Sunday, July 28, 2013

RT: Richard Stallman

Interview begins at: 1:14

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Our guest today is Doctor Richard Stallman, software freedom activist and programmer, recently inducted into the internet hall of fame, he's joining us live from Brussels. It’s really great to have you with us today, Dr. Stallman.

Richard Stallman:

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Now, we know that you don’t own a phone – why is that?

Richard Stallman:

Well, I do have a phone, but it’s not a mobile phone. The reason is. Mobile phones are surveillance and tracking devices. The phone system is constantly finding out where the phone is, and they generally keep a record of this, for months or years – and that information is available to Big Brother, very easily. I consider that oppressive. But it's worse – they can be remotely converted into listening devices, because the software in the phone, even if it’s not a Smartphone – it’s a computer with a software that can be changed remotely, through what’s called a “back door”, which means it receives commands from somebody else to do something, and what this “back door” can do is install software changes without asking the supposed owner of the phone. This has been used to remotely convert them to the listening devices. The book “Murder in Samarkand” by Craig Murray describes one example of this. So, basically, once it’s converted, it listens all the time and it transmits all the time, and if you try to turn it off – well, it doesn’t really turn off, it pretends to be off and continues listening and transmitting. And this is part of why…

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Then what are you using – how do people get in touch with you?

Richard Stallman:

Well, mostly through email. I also have a phone in my office. In cause I am not there, people can phone the free software foundation which will then connect them with me in one way or another – so people do reach me.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

If the NSA wanted to track you down right now – they wouldn’t be able to trace you?

Richard Stallman:

Not so easily. I am not trying to prevent an investigation of me, I am not against the ability of the state to investigate people when there are some grounds, suspicion that they can take to the court, and say “please approve various kinds of searches of this person” – that needs to be done, because we need a state to do a lot of things, including catching criminals and prosecuting them. Unfortunately, the plutocratic states today, they only want to catch the small criminals, the giant criminals, they are too big for jail. But, we do need that, and I don’t want to make that impossible – what I object to is making a dossier about everyone all the time, because then, if the state wants to get somebody, even for a bad reason, the state can get tremendous amounts of data, and can always find something to punish that person for.  So, we should design our digital systems so they are not recording data about everybody all the time. They should be able to start recording data about somebody when a court gives an order to investigate that person. They shouldn’t make a giant dossier of months or years of information about everybody.  Because that starts to resemble what secret police did, and I guess, in fact, still does in lots of countries.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

You’ve been saying this for many many years – you’ve been talking about PRISM-like programs five, ten years ago. Snowden made that point right now – and everyone is now up in the air with it, going crazy about the revelations… How does it make you feel, that nobody listened to you?

Richard Stallman:

I am very happy, that Snowden told us what the U.S. government and some other governments are really doing. I had no proof - I’ve been saying for many years that if we look at the Pa-Triot Act – I won’t call it “patriot” because its as unpatriotic as you can get in a country based on a idea of freedom – I said, “look at this, I would guess that they are collecting all the data about everyone, regularly, fast enough so it doesn’t get erased between collections – but that was just a guess. Thanks to Snowden, we know that in some cases, specifically phone calls, the U.S. government is actually doing this, and we know that there are other governments that do surveillance without even the flimsy limits of the U.S. governments – so I’m tremendously happy to see that Snowden has called the publics attention to this injustice, because our cause now has more momentum, we might, maybe, be able to stop this.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

How far can this surveillance system with such political support, and as gigantic as this, be rolled back?

Richard Stallman:

I don’t know!  You see, this depends on you. This depends on the people who are watching.  I am not interested in asking “are we going to win?”, “can we win?”.  I am interested in doing whatever I can to win.  Our freedom is at the stake, and this is true for people all around the world. I would guess that every country is increasing surveillance through digital technology, to a level that is unprecedented in a world’s history.  Unless we had a great insufficiency of surveillance before, we should regard this as intolerable. We must start rejecting the so-called internet services that demand to know all about us. So don’t use facebook for instance. There are some services that are important, and we need to make sure that the surveillance that they can do on people is limited.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

We’re going to talk about facebook a little bit later. When this whole surveillance scheme was uncovered, everyone was in shock, I was disturbed – but at the end of the day everyone is, like, “okay, there’s nothing we can do about it”, and we continue using facebook, and we are thinking we are not doing anything wrong... People around me, I am talking about them – people keep thinking, we are not doing anything wrong, so what’s wrong about being looked after?

Richard Stallman:

First of all, this idea, that if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide is ridiculous. Lots of people have things they want to hide from somebody. Some people, for instance, are gay, and in certain countries they might get prosecuted for that. You might think that you do something that your boss wouldn’t like if he knew, maybe he wouldn’t like what party you vote for. Lots of people have reasons not to want everybody to know everything about them. With total surveillance, though, the state knows everything, and some companies know everything and they call tell it whomever they want. So, if you want to have the possibility of some privacy someday,  you’d better join the fight now, because now a bunch of other people are joining the fight, now is the moment, when you can make a difference. If you wait until the day you wish you had some privacy and only then try to do something…well, that day you will be one a few people doing it and that won’t be enough. You’ve got to help make a critical mass when other people are doing it – and that’s now.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

But what if you end up like Assange or Snowden, I mean, look at these guys – they are outcasts, they are trapped, facing charges.

Richard Stallman:

Well they are not outcasts. Assange is not an outcast, millions of people including me admire him, and Snowden is not an outcast, millions of people in the U.S. and elsewhere admire him...Please, don’t exaggerate. They have been besieged by the empire, but not defeated.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

But they are so limited in their life, in what they do...

Richard Stallman:

They decided to take these risks – for our freedom. But, they can’t win by themselves; it’s up to us to carry the fight forward. And in any case, by the way, Snowden will find a way to get the asylum.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Companies and the government – how close are they? Are they one with the other, what is driving the relationship there?

Richard Stallman:

There’s no simple answer, but they work hand in hand. In the U.S., thanks to the Patriot Act, all the data that companies collect about people they are required to turn over to the FBI without even a court order. The FBI just has to say “we want this data, we say it’s relevant to something” and then the company has to turn it over secretly. So any time a company is collecting data about you, it’s collecting it for its own purposes, but also for the state. So we must consider that corporate surveillance about us is a part of state surveillance – of course, both options are bad, I don’t want companies have tremendous amounts of information about me either, and I generally don’t use the services that would give them that information.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

You’ve said earlier “Don’t use Facebook” – talking about social media, platform people use to communicate with each other – it is not all that bad, right?

Richard Stallman:

Its horrible. Facebook is a monstrous surveillance engine…

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Is there an alternative?

Richard Stallman:

When people take photos of me, I say “please, don’t photos on Facebook”. At the beginning of my speeches I say “If you take photo of me, please don’t put it on Facebook”.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

What’s an alternative for facebook or other social media?

Richard Stallman:

An alternative? Are you demanding an alternative that is very similar to facebook? Because that’s not my alternative. My alternative to a nasty system is just don’t use it. If you start with a premise that you have to use one of those things, so if they all are nasty I just have to pick one, well, you are basically deciding to loose in advance. I don’t use facebook and I don’t want an alternative to Facebook.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

But it connects people, and what about those who were saved by a mere tap of a button – it’s a good thing, no?

Richard Stallman:

So what?

Sophie Shevardnadze:

People are connected to the world…

Richard Stallman:

Sorry, but people can be connected in lots of ways. But, from what I’ve read, by the way, the book “Alone Together” is very interesting, what people do in Facebook, they carefully construct a false picture of themselves.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

I gather that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates aren’t exactly your heroes, but do you acknowledge their contribution in bringing so many people together and creating this global community? They embraced and nurtured innovation, huge progress.

Richard Stallman:

Malicious technology can’t be excused if it had some good effects. We’ve got to realize that first of all Microsoft and Apple software is proprietary. That means the users don’t control the program, rather than the program controls the users – well that’s an injustice. And the existence of proprietary, although it wasn’t for Microsoft or Apple back then, is why I started with free software movement. In addition to setting things up so that they control the program and the program controls the users, they started putting in malicious functionality that spy on users, intentionally restrict users, and there are even “back doors” in that software, so, literally speaking, Apple and Microsoft software are malware.  Windows 8.1 we call “Windows Prison Edition”, because it’s designed to require people to send data to Microsoft servers, and of course, Microsoft will handle any of that data to the U.S. government on request. It puts the users in prison. That’s the nastiness that is the natural result of letting a company to have a control over the software that the users are running instead of the users themselves. So – no, I wish they hadn’t done anything. Although I realize, somebody else might have done it if they hadn’t, that’s no excuse for them doing it.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Can free software generate the same level of digital innovation that proprietary software has done?

Richard Stallman:

I don’t know, I think it’s a secondary question. I think freedom is more important than innovation. And when you look at the a lot of the innovations that proprietary software generates, they are harmful, like X-Box One, which has camera that’s designed to determine who is in the room, how many people there are at least, where they are looking at the X-Box. That’s an innovation – one that we shouldn’t stand for. Of course, the X-Box is nasty in lots of ways before that. This is an example of how it is a mistake to make innovation our goal.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Do you think that people had voluntarily traded their freedom for gadgets and form?

Richard Stallman:

Well, partly – yes, but remember that companies are steering them by saying “You could have this convenience but only if you let us be nasty to you in that way”. And, yes, people who are not sensitized to the issue, they might say “yes”, but there’s no fundamental reason why this convenience has to require that nastiness. It’s that a company figures maybe they can get you to accept that nastiness by attaching it to this convenience. Now, if had control of how things were built, we could have this convenience in most cases without that nastiness. Sometimes it’s difficult, but mostly, they are connected artificially. So the point is that we need more control over our technology.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

You’ve said innovation should be our primary goal, but secondary. Does it mean that personal success should also not be the people’s priority?

Richard Stallman:

I think it’s a mistake. I may mean for something higher… I want to live a life I would be proud to have lived.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

But not everyone, by their nature, is a freedom fighter. You can want a personal success and be a decent human being…

Richard Stallman:

Who knows? I wasn’t a freedom fighter until 1983, and if you’d met me in 1970 you would never have guessed that I had that it in me, and I wouldn’t have thought I had it in me. Anybody can surprise yourself.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Can you ever see free software superseding or replacing proprietary software?

