Sarkisian vs. Corporatism

A year and a half ago Americans were hotly debating Arizona’s new bill that allowed police officers to spontaneously confront any person and demand to see their documentation of citizenship. Civil rights advocates fought nativist proponents rally-to-rally, pen-to-pen, senator-to-senator— exemplifying American freedoms of speech, assembly, and representation: democracy. But while the bill aroused application of our sacred liberties through indignant debate, we Americans remained blissfully ignorant of the true origin of Senate Bill 1070 and the mockery it makes of our democracy.

The inception of Bill 1070 can be traced not to the Arizona state legislature, but to the Hyatt in Washington, D.C. in January, 2010. Meeting here is the influential American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. And in 1070’s conference room we find not a collection of Arizona Congressmen but an assembly of representatives from legislatures—and corporations—across the country. At this corner a delegate from the Correction Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison detainee of undocumented workers; across the table an agent sent by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, corporation; here a New Mexico senator, developing a plan to bring home a bill identical to 1070.

But this senator and all the other “public servants” in this room traveled here not simply to write legislation—they can do that back home. No; for them, ALEC is a great time of year: raining down upon them are the world’s finest gifts, vacations, box seats—and the best part: promises. Promises that each corporation will bestow upon the senators a “substantial investment” in their campaign funding when running for their next term—as they did for 30 Arizona senators immediately following the passage of 1017.

So why are the CCA, ICE, the Bureau of Prisons, corporations et cetera so very captivated by the senators’ cause? Why would these corporations spend exuberant money and effort to draft specific legislation for Arizona? Unless . . . maybe those corporations have something to gain from the passage of those bills and the friendship of those Congressmen. . . . Oh yeah, didn’t all of those companies’ names have something to do with immigration?

Interestingly, Senate Bill 1070 not only allows police to demand documentation, but also declares undocumented presence in Arizona a felony. Now all undocumented workers are not immediately deported, as so many assumed, but instead imprisoned. But Arizona’s state penitentiaries are already overflowing. So to the rescue come the profiteering private prisons, like those owned by the Correction Corporation of America and the Bureau of Prisons. Sound familiar? Those were some of the very same corporations that wrote the bill back at the Washington Hyatt.

So . . . Corporations drafted Senate Bill 1017, corporations lavishly gifted the Arizona senators, corporations funded these senators’ campaigns, and these same corporations made a fortune from Bill 1070. Where in this democratic process do “we, the people” come in?

Thanks to corporatism, our legislators answer to more powerful forces than their constituency. U.S. corporatism defines a societal monster among us: it has ingrained itself into our government since the 1970’s and crippled our democracy, exploiting the disconnection between citizens and government. Lobbying spending has increased over 200% in the past decade and spread to every major industry. If lobbying were truly limited to advocating bills on the floor of Congress, why does it demand of our largest industries over 3.5 billion dollars annually?

As illustrated by the example of Senate Bill 1070, lobbyists don’t do their real work on the Senate floor. Corporations write the bills, they pay the senators to pass them, and they reap the profit. And don’t even pretend to think that 1070 or the American Legislative Exchange Council are anomalies or worst case scenarios. Private manipulation of legislation occurs on every level in every branch. In 2007 three hundred cities had implemented Red Light Ticket Cameras only to discover that the organization advocating them was a puppet of the ticket camera supplier companies, which had actually just paid city government officials. Meanwhile, up top, the massive crop seed monopoly Monsanto actually bought Searle Pharmaceuticals from Donald Rumsfeld on the grounds that he would return to politics immediately.

But why take my word for it when even lobbyists themselves have started to speak out against the corruption. Like Jack Abramoff, possibly America’s most influential lobbyist, humiliatingly arrested in 2005 for bribery, tax evasion, and extortion. Now out of prison, Abramoff has realized the injustice of modern lobbying and spoken against it, including writing a book exposing his own fraudulence as a lobbyist. Abramoff asserts, “Our system is flawed and has to be fixed. Giving a gift to somebody who makes a decision on behalf of the public—at the end of the day that’s what bribery really is, but it is done every day. The truth is there are very few members who I could think of . . . who didn’t at some level participate in that.”

