Tuesday, September 26, 2023

Where Housing Is Clean, Beautiful, and Affordable For All

 "It's not, 'We have a private (housing) system and in other societies the government is involved.' The truth is the governments are always involved. It's simply a question of how they are involved. How do they participate. If you go to Austria, and in particular to its famous capital city of Vienna, you will be in a city, one of the great cities of the world, where about half the housing is rental, either run by the government - that's a good part of it - or controlled, regulated, and subsidized by the government. It's one of the best housing situations in any modern city. There's virtually no homelessness in Vienna, and there hasn't been, because the government's intervention solved the problem. And by the way, when was that done? Over a century ago. Socialists in Austria set up that public housing program to make sure that nobody spends more for housing than twenty to thirty percent of their income. And that is a guarantee in the law. Right-wing governments have come and gone in Vienna. Left-wing governments have come and gone. They even had a period of time with a Nazi government. No one has dared to touch their public housing program, because there would have been an immediate reaction by an overwhelming majority of the people there. Because, of course, if the government maintains beautiful housing - I've been to Vienna repeatedly - I can tell you first-hand the housing is wonderful, to live in, to feel in (sic), the cleanliness, the landscaping, all of it. But because the mass of people, roughly half, live in government managed rent control, the private housing sector can't go much beyond it, because nobody would go there. So you have, in effect, a controlled guarantee, and it has worked impeccably."

-----Richard Wolff, A Radical Rethink of the Housing Crisis

The Zero Hour Podcast, 9/17/23

Saturday, September 23, 2023

Top Philosopher Calls For An End To The Ukraine Farce

"It's gross that we're giving so many weapons to Ukraine. Like Russia's not going to allow an American proxy state on their border. And I don't blame them. So we're pretty much licensing the murder of Russians, who are defending what they consider their national sovereignty. And we're not admitting that that's what's going to go on, and it's going to go on forever. Meanwhile, this guy Zelensky comes and just . . . . why don't we just give him a big old printing press for U.S. cash? I would say we'd (also) give him a gun factory. It can't be in Ukraine because the Russians will just bomb it. They don't have any productive . . . They don't have an economy. There is no Ukraine economy. Because it's a war zone. Any time they try to build anything the Russians will just bomb it. We just need to admit that Ukraine's going to end up, it should end up possibly like Belarus. That's just how it's going to be. Russia's a real power. We have to recognize them as such, and that is what it is. And let's stop pretending that it's about Ukraine's self-determination. There's no Ukraine self-determination; there's barely a Ukraine. They've now consolidated the media. They took away all private media, so now there's just state media. Zelensky has suspended elections. Let's stop pretending that we're fighting for a democracy in Ukraine. That's untenable. Part of what it is to be a sovereign nation is to be able to defend your borders. Ukraine can't do that, so they're not a sovereign nation. We need to just admit that. It would be the equivalent of Russia giving guns to Puerto Rican separatists. It's ridiculous and absurd and we need to admit that we don't get to unilaterally decide the shape of the world. And if Russia doesn't want an American proxy state on their border and they can convince their people that this is a bad thing for Russia, then that's a forever war that we're funding because we like the idea of Ukrainians killing Russians, even if that just ratchets up the debt." 

 ---------Irami Osei-Frimpong 9/22/23
                "Cornel West, Sure"

Thursday, September 14, 2023

The Priesthood of Expertise

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." 

-----------Upton Sinclair


Whose Expertise Is Dead?

In The Death of Expertise, national security expert Tom Nichols warns that knowledge is under attack by an ill-informed public determined to replace it with popular ignorance. Though this is not entirely possible - no society could survive such a transition - the breakdown in trust between experts and laypeople underlying this misguided ambition is making the U.S. ungovernable. Experts are held in contempt, sometimes for their errors, but increasingly simply because they are experts and laypeople are not. Knowledge inequality is taken to be as contemptible as wealth inequality, on the assumption that those in possession of it consider themselves smarter and better than the less educated. Aspiring to acquire knowledge and use it to enlighten others, once a noble ambition, now signals elitist arrogance.