Richard Stallman:

I don’t know, it depends on you basically, depends on when you have a practical decision to make, whether you say “I’ll use this proprietary program because it does something for me that I want to do today” or will you say “No, I won’t use it because the price is my freedom and that’s too much to pay”.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

All I am asking is that if the free software is all that great, and it’s out there, why does so few people use it?

Richard Stallman:

Partly because of social inertia. You’ll notice that most PC’s are sold with Windows already in them. That’s a current flowing towards Windows and most people let themselves be carried by this current. Schools are teaching people proprietary software whether it’s from Microsoft or Apple, it doesn’t matter, they are both bad. The point is that with so much current artificially generated, people have to swim against it if they want to get to freedom. Not everybody is determined enough. We, in our free software movement, we try to make it easier for people; we try to change the current. Will we win? Who knows! The point is – let’s do our best.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Your key project is the GNU project aimed at giving people complete freedom over their software. You launched it in 1984. Thirty years down – would you say it has been a success?

Richard Stallman:

Partly. Lots of people use the GNU Operating System, because GNU is an Operating System, and no computer will do anything without an operating system in it. In fact, millions of people use GNU operating system, but mostly they don’t know it, because they think its Linux. Linux is actually one essential component that’s used in the system today, so it’s really GNU + Linux. Yes, we achieved our initial goal, and we had a considerable success – but we haven’t liberated everybody…

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Kim Dotcom says he wants to encrypt half of the Internet – can you give me and our users some quick tips on how to encrypt e-mail, to protect myself and my privacy?

Richard Stallman:

We have free software for encrypting email or other files, and you shouldn’t trust any encryption program unless it’s free software, and encryption is being done by your copy on your computer. Encryption on a server is not trustworthy.  How do you know they are not saving a copy before they encrypted it and giving it to NSA?  So you got to encrypt it on your machine. Our program for doing this is called the GNU Privacy Guard or GNU PG.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

I see you are wearing a little sign that says “Don’t be tracked, pay cash”. Do you always pay cash?

Richard Stallman:

Just about always. I will use my credit card to buy airline tickets, as they insist on identifying me anyway; I don’t lose anything by paying with credit card then.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

What do you make of the whole bitcoin concept?

Richard Stallman:

Bitcoin seems like a solution to some problems, but it’s not anonymous. I think we need a payment system where the payer is anonymous. The payee doesn’t have to be anonymous, but it has to be so you can pay to access a webpage and do so anonymously.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Is there such thing as complete anonymity?

Richard Stallman:

Well, there is in theory, but I’m not saying we need total anonymity; we need anonymity for the one who’s paying to access the website. However it’s okay if the website operators are not anonymous in receiving this money – after all we want them to pay their taxes.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Dr. Stallman, what would you say to people, who in light of the recent events are saying “Privacy is dead, that’s it, and everything else is an illusion”?

Richard Stallman:

They are being defeatist. Or, maybe, they are suffering from a shock that leads them into despair. The fact is privacy has a better chance now, that it has had for the past decade or so, because now we have a lot of people who know that there’s a problem and how big it is. We need to establish sufficient privacy in our communications that a government official can talk to a journalist without being caught. That’s the amount of privacy that society absolutely needs if we want to keep control over what the government is doing.

Sophie Shevardnadze:

Dr. Richard Stallman, thank you very much for those interesting insights. That’s it for today; you were with Sophie & Co, and me, Sophie Shevardnadze. I will see you next time, thanks for watching us.

SophieCo | Snowden leak a chance for privacy, time to fight Big Brother | 071513 | 网页:网页:网页:网页:网页 |

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Moyers & Company 072613

BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company…

Fifty years after the historic March on Washington, we go back to the scene with John Lewis, who spoke that day half a century ago.

Where you’re standing now, looking out there. That’s all the crowd.

JOHN LEWIS: It was good to be in the presence of Lincoln. And I feel honored to have an opportunity to come here almost 50 years later.

ANNOUNCER: Funding is provided by:

Carnegie Corporation of New York, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world.

The Kohlberg Foundation.

Independent Production Fund, with support from The Partridge Foundation, a John and Polly Guth Charitable Fund.

The Clements Foundation.

Park Foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues.

The Herb Alpert Foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society.

The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation.

The John D. And Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at Macfound.Org.

Anne Gumowitz.

The Betsy And Jesse Fink Foundation.

The HKH Foundation.

Barbara G. Fleischman.

And by our sole corporate sponsor, Mutual of America, designing customized individual and group retirement products. That’s why we’re your retirement company.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. For each of us, there are days that are turning points. A day that changes our personal life, or a day that changes the nation. Sometimes, very rarely, it’s one and the same day. Just such a day happened to me on Wednesday, August 28, 1963. I was 29 years old, the deputy director of the Peace Corps, with offices one block from the White House and a short walk from the Lincoln Memorial. That morning, largely on impulse, inspired by a friend, I joined the quarter of a million Americans, people of every age and color, who had come for the March on Washington.

The event is now most famous for Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech,” but like many of the others there, I was first transfixed by one of the other speakers, the youngest on the platform.

A. PHILIP RANDOLPH: Brother John Lewis…

BILL MOYERS: His name was John Lewis. He had just been named head of SNCC – the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee -- and he was 23 years old. I will never forget the speech he delivered that day.

JOHN LEWIS: We must get in this revolution, and complete the revolution. For in the Delta of Mississippi, in Southwest Georgia, the Black Belt of Alabama, in Harlem, in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and all over this nation, the black masses are on the march for jobs and freedom.

BILL MOYERS: In the five decades since, John Lewis has become an icon of the civil rights movement, a hero who faced down brutal Southern police in the name of freedom and was beaten bloody for daring to do so. Today, he is a fourteen-term Congressman from Georgia. Recently, he and I returned to the National Mall in Washington to remember that day in 1963 and the march that changed America.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: People were all the way down. And you just saw hundreds and thousands of individuals.

I'm John Lewis. And I was the youngest speaker. Ten of us spoke. I spoke number six. Dr. King spoke number 10. And out of the 10 people that spoke that day, I'm the only one still around.

CHILD #1: Congratulations.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: What's that?

BILL MOYERS: Congratulations.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Thank you very much.

BILL MOYERS: It was a great moment in American life.

CHILD #1: You were his friend?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Yeah. I got to know Dr. King. I met him in 1958 when I was 18. But I first heard of him when I was 15 years old in the 10th grade. We worked together. We marched together. We got arrested together in Selma, Alabama.

BILL MOYERS: Have you ever heard this story before?

CHILD #2: Yes, I have.

BILL MOYERS: You have?

CHILD #2: I watched it on TV.

BILL MOYERS: You did?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: So you know about the sit-ins? The Freedom Ride?

CHILD #2: Yeah.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: People marching for the right to vote? You know, I was on the march from Selma to Montgomery. I was beaten.

On March 7, 1965, a group of us, about 600 people, black and white, many young people, some people who had just left church, decided to march from Selma to Montgomery, about 50 miles away, because people of color, black people in Alabama, couldn't register to vote simply because of the color of their skin.

And we decided to march across the Alabama River, a bridge called the Edmund Pettus Bridge. And we got to the highest point on the Edmund Pettus Bridge and we looked over and we saw a sea of blue, Alabama state troopers. And we got within hearing distance of the state trooper. And Major John Clyde of the Alabama state troopers. “This is an unlawful march. It would not be allowed to continue.”

MAJOR JOHN CLYDE from EYES ON THE PRIZE: This is an unlawful assembly. You have to disperse. You have orders to disperse.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: And the young man walking beside me, who was working with Dr. King, said, "Major, give us a moment to kneel and pray."

And the major said, "Troopers advance."

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I was hit in the head by a state trooper with a night stick. Had a concussion at the bridge. I thought I saw death. I thought I was going to die.

BILL MOYERS: And when you were attacked by the police, when you were beaten, when you were almost killed, you didn't think a moment of responding, replying violently?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: No, never because we studied the way of peace, the way of love, the way of non-violence. One of the people that beat me on the Freedom Ride in 1961 in South Carolina came to my office later with his son. His son had been encouraging his father to do it. And he said, "Mr. Lewis, I'm one of the people that beat you and left you bloody. Will you forgive me? I want to apologize." His son started crying. He started crying. I started crying. He hugged me. I hugged him. He called me brother. I called him brother.

BILL MOYERS: And today he's the only survivor of the group of leaders who spoke up here on August 28, 1963. Let's go up and look at the spot.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Thank you. Good to see you.

You have to find the spot.

BILL MOYERS: Where is the spot? Here it is.

When you finished that speech you got a great ovation and you walked back to your seat. What were you thinking?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, I was thinking to myself, "How did it go?" And I said to myself, "I think it went well." And the young people in SNCC, I got the reading from them. They were cheering and they were, really they enjoyed it. And they were glad that I made it through the speech I think.

BILL MOYERS: Do you know about the March on Washington?

CHILD #3: It's the 50th anniversary, right?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: The 50th anniversary is August the 28th. We will celebrate and commemorate the 50th anniversary.

BILL MOYERS: He was standing right here where you're standing now looking out there. That's the crowd.

CHILD #3: Are you in that picture?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Well, here he is. That's young John Lewis.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: That's me there.

It was good to be in the presence of Lincoln. To be -- I felt very honored to be there on that day 50 years ago. And I feel honored to have an opportunity to come here almost 50 years later.

MALE VOICE #1: Five, four, three, two, one.

MALE VOICE #2: Testing, ten nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: On that morning, August 28th, 1963, 50 years ago, I knew that I had to try to do my best, my very best. So, early that morning we came to Capitol Hill as a group. We went on over and met with the Democratic and Republican leadership.

And then, we came down Constitution Avenue.

BILL MOYERS: Walking?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Walking.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: It was the so-called Big Six, plus four major white religious and labor leaders that had been invited to issue the call for the March on Washington.

BILL MOYERS: Well, this is the picture I have of the leaders. Were you leaving Capitol Hill then?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Here, we were leaving Capitol Hill. It was unreal. It was unbelievable. When we got to this point, the people were already walking. And a sea of humanity, we just saw hundreds and thousands of people coming toward Union Station. And they literally pushed us toward the Washington Monument, and then on toward the Lincoln Memorial.

On that first part of the march, it was the people, not the leaders. We were followers.

BILL MOYERS: Call out their names for us.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, here you have young John Lewis.