Some may wonder how such an egregious flaw in our democracy has escaped the American public, known for its quickness to eradicate governmental injustices. If lobbying is really that bad, why haven’t I heard much about it on the news? Well, how much does the news tell you about the private sector? When was the last time CBS detailed the events at the Wal-Mart executives’ meeting? Because make no mistake, lobbyists are totally private businessmen, and control the same devices of secrecy that Wal-Mart does. Lobbyist meetings are by no means public affairs.

The truth is I cannot even begin to express here the impact corporatism currently plays in our government. But a few reminders of the devastating effects of irresponsible plutocracy, like the coal sludge spill in Martin County, Kentucky in 2000; the foreclosure crisis of 2007; and the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, might spark your imagination. Interesting how some legislators that helped pass the bills that loosened regulations on coal slurry impoundments, mortgages, and oil rigs worked directly with lobbyists from the coal, banking, and oil industries.

But we do live in a democracy, and we have the power and the tools to reshape it. Because no matter how much campaign funding a senator receives, he/she must win your vote. So before we even write our vote, we must demand four core changes by our representatives:

· A repealing of the Supreme Court’s United Citizens decision, which gives corporations the ability to contribute to political campaigns.

· A requirement that any bill passed must be traced back to a totally transparent and legitimate source or convention—no more secretive hotel getaways like the American Legislative Exchange Council.

· The illegalization of any gift from a lobbyist or any private interest to a Congressman.

· And the prohibition of a politician from being a lobbyist before or after holding office.

Cancerous cells serve only themselves and continuously infect surrounding cells, destroying the system from the inside out. Striking how similar an effect a lobbyist with blank check can have on a democratic government, bribing one Congressman at a time, corrupting that which serves our common good. As citizens given the ultimate power over this country, we are blessed with a cure for corporate cancer—but it’s only available every November.

Eat Local

Take a moment to imagine that you are a small beet farmer living in Paris, Kentucky. The harvest is today, and you are preparing to reap the vegetables of your labor. You wake up like it is any other day; you put on your overalls and do whatever farmers do any other day and say, ‘today is gonna be awesome.’ Later, with the harvest having been harvested, you take a portion to the local farmers’ market. But today something is different. Something isn’t right. The usual crowd isn’t present and very few customers are there at all. As it turns out, while reading a copy of the Herald-Leader you learn that a new Super-mega-awesome Superstore just opened with a produce section; they sell large-scale food products at Wal-Mart worthy pricing. Many of the city’s citizens that used to purchase fresh-straight off the plant beets from you are now shopping for beets that were grown in a field that most closely resembles a science lab due to the competitive pricing. Fast forward a bit and you find yourself not knowing how to pay farm loans and facing the possibility of financial ruin.

Dramatics aside, this is but just an example of the reality that faces many small scale farmers in America today. The globalization of today’s postindustrial food market has pushed our local farmers into the shadows of the industry that they used to run. Most, if not all, of you listening probably get your food from Kroger or another grocery store that has food as far from local as Jupiter, and that is fine and good, however everyone can make an effort to show some love to the local farmers that do so much to circulate our economy. This is not only important, but also very easy to show your support.

Small farmers are one of the best sources of local economic stimulus; they ensure that the money people spend on food will stay in the community. According to SustainableTable.org, communities see vastly more economic benefits from the presence of small farms than they do from large ones. This is because small farmers generally re-invest more money into local economies by purchasing feed for livestock, seed, and other materials from local businesses, whereas large farms often order in bulk from distant companies. Local restaurants, in turn, often will buy from farmers, who then feed local consumers; the cycle continues. Large factory livestock farms also degrade local property values because of the awful odors they emit and varying other environmental problems that they cause.

While farmers help everyone out in that area, we often find ourselves complaining about the high prices tagged to local food. While prices are high, they don’t even make up for the rising average cost of living wages for farmers. Between this and extra necessary costs such as Health Insurance, many of today’s farmers find trouble making ends meet and often have to take up a second job, which is near impossible for most. The cost of buying local food semi-regularly is more than worth it when you take into account the superior products and service you are getting.

In the documentary, The Future of Food, it is shown that large corporations such as Monsanto are driving family farms off their land and into poverty at alarming rates all over the world. This is often devastating for the communities involved as they see a rise in poverty and food insecurity. Why should this be allowed to happen in our community?

