manufacturing firms set up shop outside of New York in order to create sprawling compounds that would hire thousands of workers. This meant that immigrants in the city tended to work behind the scenes, especially in small operations hidden in the dense urban jungle. Many women workers found jobs in the garment sweatshops. Much of this work was taken over by Jewish immigrant women, a group that quickly obtained a reputation for labor radicalism. In fact, while non-Anglo Saxon employers of the time tended to hire people of their own ethnicity, many Jewish sweatshop owners preferred Italian labor because they were less likely to complain about bad working conditions.

And bad conditions they were indeed. Workweeks started at 65 hours and could reach 75. The work was also not stable; if orders went down, workers could be laid off at any time. Depending on their job and experience, these women could earn anywhere from 3 to 10 dollars a week, which were poverty wages even at the higher level. About half of these women were less than 20 years old, as Jewish women tended to leave the workforce after they married. They were required to supply their own materials such as needles and they could have their pay docked for the slightest infraction. Factory owners tried to control their workers’ movements, including locking doors so they could not sneak outside for breaks and requiring permission to use the usually quite unsanitary bathroom.

Jewish immigrants had already established a strong activist community in New York and so it wasn’t that surprising that the summer and fall of 1909 saw several spontaneous strikes against the sweatshop owners. Among the firms whose workers walked out was the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, which workers accused of all the above indignities along with sexual harassment of the female work force by male supervisors. Of course, two years later, this very place would become infamous as the site of America’s most famous workplace tragedy.

These strikes struggled along for several weeks, suffering from police harassment, less than inspired leadership from the highers up at the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), and harsh sentences from anti-labor judges when arrested. By late November, the strikes were falling apart. On November 22, Local 25 of the ILG held a meeting of all workers to call for a general strike against the shirtwaist makers for whom most of the workers toiled. At the meeting, New York Progressives and labor leaders, including American Federation of Labor president Samuel Gompers, urged caution. After listening to this for two hours, a sweatshop worker named Clara Lemlich stood up and spoke to the workers in Yiddish, saying “I am a working girl, one of those who are on strike against intolerable conditions. I am tired of listening to speakers who talk in general terms. What we are here to decide is whether we shall or shall not strike. I offer a resolution that a general strike be declared—now.” This is what the angry workers wanted to hear. They pledged to support the strike, which began the next day.

The strikers faced a tough road. Police repression rose. Over 700 women were arrested in the next month, of which 19 were sentenced to a workhouse. Clara Lemlich suffered six broken ribs through an act of police brutality and was arrested 17 times. A 10 year old girl was arrested and sentenced to the workforce for assaulting a scab. But despite this, or perhaps because of it, public opinion turned against the operators. 1909 was at the height of the Progressive Era and there were many middle and upper-class reformers who sympathized with the workers. Wealthy women began joining workers on the picket lines and bailing the arrested women out of jail. Among them were future Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins.

This bad press forced the sweatshop owners to negotiate with the workers. The workers wanted to hold the line at getting the union shop but after 11 weeks without work and with only tepid support for the ILGWU international, they were forced back to work with only minimal gains and without the union shop. Only about 1000 out of the 20,000 were still on the picket lines, succumbing to the greatest enemy of the strike–poverty. That said, the manufactures did agree to some real concessions that made the strike worthwhile, including a 52 hour work week, 4 paid holidays per year, the end of having to buy one’s own work materials, and a general agreement to negotiate pay rates with workers. They also agreed not to discriminate against union members, but this was totally unenforceable and many leaders were blacklisted. Local 25 exploded from 100 members to 10,000. On the other hand, conditions of work did not improve much at all, something that the nation would discover 2 years later at Triangle.

The ILGWU grew rapidly in the years after 1909. Although it took until the mid 1930s for the union to become a consistently powerful force in the industry, the Uprising of the 20,000 became central to its institutional memory, even in its early years. Garment workers remembered 1909 with great pride, producing songs like this:

The Uprising of the Twenty Thousand
Dedicated to the Waistmakers of 1909

In the black of the winter of nineteen nine,
When we froze and bled on the picket line,
We showed the world that women could fight
And we rose and won with women’s might.

Chorus:
Hail the waistmakers of nineteen nine,
Making their stand on the picket line,
Breaking the power of those who reign,
Pointing the way, smashing the chain.

And we gave new courage to the men
Who carried on in nineteen ten
And shoulder to shoulder we’ll win through,
Led by the I.L.G.W.U.

Clara Lemlich

Among the blacklisted workers was Clara Lemlich, who was a committed socialist before immigrating from Russia in 1903. She joined the Communist Party and spent the rest of her life organizing people, beginning with women’s suffrage and then moving onto consumer rights and tenant rights when she became a non-working mother. She opposed the execution of the Rosenbergs and her passport was revoked after a trip to the Soviet Union in 1951. At the end of her life, while in a nursing home, she organized the home’s workers into a union and convinced the institution to honor the United Farm Workers’ grape boycott. She died in 1982 at the age of 96.

This series has previously discussed the Bisbee Deportation of 1917 and the Everett Massacre of 1916.

The 1% and Environmental Destruction

[ 80 ] November 21, 2011 | Erik Loomis

A bit of an older piece now, but Ian Angus and Simon Butler provide some real solid evidence to a point I have made repeatedly–that overpopulation is far from the greatest environmental problem we face:

But most of the 7 billion are not endangering the earth. The majority of the world’s people don’t destroy forests, don’t wipe out endangered species, don’t pollute rivers and oceans, and emit essentially no greenhouse gases.

Even in the rich countries of the Global North, most environmental destruction is caused not by individuals or households, but by mines, factories, and power plants run by corporations that care more about profit than about humanity’s survival.

No reduction in U.S. population would have stopped BP from poisoning the Gulf of Mexico last year.

Lower birthrates won’t shut down Canada’s tar sands, which Bill McKibben has justly called one of the most staggering crimes the world has ever seen.

Universal access to birth control should be a fundamental human right — but it would not have prevented Shell’s massive destruction of ecosystems in the Niger River delta, or the immeasurable damage that Chevron has caused to rainforests in Ecuador.

Ironically, while populationist groups focus attention on the 7 billion, protestors in the worldwide Occupy movement have identified the real source of environmental destruction: not the 7 billion, but the 1%, the handful of millionaires and billionaires who own more, consume more, control more, and destroy more than all the rest of us put together.

Of course, rising consumption rates by a growing middle class in China, India, Brazil, and other developing world nations complicate this narrative, but the larger point stands–population is not the major cause for environmental degradation. Rather, the profit motive and capitalist control over the potential regulatory power of governments are much greater problems.

Petroleum Lies

[ 4 ] November 21, 2011 | Erik Loomis

Who could have guessed that energy companies would wildly exaggerate the economic benefit pipelines bring to local communities!

Here are the tax dollar promises TransCanada promised South Dakota counties and what they are actually paying:

Marshall County: $937,804.50 promised; $286,280.98 actually paid;

Clark County: $1,369,565,98 promised; $359,646.04 paid;

Miner County: $1,140,855.42 promised; $391,047.39 paid;

Hutchinson County: $1,140, 264.64 promised; $424,504.72 paid.

Yankton County: $837,988.68 promised; $247,965.58 paid.

In return, county property owners also received oil leaks and degraded property values near the pipeline.

  • Switch to our mobile site