Twenty-three. Chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Mathew Ahmann, who was from the Catholic Council for Interracial Justice from the city of Chicago. And here is Floyd McKissick. Floyd McKissick was the chair of the board of CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality. He was standing in for James Farmer, who was the executive director of CORE. Well, Farmer was in jail in Louisiana and refused to come out of jail to participate in the march.

And here is Martin Luther King, Jr. A wonderful human being. He was my leader, my inspiration, my hero. I first met him in 1958 when I was 18 years old. This is Eugene Carson Blake, who was head of the National Council of Churches.

And here, this young man here is Cleveland Robinson. This man was almost blind, but no one wanted to say to him, "But you cannot walk with the group." And, so, he walked with us. This is Rabbi Joachim Prince of the American Jewish Congress.

He was born in Berlin and moved to America during the late 30s. He moved to Newark, New Jersey, and became a leader, a spokesperson for civil liberty, civil rights. And this is Joe Rauh. He was one of the unbelievable leaders in the NAACP. And this is unbelievable Whitney Young, who was head of the National Urban League.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Who's been a dean at the School of Social Work at Atlanta University. Roy Wilkins, the head of the NAACP. Walter Reuther, the head of the United Automobile Workers Union.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: And this is A. Philip Randolph.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: He was born in Jacksonville, Florida, moved to New York, and organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. He was our leader. He was our dean. We called him the dean of black leadership. He was a principle of a man.

BILL MOYERS: So, when you look back what comes to your mind?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: An awesome day. An unbelievable day. A moment in American history when people came together and heard and saw Martin Luther King Jr., deliver that magnificent “I Have a Dream” speech. I will never forget just standing on those steps of the Lincoln Memorial, looking out.

There was a wonderful spirit. You looked out, just saw the signs from organizations, from church groups, labor groups, youth groups. It was black and white. I think it represented one of the finest hours in American history.

BILL MOYERS: What struck me about the speeches that unfolded that morning were that they weren't just about segregation. They were about an egalitarian vision of America, white and black, that was part of the social gospel that all of you seemed to be preaching. That there was something larger than ending segregation, as important as that was.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I believe I used a line in my own speech when I suggested we must seek more than mere civil rights, but we must seek to create a community. We must -- a sense of brotherhood. And the day I was there. We were trying to create and move us toward the creating of a beloved community.

BILL MOYERS: It was a universal vision that unfolded in speech after speech.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: It was an all-inclusive message, a message for all Americans. So, it didn't matter whether we were black or white, Latino, or Asian-American, or Native American. It was -- and that's what Dr. King had the ability to do in his own speech. He delivered a sermon. And I think, in a sense, we all were delivering small sermons. He had the ability, more than any of us, to transform the marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial into a modern-day pulpit. And he knew he was preaching.

BILL MOYERS: So, what was going through your mind early in the morning?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Early in the morning I kept thinking, "Is it going be okay? Is it going be all right?" I was not concerned about whether it was going to be peaceful because I believed that the people, especially those coming out of the South, had been touched by the spirit of the movement.

They were committed to the philosophy and the discipline of nonviolence. And so many of these people came from the religious community. They came out of churches. They came from synagogues. They came from temples. They were people of faith. And they believed to have a rabbi, a minister, and other people that represented the essence of the social gospel. I knew it was going to be all right.

BILL MOYERS: But you know, the city was tense. I drove in every morning, commuted from Virginia. Usually the traffic is bumper to bumper, stop and start-- creeping slowly along. But I sailed in that morning because 2/3 of the people working in the District stayed home out of fear of the violence that had been talked about.

And as you probably remember 15,000 paratroopers were called up on the ready. Police leaves were canceled, including for the suburban police. All liquor sales were banned in the city. They even stopped the Major League baseball game from being played that afternoon.

And the police, I don't know if you ever knew this. The police were so nervous that they rigged your sound system in case they had to take it over when violence erupted. So, you may have been calm, but there was a fear in the heart of the city that things were going to go badly.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I didn't think there was going to be any violence or any disorder. It was the spirit. It was the spirit that engulfed the leadership and engulfed the participant. So many other people came like they were on their way to a religious service. It was like, almost like a camp meeting. And a lot of the people dressed like they were going to church.

It was almost spiritual to hear Mahalia Jackson stand and sing “How We Got Over.” And the place in a strange sense, started rocking. So somehow and some way, it had been instilled in the very being of the participant that we must follow the way of peace, the way of love, the way of nonviolence.

BILL MOYERS: There are people everywhere as far as the eye can see, extending in a mile. And there's music, Odetta, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mahalia Jackson, Peter, Paul and Mary.

Celebrities, Jackie Robinson, Paul Newman, Josephine Baker, Sidney Poitier, Lena Horne, Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee, Charlton Heston, Sammy Davis Jr., Marlon Brando. The celebrities were everywhere. But what seemed to have gripped you as you spoke, and as you've written and talked about, in a sense, was those thousands upon thousands of nameless, ordinary people who were out there.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: It was unreal, unbelievable. When I got up to speak, I can see the people, the young people. I can see those middle aged and older people. I can see some members of Congress down near the foot of the podium. It was a sea of humanity.

BILL MOYERS: Were you intimidated? You were only 23. You had only been head of SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, for what, a few weeks?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Only a few weeks. And my first responsibility was to travel to Washington. We had a meeting with President Kennedy in the Oval Office of the White House. And we told him we were going to march on Washington.

You know, President Kennedy didn't like the idea of hundreds and thousands of people coming to Washington. And he said to Mr. Randolph, who was our spokesperson, "If you bring these, all these people to Washington, won't there be violence and chaos and disorder? And we will never get a civil rights bill through the Congress."

Mr. Randolph responded and said, in his baritone voice, "Mr. President, this will be an orderly, peaceful, nonviolent protest." We left that meeting, came out on the lawn of the White House, and said we had a meaningful and productive meeting with the President of the United State. And we told him we were going to march on Washington.

BILL MOYERS: Can you sum up what was going on in America at that time that led to the march that had people like John Kennedy worried and people like you adamant about what had to be done?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, the years leading up to the March on Washington had been unbelievable amount of action on the part of the movement. People had been sitting in lunch counters, standing in at theatres. People had been arrested and jailed by the hundreds and thousands.

People had been beaten. The signs that said, "White and colored." "White waiting." "Colored waiting." "White men." "Colored men. " "White women." "Colored women," they were still around. Medgar Evers had been assassinated in Mississippi in June of 1963.

Bull Connor, the police commissioner of the city of Birmingham had used dogs and fire hoses on children, women in the streets of Birmingham. Hundreds and thousand of young people, young children, had been arrested and jailed in the city of Birmingham. People couldn't register to vote simple because of the color of their skin. Back in 1961, '62, '63, people had to pass a so-called literacy test in my native state of Alabama. On one occasion, a man was asked to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. Another occasion, a man was asked to count the number of jellybeans in a jar.

BILL MOYERS: Before he would be allowed to register?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Register. And there was black doctors, lawyers, college professors, high school principals, maids, sharecroppers, tenant farmers, stood in unmovable lines all across the South. Were denied the right to participate simply because of the color of their skin.

BILL MOYERS: You lived a very frenetic schedule in the months leading up to the march. You were in all the hot spots, from Arkansas to Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina, but in your speech you made a reference to Danville, Virginia.

I remember your describing the authorities, the police in Danville breaking through the doors of a church in Danville in order to arrest the marchers, the protesters there. That was common, wasn't it they'd seek them out, wherever they were?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: It didn't matter whether it was a church, a community center. It was the harassment, intimidation. They wanted to stop people, to make it almost impossible for people to exercise their constitutional right. We had to continue to say to people, "You have a right to protest." Dr. King would say, "You have a right to protest for what is right in an orderly, peaceful, nonviolent manner."

And many of the young people that came out of the deep South, out of Nashville, where we came under the influence of a man like Jim Lawson, we accepted nonviolence not simply as a technique or as a tactic, but as a way of life, as a way of living. We wanted to build what we called the beloved community, a community at peace with itself. In a sense where you forget about race and color and see people as people, as human beings. In SNCC, we started calling ourselves a circle of trust.

BILL MOYERS: A circle?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Of trust. A band of brothers and sisters, that you have to respect the dignity and the words of every human being. So you could not strike someone or hit someone, even have an evil thought or even consider. And we truly believed there's a spark of the divine in every single one of us and that you don't have a right to scar or destroy that spark. So, you must be respectful of every human being.

BILL MOYERS: You know, you've always had a way of refusing to let fear take control of your life. What do you owe that to?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Someplace along the way, growing up in rural Alabama I came to the conclusion that you must not be afraid. You must not be afraid. And in the Movement, the sit-ins, the freedom rides before the March on Washington when I was beaten and left bloody and unconscious in Montgomery at that Greyhound Bus Station and almost died, I became more determined than ever that I would never ever be afraid.

BILL MOYERS: Why? Where did that come from?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: It's studying the philosophy of non-violence, studying the great religions of the world, studying Gandhi and Thoreau and listening to the words of Martin Luther King Jr. You cannot be afraid. You cannot live in fear.

BILL MOYERS: You're lost when you live in fear. It's over for you, right?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, it's -- to live in fear is, like you don’t exist -- you lose all sense of hope. You have to be hopeful.

BILL MOYERS: And you were when you approached those steps that morning to make your speech?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: When I arrived there on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I was very hopeful. I was very optimistic. I was ready. I was ready. And when A. Philip Randolph stood up and said, "I now present to you young John Lewis, the National Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee," I had what I considered an executive session with myself.

BILL MOYERS: An executive session with yourself?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Yeah. I said, "This is it. I must go for it." So, I looked to my right. I saw all of these young people from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Then I looked to my left. I saw many young people, black and white, up in the trees trying to get a better view of the platform. Then I looked straight ahead. And I just started, starting speaking.

JOHN LEWIS IN 1963: We march today for jobs and freedom, but we have nothing to be proud of, for hundreds and thousands of our brothers are not here. For they are receiving starvation wages, or no wages at all. While we stand here, there are sharecroppers in the Delta of Mississippi who are out in the fields working for less than three dollars a day, twelve hours a day. We come here today with a great sense of misgiving.

It is true that we support the administration's civil rights bill. We support it with great reservations, however. Unless -- unless Title III is put in this bill, there is nothing to protect the young children and old women who must face police dogs and fire hoses in the South while they engage in peaceful demonstrations.