When you go to the farmers’ market here in Lexington, the food is as fresh as you can get it without growing it yourself; The farmers usually pick their fruits and vegetables the morning that they sell them. Not only do you get healthy and often sustainable delicious food, but you also get to know where exactly the food comes from and a peace of mind that the food is safe. Let it be known that the average nonlocal carrot travels about 1,838 miles to get to the consumer’s dinner table. I don’t know about you, but to me, good god, that is disgusting. You don’t get the big food scares of mad cows disease or salmonella either from local farmers either because of the absence of multiple chances of cross contamination from distribution centers.

Keep in mind that there is more to this than just helping farmers. Eating local in Lexington can even help those in the lower class afford this healthy food. My sister started a weekly service at First Presbyterian Church, and now Centenary Church called Fresh Stop that works to do just that. Several local farmers are involved that provide a smorgasbord of fruits and vegetables to be delivered to the church. People who can afford to buy groceries on a regular basis will buy a week’s share of the food for a price of thirty dollars which is an elevated price, while citizens who cannot afford to buy anything but fast food usually, can buy the same sized share for ten dollars. Food stamps are also accepted. To top the service off, there is a complimentary weekly newsletter with recipes attached for the provided produce.

Eating local also adds a green element to your diet. Purchasing food from down the road uses quite a bit less fossil fuel than food bought from global markets. There is no middle man or distribution/retail center in the mix. Also, locally grown produce and livestock also are much less likely to have been produced by use of petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides. Not only is this much healthier, but it is also more environmentally friendly. Whether or not you are willing to believe that this is important, it is.

The main reasons that people give locally grown food the cold shoulder are that it is too expensive and not as convenient to get. Both of these are valid viewpoints; not everyone can be a local only consumer all the time. I would be lying if I told you that I was. It is, however, something that everyone should invest to the degree that they are able. As for convenience, Lexington has many opportunities for anyone to stick their foot in the local food pool. One can take a walk downtown to the Farmers Market; buy a share at Fresh Stop or another CSA; or go to shop at the Good Foods Co-op once in a blue moon. These are just a few to mention.

So I challenge everyone here to, at some point in the future, take the time to go to Lexington’s Farmers’ Market and check out what they have to offer; part of the fun in this practice is that you never know what you will find. It just takes small things to make a big difference, like perhaps buying Lexington Pasta (which is the best freaking pasta ever) instead of processed Bertolli. Help out the farmers of our communities, strengthen the local economy, and become a little greener in the process. Sounds hard but it really isn’t. Let’s turn that sad farmer into a happy farmer and the whole community will get a little happier too.

Global Climate Change

We’ve all been told that the Climactic Research Unit at East Anglia has been recording steadily rising temperatures in the last 1,000 years, and NASA is monitoring the Earth’s ice mass, CO2 distribution, sea level, and global air temperature via satellites continuously surveying the globe. What have they found? The global sea level rose about 17 centimeters in the last century. The first 2,300 feet of our oceans have warmed 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.Greenland has lost 36-60 cubic miles of ice between 2002 and 2006. Antarctica has lost 36 cubic miles between 2002 and 2005. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layers of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. What does that mean? Global surface temperatures are steadily rising. Some people accept this conclusion. Others don’t. And ultimately, this doesn’t really matter. We are just wasting precious time by debating over whether Global Climate Change is really happening or not. Why have we been floundering about within this contiguous debate for years? Politics.

How should politics find itself muddled with the findings of scientific research? Two reasons: money and… well, money. It’s going to cost us money to implement the policies necessary to counter the effects of this supposed Global Climate Change. These changes in energy policy internationally would severely and negatively affect investment portfolios. They would curtail the use of oil, phase out all internal combustion engines, and drive up the cost of electricity by means of wind and solar energy. As a result, utility stocks would become useless and third-world factories would become less cost-effective. One environmental skeptic, Christopher Booker, claims that these energy policies we are beginning to embark on could “be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made.” He has also supported his claims by refuting the credibility of science. Assuming the science is plausible, let us evaluate this statement by examining all of our options regarding the issue of Global Climate Change.