Furthermore, where once we were entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, today proliferating digital tribes proudly circulate self-justifying"alternative facts" without the inconvenience of being challenged. The Internet, though not the cause of this phenomenon, does aggravate it, since the "information superhighway" has degenerated into a galaxy of glittering websites eagerly catering to popular delusions on a growing range of topics. What now passes for "research" refers to scanning a few algorithm-curated lines that confirm one's prejudices, then clicking away satisfied one's half-baked notions have been proven right. 


Easy access to vast troves of information, the debasement of university education into a consumer experience in which "the customer is always right," and the fusion of news and entertainment into a 24-hour cycle of mind-killing spectacle, all have helped produce this situation, writes Nichols, yielding a deeply ignorant public nevertheless convinced it holds infallible judgment on a nearly limitless range of topics.

Formal democratic governance based on expert advice and popular ratification has therefore become nearly impossible, because increasing numbers of laypeople not only lack basic knowledge, but reject rules of evidence, effectively eliminating any possibility of logical debate. Strength of conviction, not persuasiveness of logic, determines the "winner" of disagreements, with more and more people succumbing to narcissistic self-congratulation on the grounds that, "I'm passionately convinced I'm right; therefore, how could I be wrong?"


In this emerging Dis-United States of Self-Righteousness we risk discarding centuries of accumulated knowledge and eroding the disciplines that allow us to acquire new knowledge. No democracy, even the very partial democracy that has existed in the U.S. to date, can survive such a trend.


The problem actually goes considerably beyond mere ignorance, observes Nichols, because want of knowledge can be remedied by study, whereas today's popular impulse is to reject study itself on the grounds that ignorance trumps established knowledge. This is "the outrage of an increasingly narcissistic culture" that cannot tolerate any inequality, even that of knowledge. Equal rights has become equal validity of all opinions, the more crackpot the better, a proposition whose self-contradictory nature is rarely noted.


Furthermore, latter day know-nothings want to kick away the intellectual ladder that has permitted us to ascend to an age of at least semi-reason: "The death of expertise is not just a rejection of existing knowledge," says Nichols. "It is fundamentally a rejection of science and dispassionate rationality, which are the foundations of modern civilization." 


We need not look far to find evidence supporting Nichols's thesis. In the Covid 19 era we have seen massive and painful verification of it, with credentialed grifters and scientifically illiterate trolls lecturing career virologists and immunologists about the complexities of viruses and vaccines, all the while insisting on quack treatments as Covid deaths soar. Nurses and doctors confirm that many Covid sufferers willed themselves to unnecessary deaths clinging to medical delusions.[1] Though this is merely one example among many, the fact that people will die rather than let go of their mistaken opinions hauntingly confirms the validity of the author's main point.


Nichols's solution for this dismal state of affairs is for laypeople to re-engage the effort to be responsible citizens in a democracy, follow a variety of reputable news sources, at least one of which takes an editorial line contrary to one's own views, and recognize that the public has a need to collaborate with experts, not shout them down.


This all sounds eminently sensible, at least for the more literate half of the population, and one can hardly argue with the conclusion that the U.S. public needs to be much better informed. Unfortunately, however, Nichols nowhere takes note of the impact of elite ideology, which relentlessly pumps a false world view into the public mind, one that vastly exceeds in impact all the ravings of crackpot conspiracy theorists put together.[2]


Nevertheless, those who debunk the establishment's self-justifying propaganda are given short shrift by Nichols. For example, he dismisses Ward Churchill without examination because the former ethnic studies professor was fired for plagiarism, a conclusion that is narrowly correct but disingenuous in the extreme. Churchill's real offense was insulting the national self-image by comparing "good Americans" working within a murderous U.S. empire to "good Germans" working under the Nazis, amplifying the provocation by drawing a parallel with Adolf Eichmann. This produced a familiar tsunami of public hysteria that culminated in an "examination" of Churchill's published works obviously designed to find cause to fire him. In the event, four footnotes among thousands in his published works were found to be objectionable. This horrifying "plagiarism" largely consisted of Churchill re-using content from his previously published books, written in activist settings, sometimes in conjunction with others, where no money or reputational issues were at stake. Ho hum. Such an offense, if it really qualifies as such, is far less serious than Dr. King's lifting of whole passages without attribution in his doctoral dissertation, but if we retroactively treat King the way we did Ward Churchill we will have to make ourselves party to a second assassination. Nichols cares about none of this, convinced that Churchill deserved what he got. 