BILL MOYERS: But you know, you made your brothers in the march very nervous as they started hearing about what you were going to say. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong on this. But the night before your speech, one of your associates mistakenly put a copy of several copies of it on a table in the press room. And word began to-- the copies began to circulate and the alarms went up. What can you remember of that?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, I remember very well a note was put under my door from Bayard Rustin saying, "You need to come to a meeting. There's some concern about your speech, what you are proposing to say. And I attended the meeting. There were representatives from the different heads of the organization.

And some other people were there. And we had a very tense discussion about what I was saying and not saying. Near the end of the speech, more than anything else people were concerned about the end. But throughout, they sort of analyzed and said words and phrases. And I remember one line, I said, "You tell us to wait. You tell us to be patient. We cannot wait. We cannot be patient. We want our freedom and we want it now."

And Bayard Rustin said to me -- he was joking, just joking. He said, "John, you can't say you cannot be patient." Said the Catholic Church believed in being patient. He was just kidding me. But then, there was some people who said something like, "In the speech, you're saying revolution, black masses. What are you talking about?"

And A. Philip Randolph came to my rescue. He said, "There's nothing wrong with the use of the word black masses. I use it in myself sometimes. There's nothing wrong with the use of the word revolution. I use it in myself --" so, for the most part, we kept that in it.

But near the end of the speech, the original text, I said, "If we do not see meaningful progress here today, the day may come where we may not confine our marching on Washington, but we may be forced to march through the South the way Sherman did nonviolently." They said, "Oh, no. You can't go there." And that stayed in the speech until we got to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

And both A. Philip Randolph and Dr. King and Mr. Wilkins came to me. And at one point, I said to Roy Wilkins, I said "Mr. Wilkins this speech represent the young people in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and all of the people, indigenous people in Alabama and Georgia and Mississippi and all across the South." And he sort of walked away, sort of backed off.

Then, Mr. Randolph and Dr. King came back and said, Dr. King said, "John, this doesn't sound like you." And Mr. Randolph said something like, "We come this far together, John. Let's stay together." And I couldn't say no to A. Philip Randolph. I couldn't say no to Martin Luther King, Jr.

BILL MOYERS: So you agreed to some changes. You took out the words criticizing the President's bill as being too little, and too late. You took out the call to march through the Heart of Dixie the way Sherman did. You took out the question asking which side is the federal government on. You took out the reference to some political leaders as “cheap,” and you took them out, you're saying, because you were on the team, and because you honored A. Philip Randolph and Martin Luther King who said, "John, some of those words don't sound like you?"

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I did it. And as I look back and think about it 50 years later, I think it was the right thing to do. I have always tried to be a team player, and try not to violate any principles, or violate my philosophy.

BILL MOYERS: But were you angry at yourself at the time?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I don't think I was angry. I think I had a sense of righteous indignation.

JOHN LEWIS IN 1963: Let us not forget that we are involved in a serious social revolution. But by and large, American politics is dominated by politicians who build their career on immoral compromises and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation. […] Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march in the streets of Birmingham? Where is the political party that will protect the citizens of Albany, Georgia?

BILL MOYERS: So what did you mean when you said, "Let us not forget that we are now involved in a social revolution"?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: What I was trying to suggest -- this is not child play. This is not something today and it's gone tomorrow. That we need a revolution of values. We need a revolution of ideas. We need to humanize. I didn't make it plain. I didn't make it clear. But find a way to humanize our politics, to humanize our political institutions, our business, our education institution and look out for the people.

Neither of the two major political party was being responsive to the needs, not just of African Americans but there was a lot of Americans had been left out and left behind. They were low-income whites, there were Latinos, Native-Americans, women, children.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: The March on Washington, August 28, 1963, was all-inclusive. It was not a black march. We wanted everyone to participate. We wanted to really, as I said before, to move toward the creation of an America at peace with itself, the beloved community, where no one but no one would be left out or left behind. And it didn't matter your race or your color.

BILL MOYERS: Your words got through. Your message took some hope, some shape when the Democrats with liberal Republicans started pushing the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I think after the March on Washington and with President Johnson as president, represented some of the best days of modern America. The Civil Rights Act was passed, bipartisan effort. It was one of the fine hours for the Congress. As some would say, "We got things done. We accomplished something."

BILL MOYERS: I want to play a part of your speech that also got directly, subsequently, into the important legislation that came out in '64 and '65.

JOHN LEWIS IN 1963: We must have legislation that will protect the Mississippi sharecroppers, who have been forced to leave their homes because they dared to exercise their right to register to vote. We need a bill that will provide for the homeless and starving people of this nation. We need a bill that will ensure the equality of a maid who earns five dollars a week in the home of a family whose total income is 100,000 dollars a year. We must have a good FEPC bill.

BILL MOYERS: You call for the FEPC, the Fair Employment Practices Commission. It prevents private firms, government agencies and labor unions from discriminating against workers on the basis of race, religion or color. That wound up in the Civil Rights Act of '64.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, you know, sometime you have to not just dream about what could be, you get out and push and you pull and you preach. And you create a climate and environment to get those in high places, to get men and women of good will in power to act. And people responded. President Johnson listened. And members of Congress listened. And they responded. Today's a different day.

JOHN LEWIS IN 1963: If we do not get meaningful legislation out of this Congress, the time will come when we will not confine our marching to Washington. We will march through the South, through the streets of Jackson, through the streets of Danville, through the streets of Cambridge, through the streets of Birmingham. But we will march with the spirit of love and with the spirit of dignity that we have shown here today.

By the forces of our demands, our determination, and our numbers, we shall splinter the segregated South into a thousand pieces and put them together in the image of God and democracy. We must say, "Wake up America! Wake up!" for we cannot stop, and we will not and cannot be patient.

BILL MOYERS: But the real work was ahead, wasn't it?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: But I knew, as Dr. King said in his speech, we had to go back to the South. We had to go, we had to leave the mountaintop. And being in Washington, being on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, was a great feeling. To be standing there in the shadow of Abraham Lincoln. But we have to go back into the heart of Alabama, back to Georgia, back to Mississippi and back to other parts of America and to make real the hopes and dreams of a people.

BILL MOYERS: But when you did that in the preceding years, you got your head bashed in.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, that was part of the price we had to pay in order to make it real, make it plain, make it simple. Daddy King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s father used to say to him over and over again, "Make it plain, son. Make it plain." By marching to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, we were trying to make it plain. Not just to politicians, but to the American people.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I said to some of my staff, I said it to the people in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. I said it to Dr. King and the people at SCLC from time to time. We have to pace ourselves because our struggle is not a struggle that lasts for one day, or one week, or one month, or one year, or one lifetime. It's an ongoing struggle.

I said it to some of my colleagues in the Congress. We must take the long hard look, but also believe in a sense of urgency. When people are hurting, when people are suffering, you must be ready to move. You must be ready to act.

And how long can people suffer? How long can people starve? And if we make a decision between children and military might? Or make a decision between more bombs, more missiles, more guns, and mothers and children, the poor, the elderly? You cannot be patient. You cannot wait.

BILL MOYERS: Do you remember what Martin Luther King said to you after the speech?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I remember Dr. King saying, "Good job, John, good job."

BILL MOYERS: And then he went on to follow you shortly with that famous "I Have a Dream" speech. How did it strike you hearing it that day?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: When Martin Luther King Jr. stood up and started speaking, and later as he continued to speak, and he got to that point where he said, "I have a dream today, a dream deeply rooted in the American Dream," I looked at him, I’ve heard him speak so many times, and I knew then that he knew that he was getting over to the American people, and that he was preaching a great sermon. And that's what he did.

He, in a good sense, he took advantage of the situation. He had the largest audience he ever had. He had been to Washington before, like in 1957, on May 17, 1957 and spoke on the steps. But this audience was different. It was larger. And I think he was inspired. I think he was inspired by God almighty. I think he had been tracked down by what I call the spirit of history. And he responded.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. IN 1963: I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

BILL MOYERS: It was certainly apparent to those thousands upon thousands of people that he had somehow captured the immensity of the movement, and that he had delivered.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: You couldn't leave after hearing him speak and go back to business as usual. You had to do something, you had to act. You had to move. You had to go out and spread the good news.

BILL MOYERS: Some critics said after the "I Have a Dream" speech that it was candy-coated, and appeasement to white America. Too much optimism, too much love. Do you remember that? The criticisms of his speech?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: The criticism was uncalled for. Dr. King measured the moment. He measured the climate, the environment.

He was trying through his message to bring us all together as one people, as one family, as one house, the American house, the world house. And there was room. There was a place for all Americans. It was not just black Americans. White Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, women, men, everybody.

BILL MOYERS: But we have largely forgotten that in the beginning, his words were stinging as they spoke about reality.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.: In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check […] It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note so far as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation America has given the Negro people a bad check. A check which has come backed marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

BILL MOYERS: John Lewis, why has that part of his speech not joined the collective memory of the country?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I don't know. I really don't know. And it's so troublesome. I think that's one of the most brilliant and most powerful parts of that speech, really. I think sometimes we get caught up in the rhetoric. There's not anything wrong with rhetoric or poetry but that's the essence. That is the body. That is the soul of that speech, really.

This man’s life is not just civil rights or civil liberty, but he was concerned about hunger, poverty. And he died in Memphis trying to deal with the whole question of the wages. Economic conditions.

The last time I saw him was a meeting in Atlanta. He was preparing for the Poor People's Campaign. He had brought together low-income African American, low-income whites, Latinos, and Asian and Native Americans together to talk about going to Washington to do something about poverty.

BILL MOYERS: This was the spring of 1968, not long before he was killed.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Still, he was harkening back to that universal vision of egalitarian America that you all presented that day here in 1963.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: That's what the march was all about. We said “jobs,” what jobs means, improving your conditions. Jobs, maybe you can do something about sending your child to school to get a great education. Maybe you could-- they would get healthcare. Food and shelter is the basic necessity of life. That's what it was all about.

BILL MOYERS: Many people don't remember that after Dr. King finished his historic speech, one of the chief architects of the march, Bayard Rustin who, of course, you knew so well took to the podium and made a series of demands.

BAYARD RUSTIN IN 1963: We first demand we have effective civil rights legislation, no compromise, no filibuster, and that it includes public accommodations, decent housing, integrated education, FEPC, and the right to vote. What do you say? […] We demand that segregation be ended in every school district in the year 1963.