We can roughly organize the fate of our world into four dichotomies (as suggested by Greg Craven). We can choose to take action, or not to take action. And let us assume for a moment, that we have no idea whether Global Climate Change will happen or not—a 50/50 chance. Say we choose “yes”, to act upon the possibility of the adverse consequences of Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change ended up being false. What risk did we take? Cost is the main issue. And looking at this from the most extreme perspective possible, this could possibly result in increased taxation, layoffs, and unnecessary government regulation. This cataclysmic reaction spirals us into global economic depression. What if Global Warming ended up being true? Well, cost is still an issue. But hey, the human race is still alive and well in a livable world.

Suppose we choose “no”, and do not take action. If Global Climate Change ended up being false, we made the right choice. There is no cost to us, the economy, or to our environment. But if it ended up being true, and the doom-sayers were right, what risk did we take? Well, assuming we consider this result on the same extreme as the previous consequences our problems look a little something like this:
• Economic, political, social, environmental, and public health catastrophes on a global scale
• The sea level rising 10-20 feet
• Coastal countries disappearing altogether
• Hundreds of millions of displaced individuals crowding in on each other
• Widespread warfare over resources and long-standing hatreds
• Excessive drought, floods, and famine
• Widespread disease epidemics
• Massive tropical storms/hurricanes (something we’re already seeing more of)
• And global economic collapse

What do we do about this? We can argue for a few more years, and make a guess if Global Climate Change is real or not, or we can choose whether to act on the supposition of Global Climate Change. But the problem with the former option is the fact that we may not have much longer than a few years to make our decision. The impending crisis of Global Climate Change could strike within the next 10-20 years.

Ultimately, the consequences of not acting far outweigh the risk of acting. We must come to a consensus and choose to act. We must eliminate the possibility of what would happen if Global Climate Change is real and we do not take action.

Politics aside, science shows that Global Climate Change is a serious threat to life on this planet. As spoken by Mr. Craven, “… We only get to play this game once. Think it won’t happen? Maybe. How lucky do you feel?”

SPPEEECCHHHH!!

The death penalty is more sensible than life in prison.
Crimes punishable by the death penalty are treason, aggravated kidnapping, placing a bomb by a bus terminal, perjury, hijacking a plane, sex crimes, espionage and capita drug trafficking. These offenses are not to be taken lightly and the offenders can be classified as national security threats; the nation must eradicate the threats and prevent reoccurrences. The protection of citizens is a responsibility of the government and that is why the death penalty is more sensible than a life in prison.
Heinous acts can be repeated by the subjects of the punishment life in prison. There is an existent risk that an inmate can murder other inmates and security guards, escape jail and inflict unlimited crimes upon society. James Moore raped and killed a 14 year old girl in 1962 and avoided the death penalty out of the mercy of the victim’s family. The family entrusted the state of New York to indefinitely incarcerate Moore, but due to change in policy, Moore has been eligible for parole every two years since 1982. The young girl’s parents fear that this predator is on the prowl for similar victims. My second example of poor justice is Clarence Ray Allen who was convicted of burglary and murder. While in prison, he conspired with fellow inmates to kill witnesses to his crimes to prevent their testimonies in court. Once paroled, Allen and his comrades murdered three people and injured two other individuals. Allen was apprehended while robbing a liquor store. Allen was in possession of a hit list at this time. If Clarence Ray Allen had been executed, three innocent people may still be alive today.
It is under our country’s social contract with its citizens to provide security, and harboring a national security threat, such as those who commit murder, treason, perjury and kidnapping. The imposing threat of repeat offenses destroys our country’s relationship with its citizens.
The death penalty incites fear in the public to not commit acts worthy of receiving capital punishment. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University conducted research on the correspondence of the number of executions and murders. Expectedly, there was a distinct relation that showed the amount of murders increased as the number of executions decreased. In 1964, there were 15 executions and 9,250 murders. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and in 1975, after six years without execution there were 20,510 murders. There is an obvious relationship supporting the deterrence of murder by death penalty. “From 1995 to 2000, executions averaged 71 per year, a 21000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 periods. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2(per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999—a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest since1966. “This quote was from Dudley Sharp of the group “Justice for All.”
Throughout history the death penalty has been proven to deter crime in places such as India in the 1800s. A notorious band of hoodlums referred to as Thugees murdered about 2,000,000 wealthy travelers in a 350 year time period. The British executed the Thugees by hanging and this discouraged others from joining the group.
The United States of America has to create and maintain statutes to encourage a positive environment for its citizens. A figure meant to lead must command respect and control; by imposing the death penalty our country takes a stand to uphold consequences and in turn deter capital punishable cases.

speech!