Here we see - once again - cancel culture wreaking havoc, with Churchill's large body of work detailing centuries of lawless U.S. governments breaking hundreds of treaties with American Indians (among other important topics) shoved down Orwell's memory hole. Incidentally, the very fact that Churchill taught in an Ethnic Studies Department rather than an American History Department testifies to the fact that twenty-first century history experts still cannot face the fact that dozens of indigenous peoples did not fortuitously vanish or voluntarily disband to make way for the civilized master race, but were deliberately eradicated. The death of their expertise is long overdue.


Nichols also dismisses the work of anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott, on the basis that her expertise is in medicine, not arms control and disarmament, and she substitutes a psychological examination of a presumed pathological arms race ("Missile Envy" is the title of one of her anti-nuclear books) for an examination of the topic by a relevant expert. She also once falsely claimed on a radio program that, "If Ronald Reagan is re-elected, nuclear war is a mathematical certainty."  


Only on the second point is Nichols on solid ground. Obviously, one cannot predict the future of anything on the basis of mathematical certainty, and Caldicott's misuse of her social prestige as a doctor to try to influence how her audience would vote was dishonest and unprincipled. But that single instance hardly invalidates her entire anti-nuclear career.[3]


On Nichols's preference for conventional arms control analysis instead of Caldicott's psychological approach equating nuclear arms production to a form of madness ("Nuclear Madness" is the title of another one of her books), there is no need to choose one over the other. The two can fruitfully co-exist, if arms control experts engage her critique instead of dismissing it. Slaveholders could not ultimately avoid the abolitionist debate, and establishment arms control experts should not be able to avoid such a debate today.


Caldicott regards the proliferation of nuclear plants and weapons much like she does a cancer metastasizing in a human body, objecting to the radioactive contamination resulting from every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle: mining, milling, waste storage, re-processing, plant decommissioning, etc. She credits "psychic numbing" for our ability to complacently live alongside what the late Daniel Ellsberg (an expert!) called the "Doomsday Machine," a world wired up to explode in terminal war at a moment's notice. Caldicott's abolitionist views regarding nuclear weapons largely overlap with Ellsberg's, as she enthusiastically endorsed his book describing our descent to what Lewis Mumford called "the morals of extermination."[4]


If it is quackery to see stockpiling thousands of nuclear weapons (many on hair-trigger alert) among eight different countries (actually, nine - ed.) wracked with antagonistic tensions as a form of human madness, then this needs to be demonstrated. But Nichols shirks the entire debate - quite unconvincingly - on the basis of credentialism, which conflicts with his stated view that democracy requires cooperative discussion between laypeople and experts. 


In other words, if Caldicott's expertise is not relevant to the debate, her interest and concerns surely are, and these cannot be dismissed as the result of a few casual internet searches. In fact, they make far more sense than the self-justifying assertions of arms control experts like Kenneth Adelman (Nichols regards him favorably), who said at his Senate confirmation hearings to be Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (for Ronald Reagan) that he that he had never given any consideration to the possibility of disarmament - the very purpose of the agency he sought to direct. Whatever the deficiencies of Caldicott's arguments may be, it remains a mystery why the death of such clueless expertise ought to be mourned rather than celebrated.


Finally, Nichols also dismisses the views of dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky, likewise on credentialist grounds, since Chomsky's doctorate is in linguistics rather than foreign policy. The upshot is that Chomsky, lacking the specialized, technical national security expertise that Nichols obtained by skill and training, cannot be expected to adequately understand the deep knowledge of the field, and therefore his views are simply irrelevant. 