BILL MOYERS: You write in your memoir that that day was the peak of hope and that we were soon descending back into the darkness.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I think I was right. I wouldn't say I was prophetic. But 18 days after we left Washington that sense of hope, a great deal of that hope was lost, dismissed, or set aside. It was the terrible bombing of this church in Birmingham where four little girls were killed on a Sunday morning. That was a sad and dark hour for the nation, but for the movement in particular.

It was unreal. It was unbelievable. I was at home on that Sunday morning in rural Alabama outside of Troy visiting my mother and father, my younger brothers and sisters, when we heard that the bombing had taken place. I went to Birmingham, met my friend Julian Bond, who had made it over from Atlanta. And we stood on the corner a short distance from the church. And it just was too sad. And I stayed there for the funeral of the four little girls. And Dr. King came during the week and delivered the eulogy for the three little young girls. And that made us more determined than ever before to go all out and to continue to struggle.

BILL MOYERS: I remember in his funeral message, Martin Luther King was still preaching nonviolence despite this growing chorus of criticism from more militant blacks. He said, "You can bomb our homes, bomb our churches, kill our little children, and we are still going to love you." And then he made this astonishing statement: "At times life is hard, as hard as crucible steel. In spite of the darkness of this hour we must not lose faith in our white brothers." Did you agree with that?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: I agreed with every word that Dr. King spoke. I believed in it. And I still believe in it today. You cannot lose hope. You cannot give up. You just cannot give in. You cannot become bitter or hostile. You just -- the way of love is a better way. It's -- Dr. King has said on one occasion over the years during that period that we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or we will perish as fools. I think that is still true today. That was the essence of the movement.

BILL MOYERS: Those little girls were in Sunday school hearing the lesson on “the love that forgives.” And they died hearing that lesson. And you're saying those men who did it should be loved and forgiven?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Yes, they must be love. They must -- we must have the capacity, we must have the ability to forgive. Dr. King -- one joke he said, "We just have to love." He said, "We have to love the hell out of everybody. Just love. It's a better way." On one occasion he said something like, "I made up my mind to love because hate is too heavy a burden to bear."

BILL MOYERS: So what does the March on Washington 50 years ago have to say to us today?

REP. JOHN LEWIS: The March on Washington 50 years ago is saying to us today that we can. We can as a nation and as a people come together for the common good and believe again that we can get things done for all America and not just for some.

BILL MOYERS: John Lewis, thank you very much for your time. And thank you, above all, for your work and your witness.

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, thank you very much, Bill. Thank you, brother.

BILL MOYERS: You may find it hard to believe that the same John Lewis who speaks so gently today of “love and forgiveness” was described 50 years ago by "The New York Times" as “harshest of all the speakers” at the March on Washington. But the times were harsh, as those in the civil rights movement knew better than anyone. They would have been justified meeting the evils of racism with radical measures. How they achieved such a magnanimous spirit in the face of the ugly oppression of white supremacy, gross injustice, and reactionary politics is a story that both baffles and inspires.

I watched the people around me that day in 1963: students, trade unionists, teachers, laborers, letter carriers, even sharecroppers who rode the bus all night to come up from the blood-darkened depths of the South. The thing I remember most vividly is how seriously they listened. They heard what John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the others were saying – that America had failed its great promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens.

Like their forebears they were used to seeing the future of which they dreamed always deferred, put off again and again. Now, they came that hot Wednesday in August to make demands and celebrate their solidarity. They sought freedom – the same freedom from want and fear that white people want – and they wanted jobs, a living wage, without which freedom is but the rich man’s preserve.

We remember Dr. King’s soaring dream of an interracial future, but we too often forget that the bush must burn before hope is born, that there is a trial of pain before change can come. The March reached the peak of the mountain that day, but the marchers were soon back below on the flatlands where the long, long struggle for justice continued to meet ferocious resistance.

We keep backsliding on the promise; keep forgetting that the marchers were claiming it for every American, of every color and faith. But for a few hours that day, we could imagine what this country might yet become…

SINGING CROWD: Freedom. Freedom. Freedom, freedom, freedom.

BILL MOYERS: At our website, BillMoyers.com, we invite you to share your own memories and photos of the 1963 March on Washington. And we’ve brought together a group of activists and scholars to think about its impact and ask whether after all these years the demands of those who marched have been met.

That’s all at BillMoyers.com. It’ll see you there and I’ll see you here, next time.

M&C | Full Show: John Lewis Marches On | Jul 26, 2013 | vm | 网页

Thursday, July 25, 2013

TRN: Chris Hedges 7/7

TRN | Chris Hedges Answers Questions from Viewers | 072413 | 网页 |

Stallman: Copyright vs Community

Reykjavik University | Richard Stallman: Copyright vs Community | 110712 | 网页:网页:网页:网页:网页 |

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

TRN: Chris Hedges 6/7

TRN | Chris Hedges: As a Socialist, I Have No Voice in the Mainstream | 072413 | 网页 |

Scott Burdick Interviews Dawkins

Richard Dawkins | Scott Burdick Interviews Richard Dawkins | 2012 |

TRN: Chris Hedges 5/7

TRN | Chris Hedges: The Liberal Elite has Betrayed the People They Claim to Defend | 072213 | 网页 |

TRN: Chris Hedges 4/7

TRN | Chris Hedges: America is a Tinderbox | 071913 | 网页 |

TRN: Chris Hedges 3/7

TRN | Chris Hedges: We Must Grasp Reality to Build Effective Resistance | 071813 | 网页 |

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Scott Burdick Interviews Dan Barker

Freedom from Religion Foundation | Scott Burdick Interviews Dan Barker | 2012 | 网页:网页 |

TRN: Chris Hedges 2/7

TRN | Chris Hedges: Journalism Should Be About Truth, Not Career | 071813 | 网页 |

TRN: Chris Hedges 1/7

TRN | Chris Hedges: Urban Poverty in America Made Me Question Everything | 071813 | 网页 |

Sunday, July 21, 2013

deGrasse: Space Chronicles

Book TV | Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier | Mar 15, 2012 | 网页:网页 |

Moyers & Company 071913

BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company…

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: I told Campbell Soup executives, I told the Heinz executives, I told the Dean Foods executives, I told the Mt. Olive executives, the CEO, and I'm telling Reynolds America right now, "You're a good man. But the system that you operate is wrong. And it's built on inequity. And you need to fix it, because you have the power to do so."

BILL MOYERS: And…

TOM DIAZ: There are bad people in the world. But the presence of firearms makes an encounter with a bad person even more dangerous.

ANNOUNCER: Funding is provided by:

Carnegie Corporation of New York, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world.

The Kohlberg Foundation.

Independent Production Fund, with support from The Partridge Foundation, a John and Polly Guth Charitable Fund.

The Clements Foundation.

Park Foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues.

The Herb Alpert Foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society.

The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation.

The John D. And Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at Macfound.Org.

Anne Gumowitz.

The Betsy And Jesse Fink Foundation.

The HKH Foundation.

Barbara G. Fleischman.

And by our sole corporate sponsor, Mutual of America, designing customized individual and group retirement products. That’s why we’re your retirement company.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. My generation was moved and shocked by one of the most powerful documentaries ever made. Broadcast the night after thanksgiving in 1960, Edward R. Murrow’s “Harvest of Shame” exposed us to the callous exploitation of the migrant workers who pick our fruit and vegetables.

EDWARD R. MURROW in Harvest of Shame: This is an American story that begins in Florida and ends in New Jersey and New York State with the harvest. It is a 1960’s “Grapes of Wrath” that begins at the Mexican border in California and ends in Oregon and Washington. It is the story of men and women and children who work 136 days of the year and average nine hundred dollars a year.

They travel in buses. They ride trucks. They follow the sun. […] They are the migrants. Workers in the sweat shops of the soil. The harvest of shame.

BILL MOYERS: Believe it or not, more than fifty years later, the life of a migrant laborer is still an ordeal. And not just for adults. Perhaps as many as half a million children, some as young as seven years old, are out in the fields and orchards working nine to ten hour days under brutal conditions.

A few decades ago, Baldemar Velásquez was one of those kids, working in the fields beside his parents who eventually migrated to Ohio, where he still lives.

His experience led him to a life organizing and fighting for social justice for workers still trapped, in his words, “by their own fate and historical design.”

Following in the footsteps of the legendary Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers, Velasquez founded the Farm Labor Organizing Committee – or FLOC – and slowly built a movement, taking on some of the biggest corporate giants in America.

In 1978, he led more than 2,000 workers in Ohio and Michigan on strike against vegetable growers and the Campbell Soup company. The walkout and accompanying boycott were the largest agricultural labor action in the history of the Midwest. Eight years later, Campbell’s and the growers agreed to a deal, the first farm labor contract outside of California.

These days, Baldemar Velásquez and FLOC are targeting R.J. Reynolds, the largest tobacco company in North Carolina and the second biggest in America. Earlier this month, Velásquez joined protesters at the weekly “Moral Monday” rallies outside North Carolina’s capitol in Raleigh, demonstrating against draconian budget cuts and union busting.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ at "Moral Monday" Rally: But this rich manufacturer from Toledo was calling me about organizing the migrant workers in Ohio. He says I want to talk to you about why you oppose me. So he invites me to his country club, and so I go to this country club and I say are you a member of this country club, why are you a member of this country club? He said because this is where I do my networking, this is where I gather with people like myself, to overcome the obstacles of doing my business. You a member the Chamber of Commerce right? For the same reason. Yeah I said you remember the Rotary club for the same reason, he says yeah. I said how come you white guys can have all the unions and us Mexicans can’t have one?

BILL MOYERS: He was briefly arrested and surrendered peacefully, all part of the gospel according to Baldemar Velásquez, quote “Speak truth to power with love in your heart. Pray for courage to speak it despite your fears. Explain the inequity and show your enemy the road to reconciliation.”

Baldemar Velásquez is with me now. It’s good to meet you.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: What was it like when you were a boy growing up? Your parents were working in the field. You were working in the field. What was your day like?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, pretty much like farm workers have now. That they get up at day break. And you have to work hard and fast, because when I was young many of the crops were piece rate. There was no such thing--

BILL MOYERS: Piece rate meaning?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, you get paid per container, or even by the acre. If you didn't work and fill those buckets or whatever, you didn't get paid. And you didn't have anything to eat. So you're primarily just trying to make enough just to eat and maybe have some money to buy clothes and be, try to make it, follow the next crop, where it hopefully will go better.