Define necessity. Do you really need half of what you own? Is there not someone else out there, like perhaps an emaciated child in dire need of the bare essentials that you own ten times over? So act. Stop finding petty excuses to sit idly by while people all over the world are dying because you didn’t possess the courage to stand up and do something. I implore you to help change our modern society’s warped definition of the word “need.” We need food, water and shelter, and we should be able to ensure that others at least can enjoy these basic elements of life, yet this is quite challenging at times because of the plague we like to call materialism. Quit thinking about yourself for once and focus your attention on someone or something else with real needs.

What better time to think about someone else than the holidays! All is merry, all is bright. But it certainly isn’t that way for everyone. Christmas is all about honoring the birth of Jesus and showing our love for one another, yet it’s sadly losing some of its sacred religious significance. It is evolving into a more unsavory event all about receiving rather than giving. I can see this even in my own home when my little brother begins making his excessive Christmas list months in advance, as he soon becomes thoughtlessly fixated on all of the minor, ridiculous expenses he deems necessary to make him happy. The spirit is lost in the process, as all of the material goods gradually seduce you. There is a constant stream of new gadgets and desires to be had, distancing us from what truly matters. The song “Feliz Navidad” perfectly illustrates our society’s distorted perspective with the lyric, “I wanna wish you a merry Christmas, with lots of presents to make you happy.” Sure, that’s a nice thought, but what about giving opportunity to an otherwise hopeless person in true need of the gift of your kindness.

Of course, media is an oppressive force in our lives nowadays as well. Materialism is constantly fueled by this industry, and sometimes it feels like it is its sole purpose. Sleazy marketers strive to produce and sell whatever new, inane junk they can. But being the materially obsessed people that we are, we are hypnotically enthralled by these meaningless items. It temporarily becomes all we think about, all we want, and all we think we need. We are influenced by all media outlets whether it be television, computers, radio, or other devices, and they simply intensify our urge to continually buy and think about buying. I ask you, how many times have you been innocently watching TV and suddenly a catchy commercial captures your attention and forces you to think, “Hey that’s awesome! I must have it.” Materialism affects the best of us in some way or another, and personally I can accept that I have fallen victim to it one too many times. It is the inescapable scourge of our society. Next time you are in line at the mall with a bundle of frivolous purchases under your arm, pause. Do you really need those things? The solution to ending this epidemic is simple: give as much or even more than you receive. The feeling is so vastly more rewarding than any other, and you’ll find you’re more yourself than you’ve ever been.

Do not let what you have define you, rather let who you are be what shapes the better person you continually hope to become. There’s a certain freedom that comes when you are finally, temporarily granted release from the destructive forces of materialism. This summer I was lucky enough to travel to Italy with my Sunday School class. It was so easy to become wrapped up in all of the wonderful Italian fashions that, at first, I found myself hopelessly distracted from the humble purpose of my trip in the first place, which was to participate in a pilgrimage following in the footsteps of Saint Francis. Now that I look back on it, the most hilarious and even the most poignant times of the trip were spent with everyone together just enjoying the simple nature of each other’s company, laughing and reminiscing, not having a care in the world about what we looked like or what we possessed or didn’t possess. Though it may sound cliché, that experience forever altered how I perceive the subject of materialism. Time and time again we will find ourselves astray, being pulled further and further in by our material desires, but the important thing is to take a step back and to always remember who we are as people, where we came from, and who we want to be. It’s important to take a break, simplify, and assess our real needs.

Define necessity. Slow down and take a closer look at someone truly in need. Helping them will help you, and surely the oppressive qualities of materialism can be overcome. You are all good people; honor your values and remember what is genuinely important in your life. End our society’s warped sense of what is honestly “needed” and what is merely “desired.” And now I will leave you with a quote from Thoreau: “It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly.” We do the best we can, and that is all that is expected of us, so act now and do not let insignificant material goods characterize you.