But are national security affairs really a science, impenetrable to laypeople, or can they be understood and insightfully engaged using no more than common sense, skepticism, and ordinary analytical ability? Chomsky argues the latter, pointing out that, in the social sciences


"the cult of the expert is both self-serving for those who propound it, and fraudulent. Obviously one must learn from social and behavioral science whatever one can . . . But it will be quite unfortunate, and highly dangerous, if they are not accepted and judged on their merits and according to their actual, not pretended accomplishments. In particular, if there is a body of theory, well-tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs . . .  it's existence has been kept a well-guarded secret. To anyone who has any familiarity with the social and behavioral sciences . . . the claim that there are certain considerations and principles too deep for the outsider to comprehend is simply an absurdity, unworthy of comment.[5]


Indeed. Where is the repeatedly tested body of theoretical knowledge informing national security affairs that Nichols allegedly possesses but laypeople do not? Obviously, none exists, which means that Chomsky's supposed lack of foreign policy expertise is simply another dodge. If Nichols's is an expertise worth having, he needs to drop the priesthood guise and engage debate, not just with colleagues, but with all who are interested.


A good place for him to start would be to examine Chomsky's review of a prominent part of the expert community that has long held that laypeople are intellectually deficient by nature, and not merely as a consequence of having fallen into a state of narcissism.


For example, the democratic rebellion in 17th century Britain, Chomsky observes, was quickly condemned by experts of the day as a monstrous affair of the "rascal multitude," "beasts in men's shapes," inherently "depraved and corrupt." These sentiments were handed down to succeeding generations of elite thinkers, so that by the twentieth-century we have Walter Lippmann advising that the public "must be put in its place," so that the "responsible men" may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd." The "function" of these "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders," he believed, was to be "interested spectators of action," not participants, ratifying the decisions made on their behalf by experts and policy-makers, then returning to their private concerns. This was said to be inevitable because of the "ignorance and superstition of the masses" (political scientist Harold Lasswell), the "stupidity of the average man" (Rienhold Niebuhr), and the fact that "the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality" (Walter Lippmann). The "specialized class" is drawn from the experts at articulating the needs of the powerful, what the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci identified as "experts in legitimation." These intellectual saviors were supposedly needed to protect "us" from the majority, which is "ignorant and mentally deficient," (Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State) and has to be kept in its place via a constant diet of "necessary illusion" and "emotionally potent oversimplifications" (Rienhold Niebuhr).


Note that these are the sentiments of the liberal intelligentsia; conservative theorists are even harsher in their condemnation.[6] 


Given the alleged intellectual backwardness of ordinary people, the expert policy prescription was to manipulate them, education being pointless with the lower breeds. Edward Bernays, the Father of Spin, openly declared this: "If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." Minority rule was therefore inevitable: "In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind." And this minority rule was not contradictory to democracy, as one might think, but an expression of it: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."


So . . . . hallelujah?


Hardly. Given the obnoxiousness of these longstanding views, it is difficult to believe that the widespread rejection of experts by an ever increasing portion of the general public is wholly unrelated to the open contempt with which ordinary people have been treated by the "specialized class." Recall that in recent decades these experts have engineered the transfer of tens of trillions of dollars from the bottom and middle of the economic pyramid to the very top, while blaming the victims for not being educated enough to reverse the trend.


To be fair, not all experts share this contempt for laypeople, and Nichols is at pains to emphasize that not all experts are policy-making experts. True enough, but in a class-divided world expertise of all kinds skews towards fulfilling the needs of the wealthy, not those who work for them. At the height of the Covid crisis, for example, CDC recommendations to "shelter-in-place" were meaningless to workers in meat-packing plants, but highly valuable to the wealthy, who retreated to second homes remote from areas of high contagion - with no loss of income. This is characteristic of social policy under capitalism, where social loss is private gain.

Which means that experts that have the wrong class loyalties, such as those who advise labor unions on how to resist the continual blows capital directs at workers, command little attention, respect, or resources. This is because the most prominent ideas do not arise by happenstance but are those that keep a certain class in power. To quote labor expert Karl Marx:

 "The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of their dominance."[7]

Since public opinion necessarily diverges from "the ruling ideas," especially on issues of wealth and power, experts perceive it as a threat to be managed and controlled, not a democratic reality to be intelligently cultivated. Their expertise consists as much of rationalizing the needs of the powerful as it does of reasoning one's way to a justified conclusion. And this, in turn, feeds popular mistrust of experts, for as the great Chinese sage Lao-Tse said, “Those who justify themselves do not convince.”


Finally, and most importantly, Nichols fails to address the stunted moral intelligence of so many experts, who, consumed by the intense demands of their specialized tasks, often end up morally blinded.