Just the other day, we were joking about, my brother Jose and I, my younger brother, sometimes there were such sparse food in the house that we would actually count the beans on our plate to make sure we had the equal number of beans. If there was an odd bean, we'd cut it in half.

BILL MOYERS: What did it do to your parents, that they couldn't provide for all of you?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: That was one of the most traumatic things growing up. You see, being poor is in and of itself not traumatic. It's an inconvenience, but being poor and powerless to withstand the mistreatment, to watch my mom and dad be mistreated and are being fooled about the wages and exactly stolen from us.

BILL MOYERS: How so?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, when you're working piece rate, like, my dad didn't know very much English. And he would, we were, say we were hoeing sugar beets. And we were getting paid by the acre.

And my dad would always ask, "Well, how many rows are in an acre?" So they tell him whatever many rows. And by this time, I was already in junior high school. And I was learning math. I was always good at math. Because as a little kid, you're picking by piece rate, you're counting all the time. So I knew numbers pretty good. And so I said, well, I learned how many square feet there were in an acre and what the length and the width would be. And so I just, one day, I just got down on my knees and with a foot ruler and measured off the length of a field and worked backwards and figured out what the width would be. And then measured out the width with that ruler. And figured-- and then counted the rows in that width. And I find out that for every acre we hoed, we were two or three rows more than what the acre actually was. So when you hoe a 40-acre field, you're only getting paid for 33 or 34 acres. And that's the way they cheated us. And I would tell my dad, "They're cheating us dad." You know, they're-- that's not how many rows are in an acre. This is the correct number."

BILL MOYERS: So what could you do about it? Given that they were in charge?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Nothing. That's the problem. There was no way for us to complain. No way for us to appeal to anyone. And if we wanted to go to local law enforcement, well, the farmers were all related to the law enforce. Some of them were family in the law enforcement, whether they're the judges or the police or the sheriff of the county. And it made it, almost, this is not to our advantage to complain. Because then you would be blacklisted from other farmers and nobody would hire you. And then we couldn't work. And we wouldn't have anything to eat.

BILL MOYERS: Were your parents subjected to humiliation, the racial humiliation, the racial snubs and epithets?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, the verbal mistreatment of my mom, and, was something that's very, was very hard to take. A young man wants to defend his mom. And you love your mom and you love your dad. And you don't want to see them treated with disrespect and less than a human being. And when you watch your parents being treated that way, it makes you angry. It makes you want to do something. It makes you want to fight. And at some point, when I got to be about 12 or 13 years old, I decided that if-- when I grew up, if I can do something about this, I'm going to do it.

BILL MOYERS: That young?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well I started thinking about it at that time. But I felt kind of like, "How in the heck do you go around, you know, changing these things? It seems so overwhelming and the parties, not only the farmers we thought were big. But when you look at the corporations who bought the crops, the manufacturers, and now the retailers, who are directly buying from many large farms, it seems so overwhelming and, like so powerful. And you almost have to decide that if you fight these people it's kind of like suicidal. They're going to blacklist you in the work. They're going to discredit you in the community. They're going to do everything they can to make you a pariah of society. And I think that at some point, you make that decision. Said, "Okay, if they want to do that, okay. But that's not going to keep me shut up."

BILL MOYERS: What did you do?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, I went to college. I got through my first year two semesters for $800, out of state tuition, living with my grandparents. And I borrowed half of that money from a local bank in Ohio. And had to work the following summer to work that off. But--

BILL MOYERS: Doing what?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Picking cherries up in Michigan. But it was my experience in South Texas, the way, to watch my grandparents, the way they were treated, and my aunts. The way-- I mean, didn't make any sense. This was 1965. And 80 percent of the population are Mexican-American. And every judge, every mayor, every county commissioner, everybody, they were all white. I said, "Now how is this?"

And you watch the condescension. Well, that's the way my grandparents were treated. That's the way my aunts were treated. And that was in the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement. The folk singers were singing protest songs. I learned and gleaned everything that I was hearing. And so I went to volunteer for CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality in Cleveland, Ohio.

And I lived in a tenement house with an African American family. And my job was to ride shotgun with another man with a police scanner in the car. And our job was to respond to police calls and document police brutality cases in the black neighborhoods. Well, I go home every night to that tenement house. And I'd sleep on this guy's couch.

Well, one morning he asked me, "Son, I've got to ask you a question." I say, "Yeah, go head." He says, "Well, you're the only person I've ever had here as a volunteer that hasn't complained about the rats. Why is that?" So I told him my rat story, that I grew up with the rats in labor camps and the old farmhouse we lived on the county line in Northwest Ohio. There was the couch that in the living room was my bed and my brother's bed. He slept on one end. And I slept on the other end. And there was, that couch was pushed up against a window overlooking the front porch. And there was a crack underneath the pane. And that's where the rats would come in at night.

So at night, you'd hear the scratching along the back of that couch. And we knew there was a rat going to get up on the top up there. And we knew that the rat had to jump on the seat where we sleeping before he got on the floor. So when we'd hear the scratching on the back of that couch, we'd kick each other and pull the blanket taut. To make kind of like a trampoline for the rat.

And the rat would jump down on the blanket. And when we'd hear that, we'd go with our fists underneath, boom, like that, to see how far we could make the rat fly. And that was our game, to see how far we could make the rat fly.

But the man says, he looked kind of stunned, and he said, "Good Lord, son, why aren't you doing something for your own people?" And that's what provoked the thought, "I need to go back and start organizing the migrant workers and try to follow the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement to speak for people and organize them so they can speak for themselves."

BILL MOYERS: You make me think of a video that I saw the other day of a speech you made after one of your colleagues in FLOC had been murdered in Mexico. Let me play that video for our audience.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ at Labor Notes Conference, 2008: I’m talking to you as organizers. Look, we’re not doing this because the objective—catch me carefully here, the object is not to win. That’s not the objective. The objective is to do the right and good thing. See because, if you decide not to do anything, because it’s too hard or too impossible, well then nothing will be done. And when you die, when you’re on your death bed, you’re going to say to yourself, “I wish I would’ve tried to do something.” So if you go and do the right and good thing now, and if you do it long enough, good things will happen.

BILL MOYERS: How did you come to that strategy?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: I figured that, well, we can just lay down and just let matters overwhelm us and take us in and whine and complain about how bad things are, or get up and do something and start speaking to those things that are upon you and those things that are evil, and the misdeeds upon you, and just do it and don't stop, and whatever happens happens. But it's better, as Emiliano Zapata said, it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

BILL MOYERS: And your parents understood that?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: My mom was the strong one. She was a charismatic Catholic. She would say, "Only God knows," in Spanish, you know? And,"Whatever the Lord decides."

How can we have a God, you know, that'd keep us in this situation. And I was always angry about it. I would be very puzzled that my mom would have that kind of faith in light of our reality that we had, at that time.

BILL MOYERS: How did you reconcile the reality that you were dealing with and the faith your mother was expressing in a benevolent and good God?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, I didn't hear an audible word from God. But it came to me that if he were to speak words, it would come out like this. "Look, had you not gone through all those trials and all those problems, I would not now have a spokesperson to speak for the people." And now I can take that experience and try to verbalize it and try to explain it to the world so that other people who are in that situation can have some visibility in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of the public, the lawmakers, other people.

They need to have a voice. And I can't speak for all of them. But I can help open the door and organize them so they can speak for themselves. And so that's the way it was reconciled. And more importantly, I think that the anger issue which any young man's going to have growing up in that situation, is not just… is just not the issue of getting even anymore.

BILL MOYERS: But it was, at one time, wasn't it?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: It was.

BILL MOYERS: You felt, "I was going to get even with these--"

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Yes, right. These guys who'd taken advantage of us. But when you come to know the Lord, you begin to understand that what true reconciliation is. And true reconciliation is tough. Because if you're angry and just want to fight, there's a winner and there's a loser. But when there's true reconciliation, is you bring the harmony of the opposition into some way in which you can live in this world together. Because that's really what we're trying to do. And this is really what we want.

BILL MOYERS: I've read that you've even said, "We need to love these businessmen."

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, in scripture, there's a principle about hating the sin and loving the sinner. And a person can be running a corporation. And I say this to them. I told the Campbell Soup executives, I told the Heinz executives, I told the Dean Foods executives, I told the Mt. Olive executive, the CEO, and I'm telling Reynolds America right now, "You're a good man. But the system that you operate is wrong. And it's built on inequity. And you need to fix it, because you have the power to do so." And I keep telling them and find ways to get their attention until they do something about it.

BILL MOYERS: And how do you get their attention?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: We campaign. We boycott. We protest. We march. We go in front of retail stores and organize the consumers who are our best ally.

BILL MOYERS: The consumer?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: The consumer, because there's the growing conscience in this country for safe food, good food produced under just conditions treating their labor and the environment correctly. And thank God for the consumers who are conscious about those things, for their own sake, and for their family's sake.

That's a huge power there, in the public, among the people. We can tell the retail stores, "Tell, you've got to tell Reynolds America to negotiate an agreement with FLOC to guarantee the rights of workers at the bottom of their supply chain." They can do that. They can fix that. They have the power to do that.

BILL MOYERS: What is the issue right now with R.J. Reynolds? How long has this campaign been going on?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Been going on almost five years.

BILL MOYERS: Five years!

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Yeah. So…

BILL MOYERS: What's the issue?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: The issue is that the inequality that they've designed in their supply chain, when they do the pricing of the tobacco, it really amounts to economic marginalization of the small family farmer.

So if the family farmer is marginally, is financially marginalized the farm worker's going to be in a terrible situation trying to be employed by that farmer, by that supplier. So it's like one of us throwing a bone at two dogs and let them fight over who's going to get the better of it. And that's really the fight between farmers and migrant farm workers in this country today. And it's the wrong fight.

It shouldn't be happening. The farmers and the farm workers should be talking to this-- to the retail, people, big corporations and the manufacturers about just pricing in the industry so there can be some equity for those people to be able to make a living and to be able to feed, educate, and clothe their families.

BILL MOYERS: And yet, R.J. Reynolds refused for years to meet with you, didn't they?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Yes, they have.

BILL MOYERS: What did they say?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: They said, "We don't, we're not the employers."