Speech

Cameron Boone

12-11-11

Mr. Logsdon

AP Language and Composition

Deforestation Speech

Did you know that in one hundred years, at the rate our society is going there will be no rainforest? A major ecosystem, biome, or habitat wiped off the face of the earth. The culprit is Deforestation. Deforestation has a collateral effect that is much greater than losing trees. This monster emits twenty five percent of our carbon dioxide emissions, is responsible for the distinction of animals and puts people and societies in danger.

The act of Deforestation emits twenty five percent of our carbon dioxide emissions depleting the ozone layer, harming humans and animals. When trees are being cut down, or worse slashed and burned, tons of Carbon Dioxide is being released into the air, to be specific hundreds of millions of tons per year *. The effects of this are the fallbacks of the depletion of the ozone layer. The ozone layer is what protects us from the sun, and when it gets less we get hotter and are more exposed to the sun. Therefore indirectly Deforestation is a direct reason for the ice caps melting and the polar bears becoming extinct. All because we have to cut down trees. Not only are animals being affected, but also humans, the sun is shining on us stronger than ever now partly from deforestation. This makes us more subject to skin cancer. All because we have to cut down trees. Do they have to do it? As of right now there’s no other way. Because trees are cut down animals become extinct and humans are put at risk. As of right now it seems inevitable we have to cut down trees. If we don’t do something they keep cutting.

So is it their fault, Yes it is their fault because the deforestation is being done irresponsibly causing animals to become extinct and promoting more deforestation. Although as of right now there is no alternative to deforestation the way that they are going about it is not productive. For example Brazil is whacking down a massive eight thousand square miles of rainforest per year* to plant soybeans and cattle farm. This soil is eroding and proving to be unusable *. When this soil is unusable these farmers hack down more trees and do it all over again. All resulting in the soil eroding and having to kill more trees, and destroy more animals’ habitats. The tiger and the jaguar are the two animals that suffer the most from these trees being cut down and are both on the verge of extinction. All because we have to cut down trees. The irresponsible Brazilian farmers are detrimental to the Amazon rainforest and the animals that live amongst it.

Deforestation in the Amazon has put many indigenous tribes that live there in danger. It’s one thing to be driving animals out of their habitat but when you are forcing tribes who have lived in the Amazon for hundreds of years to move from their homes and relocate, something is wrong. All because we have to cut down trees. The necessity to cut down trees to provide heat, lumber, crops, and livestock is driving us to our own race in danger.

If we don’t find another way they keep cutting. If they keep cutting our rainforest’s will be gone in one hundred years, the tiger, jaguar, and polar will become extinct, and the indigenous people that live in these rainforests will be forced to leave. This generation of students in front of me is whose going to have to find a way. There are people right now saying they’re doing this and that to take baby steps toward prevention. But I will stand here and tell you. We are the ones who are going to find the penultimate solution. WE are going to be the ones that save them.

Works Cited

"Changes in the Wood Growing Stock." Web. 17 Aug. 2011.

National Geographic. "Deforestation." National Geographic. Web. 17 Aug. 2011.

Ritter, Michael E. "Deforestation in the Tropical Forests." University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Michael Ritter. Web. 18 Aug. 2011. .

Tasmania Chainsaw Massacre. Web. 17 Aug. 2011.

"Tiger." Http://www.earthsendangered.com/profile.asp?gr=M&mp=1&sp=454. Web. 18 Aug. 2011. .

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/national-geographic-channel/specials-1/science-technology/ngc-deforestation-planet.html Web. 11.2011