A classic example concerns J. Robert Oppenheimer. In the final stages of making the atomic bomb he was pressed by his Manhattan Project colleagues as to the moral implications of their work. Oppenheimer and his colleague Enrico Fermi replied that they were "without special competence on the moral question."[8]


Without special competence on the moral question. In other words, the ethical implications of unleashing atomic bombs on an unsuspecting world fell outside Oppenheimer's occupational specialty. 


Is this not a perfect illustration of the dilemma we face in relying on expertise? What good is knowledge divorced from comprehension of its proper direction and use? Oppenheimer's answer to the most important question humanity has ever faced suggests that the moral issue might best be engaged by a different class of experts than the bomb-makers, a Department of Extermination Affairs perhaps. He could conceive of no way our common humanity might be the source of a judgment about what to do. 


Seventy-eight years later, with no solution to this problem in sight, can we really rest easy with just reading more and trusting experts' hard work and good intentions? Such a modest prescription cannot hope to solve the grave problem of ideologically contaminated expertise.


For all that Nichols leaves unaddressed, however,  The Death of Expertise remains a lucid and compelling description of rising popular idiocy. Pity that the larger picture does not flatter the experts Nichols seeks to defend. 


Thus we continue to entrench a social structure of highly specialized moral imbeciles governing narcissistic laypeople too mired in delusion to mount an intelligent rebellion.



[1] And now that the crisis has subsided, organized efforts are underway to ban any future pandemic response measures that might interfere with getting and spending.

[2] Every U.S. military intervention abroad, for example, is portrayed as necessary to stop "another Hitler."


[3] However, her claim that in a brief meeting with President Reagan she was able to "clinically" assess his IQ to be 100, is also suspect.


[4] Ellsberg stresses that U.S. policy has always been a "first-strike" policy, that is, being ready and willing to initiate nuclear war to knock out Moscow's retaliatory capacity, then threatening annihilation with an overwhelming second strike if they refuse to capitulate. See Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine - Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, (Bloomsbury, 2017)


[5] ." Chomsky quoted in Raphael Salkie, The Chomsky Update - Linguistics And Politics, (Unwin Hyman, 1990) p. 140]


[6] Comments taken from Chomsky's "Year 501," (South End Press, 1993) p. 18, and "Deterring Democracy," (Hill and Wang, 1991) p. 253.


[7] Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845

[8] Oppenheimer quoted in Jonathan Kozol, The Night Is Dark and I Am Far From Home – A Political Indictment of the U.S. Public Schools, (Continuum, 1984) p. viii

White Men Worth Watching: UAW President Denounces Exploitation of Auto Workers On Verge of Strike

 "In the Kingdom of God no one hoards all the wealth while everybody else starves. In the Kingdown of God no one else puts themselves in a position of total domination over the entire community. In the Kingdom of God no one forces others to perform endless, backbreaking work just to feed their families or put a roof over their heads. That world's not the Kingdom of God. That world is Hell. Living paycheck to paycheck scraping to get by - that's Hell. Choosing between medicine and rent is Hell. Working seven days a week for twelve hours a day for months on end is Hell. Having your plant close down and your family scattered across the country - is Hell. Being made to work during a pandemic, and not knowing if you might get sick and die, or spread the disease to your family - is Hell. And enough is enough. It's time to decide what kind of world we want to live in. And it's time to decide what we're willing to do to get it."

-------------UAW President Shawn Fein

Source: "Ford Attacks UAW 'PR Events' Day Before Historic Strike," Status Coup News, September 14, 2023

Monday, September 4, 2023

Native Son: Big Bill Haywood

Happy Labor Day!

“[The] barbarous gold barons do not find the gold, they do not mine the gold, they do not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belongs to them.”

                       --------—Big Bill Haywood

Work taught him of injustice early and converted him to socialism. His first boss whipped him when he was only twelve, and the same year he witnessed a black man handed over to a lynch mob. Three years later he was a Nevada miner doing a “man’s work for a boy’s pay,” breaking the loneliness of Eagle Canyon by reading Darwin, Marx, Burns, Voltaire, Byron, and Shakespeare. An older miner’s explanation of the class struggle capped his education, though it didn’t sink in until the Haymarket anarchists were hung two years later. 