BILL MOYERS: They said the employers are down there, the small farmer.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Yeah, right. But I've just put a proposal down to them in writing. And I'm asking them to do three things. One, stop relying on human trafficking for your labor supply.

Number two, end the squalor in the labor camps, because you can't talk about health and safety without talking about sanitary facilities where they're living, where they're housing these workers. For instance, in tobacco one of the biggest threats to a worker's health is the nicotine ingestion, nicotine poisoning of his body.

And you have to wash that off every night. You have to wear a change of clothes every day. So you've got to have good washing facilities, good shower facilities. And three, you got to end the state of fear of those workers being able to complain about matters that many of them are life-threatening issues like, for instance, North Carolina leads the nation in heat stroke deaths.

BILL MOYERS: In what?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Heat stroke. And many of them happen in agriculture. And workers can't be afraid to ask for water. And because it's terribly--

BILL MOYERS: You mean they can be afraid to ask for water now?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: They're afraid to take breaks. I went to work in a tobacco farm about three summers ago now, figuring if I'm going to represent tobacco workers, I need to go out and do the work to see what they go through. So I moved into a labor camp. And worked a six-day work week. And believe me, the major thing you fought was the heat, the hydration issue, and nicotine ingestion.

You had to wear clothing buttoned up to your neck. And in the morning, you'd wear plastic bags, trash bags, made into ponchos so that it keeps the wet leaves, the dew that's on the leaf or rainwater that's on it, that water has nicotine in it. So when it gets on your body, you ingest it through the skin.

A researcher just said that a worker that handled tobacco-- that they ingest the equivalent of having, smoking 22 cigarettes in a day. So you fight the nicotine ingestion and you fight the dehydration. And it-- Bill, it's impossible to keep hydrated. Because it's over 100 degrees. The humidity is high. And some of the-- particularly the rows that are very long-- and I walked down one end of one row and back before-- where the water supply was.

The farm I worked had-- great water supply. But by the time you went down there and back, it's two hours. And by that time, you're soaked with sweat. And it's impossible to keep totally hydrated in the field, no matter how much water you drank. I didn't get hydrated till I got back to the labor camp at night.

BILL MOYERS: Give me a sense, a brief picture of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco supply chain. How does it work?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well the company contracts the tobacco from independent family farms. They're mostly fairly small, anywhere from a dozen to 20, 30 employees. And the size of the acreage is a lot smaller than the bigger operators.

But the R.J. Reynolds contracts that tobacco directly with those farms. So they may have any number of farmers contracted to them to grow the required tobacco that they need produced in North Carolina. And that's a pretty direct contract. And then, of course, the farmers then, in turn, they hire either guest workers, undocumented workers through the use of labor contractors and crew leaders.

And a lot of times the crew leaders are the ones that have the economic relationship directly with the workers. So you've got the company. You've got the growers. And you might have a level of crew leaders, labor contractors, and then the workers. So all those parties have to come together at some table.

BILL MOYERS: And you represent the tobacco cutters, the guys--

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: The workers.

BILL MOYERS: --right down there in the--

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: On the bottom.

BILL MOYERS: What do they make?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: That depends. Believe it or not, the guest workers make more than the undocumented people.

BILL MOYERS: Define the difference between a guest worker and an undocumented worker.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: The worker comes with a visa, an H-2A visa. And the Department of Labor requires those employers to pay prevailing wage. This year, it's $9.68 an hour for the--

BILL MOYERS: $9.68 an hour?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: In North Carolina.

BILL MOYERS: If you have the visa?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: If you have the visa.

BILL MOYERS: If you don't have the visa?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: If you don’t have the visa, who knows?

BILL MOYERS: You're undocumented.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: You're undocumented, you don't know. Particularly if you're working for a labor contractor. They're only obligated to pay, you know, the minimum wage, $7.25 an hour.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: We've seen cases where the farmer pays the crew leader $7.25 an hour for all the hours reported for his crew. And we've discovered that the crew leader takes a cut off of that. So they're really making under minimum wage and sometimes even less. We've had cases, which we tried to report to the Department of Labor and the local law enforcement agencies, workers held pretty much in captivity.

We found a crew of 50 workers living in three house trailers. Only one had a working stove. Two had only working toilets. And many of them were sleeping on the floors like sardines. And three of them escaped and came to us for help.

Workers are afraid to complain. They're afraid to come out and file a complaint because--

BILL MOYERS: Because?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: --of retaliation.

BILL MOYERS: They’ll be sent home? Or they’ll be punished in some other way?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Exactly. Or the crew leader knows where their families live in Mexico. They’re afraid for their families, not only here, but their afraid for their families in Mexico. And it's true the-- some of the H-2A workers, not in the people we--

BILL MOYERS: H-2A that's--

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: The guest workers from Mexico. We know of cases in other areas that-- with other labor contractors that recruit workers in Mexico that sure don't do things by the book.

BILL MOYERS: At one time, you were-- seeking what you call freedom visas, which simply granted workers the right to move across national borders the way corporations can, do. Are you still an advocate of the freedom visa?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, that was a response to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

BILL MOYERS: NAFTA, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Right. Yeah, see that devastated the Mexican countryside. Just in the commodity of corn. Which is a staple in Mexico. Everybody grows corn in Mexico. And they grow it for their local use, for themselves. And then the excess, they tried to sell it in the local market. So when NAFTA opened the borders to North American corn, those small corner farmers in Mexico couldn't help to compete with U.S. farmers. They're highly mechanized and highly subsidized.

We have the one of the largest farm aid programs in the world. So the Mexican farmers can't compete with subsidized US farmers. And they take over the corn market in Mexico driving these people off their land. The Carnegie Endowment issued a report on the commodity of corn. And now they're saying that it's displaced two million corn farmers in Mexico.

And we complain about these same guys coming over our border now. I say, "Well, if you want them to stop coming over, it'd be a good idea. But maybe we should stop displacing them, so they wouldn't have to come here in the first place." And so I think it's important that if we're going to be-- talk about free trade and free markets, which both Republicans and Democrats are big advocates of, then we should talk about the labor market as a market also.

And what drives markets? Law of supply and demand. So if you're going to allow the labor to be a free market, as well, you got to allow labor to flow freely, the way you do other commodities, under your philosophical thinking. And in order to do that, you got to have a visa so that these workers can travel freely within the countries that signed these agreements, that created this problem in the first place.

Isn't that a market? Isn't labor a market? And shouldn't it be treated as a free market? And if it would be allowed to flow freely like they want commodities to do, that'll do the same. And let the markets saturate themselves.

But the one caveat to that would be that it would-- the workers would be given their labor rights. They cannot restrict their labor rights. The freedom to be able to have association, to organize themselves, and that that be recognized. Because that is a very-- a fundamental American principle that we try to marginalize people by denying that right to a group of people.

BILL MOYERS: After your colleague-- I think he was the manager of your office in Monterrey was killed back in, what, 2007? I could tell from the speeches I saw you delivering then, particularly that one to the-- that I showed earlier, that you were really angry. You said, our organization is “a threat to the diabolic elixir of demagogues, oligarchies, unfair trade, and financial services industry."

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: I think that's the truth. And yes I'm angry. You know, but you have to be careful when you're angry. Scripture tells us that there is such a thing as righteous anger, but do not sin in your anger. To hold those people accountable for the decisions that make-- that have the effect like that on other people. And I'm afraid that this country needs a shaking up in that regard. We-- it's very difficult to see what's happening in our country today.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean what's happening?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, the marginalizing democracy. People that speak for themselves. I mean, isn't that why we fought the British crown, that we had a right to speak for ourselves and not have things imposed upon us without our representation? Isn't that why we fought a Civil Rights Movement, so that people could have a right to vote, to have to speak, to represent themselves?

And now they're cutting those things off.

BILL MOYERS: When you say that your adversary is a diabolical system-- oligarchy and money and all of that, you're fighting back. You're outnumbered.

But you keep fighting with a ragged army of marginal people?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, that's better than fighting with nothing. And Cesar Chavez described it best in the times I spent a lot of-- had a lot of discussion with Cesar. He says, well you know, the rich have a lot to oppose us. They got a lot of money. And farm work-- we farm workers, we don't have anything.

In the back of my mind, I'm thinking, well, anything becomes a powerful weapon. Because when you don't have anything, you don't have anything to lose. So what you're investing in the fight is nothing but time. And the opposition is investing money. And the way Cesar put it was, "There's a lot more time than there is money. And money's going to run out before time. So as long as we don't give up, something has got to happen."

So it doesn't take a whole lot to fight. You just got to be willing to do it. And the problem with a lot of people is they don't want to do it, because they think they're going to lose something. They got-- they think they got too much to lose. Well, in that regard, you already lost before you started.

BILL MOYERS: How long have you been doing this?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Since 1967. 45 years.

BILL MOYERS: Someone told me you don't even have a pension. That you don't have a retirement.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: No, I sure don't.

BILL MOYERS: How old are you now?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Sixty-six.

BILL MOYERS: And you're not showing any signs of slowing down or trying to figure out what you're going to do next?

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: I thought about that at one time. And a friend of mine recently passed away, an attorney friend who had good money, offered to fund a pension for me. I said, "Jack, I can't do that, because the farm workers don't have any. And if I got something and they didn't, they're going to say, 'Well, it's nice for you to go out and talk about fighting the big corporations when-- and you're all set in your life.’” So it doesn't make it much like you're sharing too much of the sacrifice of the people that are trying to organize.

But literally, what it comes down to-- again, that the spiritual foundation that I got from my mom. Matthew 6:26-- this is Jesus talking. He says, why do you worry about what you're going to eat tomorrow? And says, look at the birds of the air, they no sow nor reap, nor they store their grains in barn. Yet, my heavenly father feeds them. How much more am I going to care for you?

And look at the lilies of the field. If you're wondering about what you're going to wear tomorrow the lilies of the field, not even Solomon, in all its splendor is dressed as one of these. That you're going to be taken care of. And I-- that's my pension right there.

BILL MOYERS: Jesus also said, as you have quoted, "Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek." But he also throw the moneychangers out of the temple. So I think he probably embraced both philosophies.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Well, I remind people of that, as well. And that sometimes you got to speak to the injustice. It's the same thing as Jesus speaking to the storm and calming the waters. And everybody's afraid of the storm and the waters around them. But he told the disciples, you know, "Oh ye of little faith. You know, you speak to the mountain, it'll move."