Coal Comfort

There’s a Latin American saying among the miners: “We eat the mines, the mines eat us.” Anyone who has ever traveled to certain areas of Appalachia has seen how some coal mines have devoured entire hilltops. The work may keep food on the table for many miners and their families, but at what cost? Coal Mining, by its very nature, is a dirty, dangerous business. But it doesn’t have to be as dangerous, as dirty, or as exploitative as it is made to be.
The job of mining in itself is quite dangerous. The environment in which people must work is hazardous. There are frequently accidents in the mines, ranging from cave-ins, which could either kill or trap unfortunate workers, to explosions, which are far too common due to the presence of flammable gas in the mines. Similarly, mine gas can poison or suffocate miners as well, which is why canaries are so commonly found, as a canary is more sensitive to the gas and signals danger through its own death. In 1970, 234 men died in mining accidents, and from 1930 to 1972, nearly 1.5 million lives were claimed. Cases of Coalworker’s Pneumoconiosis, or “black lung”, as it’s informally known, have almost doubled within the past ten years, and almost nine percent of miners with 25 years or more in experience have tested positive for the disease, which has claimed over 10,000 lives within the past 10 years. But even discounting the natural disasters occurring in the mines, the mining unions make the jobs far more dangerous.
In the case of the Harlan County mining disaster, the mining unions made the situation far worse. The outstanding case of the Yablonski murders in 1969 makes this abundantly clear. In 1969, the candidate Joseph Yablonski, who opposed the president of the United Mine Workers Association, ran against him, and was defeated. However, Yablonski later asked the Department of Labor to investigate the election for fraud, and was assassinated just under two weeks later. During the year of the Farmington mining disaster, 1968, the union’s actions are further damned, as in 1968, the United Mine Workers Association reported only one safety expert in its Washington Headquarters and only 14 dollars spent on safety education in its district offices where the disaster took place, but $75,000 spent on having the National Coal Policy Conference openly promote and support the job of coal production, completely refusing to acknowledge the dangers inherent in the job. These financial “allowances” are also noted in the documentary Harlan County, USA, which follows the 1976 strike of the Harlan County mine workers. During the film, it’s shown that Duke Power Company, the owners of the mines, had increased their company’s properties 170 percent during 1976. In contrast, the mine workers only received a wage increase of four percent, not nearly enough to help them out of the squalid poverty they lived in, with a lack of utilities, like running water, that most would consider necessary for a good standard of life. (It should also be noted that the cost of living increased by seven percent that year, which would push the miners and their families deeper into poverty.)
To the mines, the families’ poverty was entirely unimportant. Rather than pay attention to the horrid conditions that miners were forced to live and work in, they paid more attention to their own profits, as is clear in the story of Elmer Lockhart, a miner who fell ill with black lung thanks to working in the mines for Amherst Coal Company. His black lung was presumably made worse by his working double shifts in an attempt to make ends meet for his family. It was not lessened by Amherst’s repeated denials of the fact that coal dust was harmful to the lungs. Once Elmer caught black lung, however, the mines immediately fired him, and further, prevented him from ever getting a job in a coal mine again rather than pay compensation for his illness. His daughter, Pat, gave her account of the story in the book In Our Blood, by Matt Witt:
“‘I think about the men who run Amherst, of course I do,’ Pat says. ‘The men who decided to fire my father, they went back home the night they did it, and their families didn’t have to worry. They didn’t have to fetch for themselves. Their children didn’t have to give up their education.
“‘Black lung destroyed my father’s life and his family,’ she says. ‘But to Amherst, he was just another coal miner.’”
But these mining accidents and hazards aren’t things that only happened in the 1970’s. In fact, just last year, the Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh, West Virginia, exploded, killing twenty-nine miners. Just this past week, a settlement of $209 million was paid by the mining company, but only 22% of that money was given to the families of the dead miners. Although there were several investigations made, all of which found 458 outstanding safety violations in the mines, the executives responsible were never tried in federal court. Almost ten percent of Big Branch’s mine violations were listed as “unwarrantable failures to comply”, making five times more citations in this category than the percentage of failures to comply that is seen as allowable in other mines. A review recently put out by the Mining Safety and Health Administration has further pointed out that at least twelve of the existing safety violations contributed to last year’s accident.
The story of the coal industry and the treatment of its workers reminds us that it doesn’t have to be this way. While true that conditions, even at best, in the coal industry are extremely dangerous, individual, personal decisions can and do make the situation much worse than it needs to be. Selfishness, corruption, and disregard for the value of the lives of workers have created a misery that goes against all that America is supposed to stand for. It denies miners any true liberty, and it strips them, and the community around them, of their common humanity. The coal companies claim that, unless the government leaves them alone, the lights all across the nation will go out. Billboards around this very state claim that, without coal, all the cities will go dark. But there is already a darkness over the country, and only a more humane attitude will give light back.