After that, he saw scores of men poisoned at Utah’s Brooklyn lead mine, watched a friend’s head crushed against an air drill by a slab of falling rock, and had his own right hand smashed between a descending car and the side of the shaft at Iowa’s Silver City mine. 

Adored by women and instinctively obeyed by men, he was the most popular union organizer in the country. Blessed with the manners of a gentleman, he packed a revolver, cried like a baby when reciting poetry, and delivered thunderous speeches that ignited crowds of workers like a wick in a powder keg: “Eight hours of work, eight hours of play, eight hours of sleep, EIGHT DOLLARS A DAY!”


Haywood had no use for politicians and referred to Washington D.C. as a “political sewer.”  He testified as an expert witness before the United States Commission on Industrial Relations, which gathered broad testimony on labor issues from 1913 to 1915. Commissioner Harry Weinstock, a California businessman, attacked Haywood and the Industrial Workers of the World, the most militant and democratic union in U.S. history. Weinstock bluntly suggested that Haywood was a crook for promoting worker-controlled production: 


“If I was to come in and take possession of your property and throw you out, would I be robbing you?”


“You have a mistaken idea,” Haywood responded, “that the property is yours. I would hold that the property does not belong to you. What you, as a capitalist, have piled up as property is merely unpaid labor, surplus value. You have no vested right to that property.” 


“You mean then,” Weinstock said, “that the coat you have on your back does not belong to you but belongs to all the people?” 


“That is not what I mean,” Haywood answered. “I don’t want your watch. I don’t want your toothbrush. But the things that are publicly used – no such word as private should be vested by any individual in any of those things.  For instance, do you believe that John D. Rockefeller has any right – either God-given right, or man-made right, or any other right – to own the coal mines of the state of Colorado?” 


“He has a perfect right to them under the laws of the country,” Weinstock replied. 


“Then the laws of the country are absolutely wrong,” Haywood retorted. 


Reported the New York Call on Haywood’s repartee: “The big witness clipped a sizzler across the suave Commissioner. In every one of these highly amusing clashes on the broad question of right and wrong, Haywood had Weinstock fighting for wind.” 


In addition to the jibes, Haywood set out the IWW's ultimate aspiration:


“We hope to see the day when all able men will work, either with brain or muscle. We want to see the day when women will take their place as industrial units. We want to see the day when every old man and every old woman will have the assurance of at least dying in peace. You have not got anything like that today. You have not the assurance – rich man that you are – of not dying a pauper. I have an idea that we can have a better society than we have got . . .” 


The “better society” would be achieved, Haywood told the Commission, when workers owned and operated their industries collectively and democratically. “If foremen or overseers were necessary, they would be selected from among the workers,” he said. “There would be no dominating power there, would there? I can conceive of no need for a dominating national, world-wide power...”


Commissioner James O’Connell, an official of the American Federation of Labor's machinists’ union told Haywood that his dream was “Utopian.” 


Haywood disagreed. “Really, Mr. O’Connell, I don’t think that I presented any Utopian ideas. I talked for the necessities of life – food, clothing, shelter, and amusement. We can talk of Utopia afterwards. The greatest need is employment.” He recommended to the Commission a virtual blueprint of New Deal programs like the WPA and the CCC that president Franklin Roosevelt took up twenty years later. 




Roughneck - The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood, by Peter Carlson (1983: W, W. Norton), pps. 226-7


Elizabeth Gurley Flynn - Rebel Girl, (International Publishers, 1955) p. 131-2

Melvyn Dubofsky, Big Bill Haywood (Manchester University Press, 1987) pps. 10-15 

Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais Labor's Untold Story, (Cameron Associates, 1955) pps. 146-51


J. Anthony Lukas, Big Trouble - (Simon and Schuster, 1997) p. 233, 237 


Robert K. Murray, Red Scare - A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920, (University of Minnesota, 1955) 


Mathew Josephson, The President Makers - The Culture of Politics and Leadership In An Age of Enlightenment, 1896-1919, (Harcourt, 1940) p. 400


Mari Jo Buhle and Paul and Harvey J. Kaye eds., The American Radical, (Routledge, 1994) pps. 105-11