And so I think this is what we're doing, Bill. We're speaking to those mountains. Those mountains of wealth and capital that needs to be humanized. For them to use that wealth and that capital for good things, for people, to develop our nation and make it strong. Because when you-- this whole immigration reform, when you have 11 million people without papers living in the shadows and you have exploited farm workers on the bottom, I think that makes our country weak.

How can we go around the world and saying that we're the bastions and the light of freedom throughout the world, when we marginalize people within our own country and our own society? And it says in scripture, "A house divided in itself cannot stand." And at some point, it'll come back to hound us.

BILL MOYERS: It seems to me you've not only listened to Jesus, you've also listened to Martin Luther King. You remember he said, "When you impede the rich man's ability to make money, anything is negotiable."

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: I think this has been one of the cornerstones of our thinking in every campaign we design. It's the only time I've ever was with Dr. King in that winter of '68, I believe. And I got an invitation to come to Atlanta and help plan the Poor People's Campaign. This was very early in my organizing career. And I went to Atlanta and got to meet some of the other Latino leaders and Indian leaders that he brought in for the planning.

And I, being innocent not knowing that history was before my very eyes-- so that afternoon, when I was there, it was like 3:30 in the afternoon. And Dr. King comes in with a column of ministers with Ralph Abernathy on one side and Andy Young on the other side and a young Jesse Jackson in tow. And he was deciding in this Poor People's Campaign that the question of inequity in America was not just Black-- that it was a class issue. It wasn't just a Black issue. To us, that was important. The discussion came to that question about how do we as poor people, we're talkin' about organizing a poor people's campaign to take on the powers in Washington, the monolithic economic institutions of our country to bring equity to the poor people in this country. That how do we as poor people who have nothing-- who don't have the money and the power and the politicians in our hip pocket compel the world's largest, the richest people to sit down and talk to us? And that was the response. That I remember it was so burned into my brain that “When you impede the rich man’s ability to make money, anything is negotiable.” And we have followed that principle and all the campaigns we've designed. And we keep looking until we find it.

BILL MOYERS: Baldemar Velásquez, thank you very much for being with me and thank you for the work you do.

BALDEMAR VELÁSQUEZ: Thank you, Bill. It's been an honor being here.

BILL MOYERS: Baldemar Velásquez and R.J. Reynolds were to hold another negotiation this past week. It was postponed amidst rumors the company is lobbying the state’s right-wing dominated legislature for protection against the union.

Velasquez says FLOC will fight on – they’ve never lost yet.

Farm workers aren’t the only ones being exploited. Virtually every low wage earner in America is taking it in the neck.

Walmart -- with revenues last year of nearly $470 billion -- is threatening to abandon plans to build three giant stores in Washington, D.C., Why? Because the city council insists they pay a living wage of $12.50 an hour. Keep in mind that if adjusted for productivity, the federal minimum wage should be almost twice that amount. Walmart is in a tizzy over the Washington living wage demands, despite the heirs of founder Sam Walton already socking away almost $116 billion.

You have to ask, how much is enough when no matter what you have is never enough?

Which brings us to McDonald’s. The fast food giant’s new CEO Don Thompson was just awarded a pay package of nearly $14 million.

Perhaps that helps explain why McDonald’s has set up a website with visa to show its fulltime workers how to get by on the minimum wage it pays, which turns out to be a little over $1100 a month.

All you have to do, they say, is get a second job, and not spend any money on food because presumably you can live on the crumbs from Don Thompson’s table.

That’s a lot of leftover Chicken McNuggets.

Clearly, the owners of capital are determined to wring even greater wealth from the sweat and sacrifice of workers, deepening our spin into economic inequality -- until, and unless, in solidarity, those workers stand up like Baldemar Velásquez and demand a fair wage for a hard day’s work.

BILL MOYERS: As the world knows, Trayvon Martin was stalked and shot to death by an armed vigilante. The police report that night called it an unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.

We will never know the full story because the victim has been forever silenced. That's the thing about guns, they have the last word.

Martin's killer George Zimmerman pleaded self-defense and was acquitted thanks, in part, to Florida's Stand Your Ground law. That law was the handiwork of the national rifle association, whose lobbyist, Marion Hammer, is seen standing there beside Governor Jeb Bush when he signed it In 2005.

Ever since, members of the right-wing organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC, have been pushing versions of bills like it in state capitols across the country. Twenty-one states have followed suit.

To understand what's happening, read this important new book, The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry Are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It.

The author is Tom Diaz. He’s a veteran, former N.R.A member, and worked as an assistant managing editor at the conservative Washington Times. Trained as a lawyer he served as a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center before turning to full-time writing and speaking on guns and their impact on America.

Tom Diaz, welcome.

TOM DIAZ: Thank you so much.

BILL MOYERS: I heard you say earlier that the real winners in the Florida tragedy are the NRA and the gun industry. How so?

TOM DIAZ: Well, for two reasons, I think. One, it, in their eyes validates the whole concept of this, what they call Stand Your Ground law. Look, Zimmerman stood his ground and nothing bad happened to him, so that validates the idea that you're going to need these things to protect yourself. Secondly, it increases the market which is what ultimately this is all about. Now they have a case to say, don't you wish you had one of these things in your pocket if some guy was beating your head in the sidewalk? So, one hand reinforces the other.

BILL MOYERS: The conservatives are claiming that Stand Your Ground was not a factor in this case. The "National Review Online” says the media is quote, "inventing reasons to blame the verdict on Florida's gun laws,” when in fact the Stand Your Ground law wasn't even used in Zimmerman's defense.

TOM DIAZ: It wasn't used technically, that I would agree with. But the Stand Your Ground law changed the circumstances in Florida, under which a person might go about armed as did Zimmerman. And so that even if the lawyers, I think quite wisely the defense lawyers, chose not to make this an issue, it encouraged the kind of carrying of weapons and the thought that, well, I can use this. The law of self-defense which goes back to ancient times to the Talmud, it's absolutely clear that a person who's being threatened, whose own life is being threatened as the right, the moral, ethical, legal right to if necessary kill a person trying to kill them, that's not a question.

What we did develop though in our common law were restraints about when you might use that. One had a duty to retreat generally, avoid violence if you can. Why take another human life if there's a way out of the conflict? There was an exception to that, and that was in one's own home. This is the so-called Castle doctrine. That's where the word, the phrase, stand your ground, came into legal significance.

If you're in your own home and I come in and clearly are going to do you harm, you have no duty to retreat. If necessary you can take my life. What's happened here is that the NRA, Marion Hammer, and the people in Florida and gun advocates generally have twisted this language so that now they've taken this concept of stand your ground into the public space. And they've tried to say, well, the law hasn't changed. In fact the law has changed. It was very carefully crafted to reduce mayhem, to reduce the chance that somebody's going to be killed and now turned into a situation that practically begs for someone to be killed if I feel threatened.

BILL MOYERS: Do you think this is what happened to George Zimmerman?

TOM DIAZ: Yes, I have to say I don't think George Zimmerman is a victim, I think he was a tool.

BILL MOYERS: A tool?

TOM DIAZ: He was the perfect marketing target of the gun industry, small handgun carried around, if you're going to buy, no pun intended, at Target, which was apparently his destination, don't you need your gun to protect yourself? This is exactly what the NRA and the gun industry want to do because it increases sales. And there's a whole, within the industry themselves they talk about how wonderful this concealed carry, Stand Your Ground laws are for selling small handguns exactly like Zimmerman had.

BILL MOYERS: But there are dangerous people out there, they will tell you that.

TOM DIAZ: We have known there are dangerous people since medieval times. And we've understood there's a problem. And we've said you can defend yourself when necessary. That hasn't changed one bit. What has changed is the mix so that we now have people going around with more deadly weapons.

It's something that I think that most average Americans simply have no understanding of the mindset of the diminishing number of people who own firearms and who own them specifically to carry out on the street, nevertheless they have a mindset. And that mindset is danger lurks everywhere and you better have your gun to protect yourself.

Goes to the extreme of having, you need a gun in your bathroom because what if you're going to the bathroom and your gun is in the living room. You need a gun in your ankle because suppose your drop your gun that you carry in your waist. This is not an exaggeration. I read regularly the fan magazines of the gun business. And it's, I say it's like reading these bodice-ripper romance novels without any good parts.

The two things they talk about more than anything else are military style assault rifles and handguns for self-defense. Almost every issue of every magazine fuels this feeling that you better have a gun, and hey, here's the greatest new gun in the industry.

BILL MOYERS: You're saying this is a business strategy?

TOM DIAZ: Oh yeah, the gun industry admits it. One of the prolific writers in the industry magazine, this is not fan magazines now. This is a magazine where the industry talks to itself, called it cashing in. Basically, I'm paraphrasing here, but, the exact phrase, but he said if you're not cashing in on concealed carry laws, you're not going to make money.

Article after article in the industry publication says these laws are going to boost your sales of handguns and specific kinds of handguns that are going to bring you out of the slump. And not only that, both in the case of assault rifles and handguns one writer described the customer as a walking cluster, a walking cluster of after-market sales.

You're going to need special holsters. Now they're even saying you're going to need a special coat for the winter or the summer to conceal your gun. So the after-market and accessories are where, and as a matter of fact, it's where, as in a lot of consumer products, it's where the big profits are.

And what it appears to be is that it's not so many new buyers as it is old buyers buying more and more guns. The average number of guns owned by gun owners has gone up and up and up. The average number of households and individuals who say they own guns has been going down. So what we have is fewer and fewer people buying more and more guns.

BILL MOYERS: How do you reconcile what you've just said about fewer and fewer people actually owning guns with the increasing power of the National Rifle Association? You write in your book that the NRA has gone to extreme lengths to draw a veil of secrecy over the facts, the facts surrounding its impact, on our lives.

TOM DIAZ: Well, the gun industry learned a lot from the cigarette industry. When the cigarette industry was sued one of the things, probably the most important thing that people who litigated against the cigarette industry, was the internal papers of the cigarette industry where we found out these guys not only knew they were killing people, they went to lengths to cover up the fact the they were killing people.

The gun industry was terrified when some litigators said, hey, why don't we do to the gun industry what we did to the cigarette industry and other evil industries? So they got Congress to pass a law do away with lawsuits again, it's very hard to sue the gun industry. But there were two other corollaries that led up to that.

One was preventing the Centers for Disease Control which is our public health research arm, the source of almost all of our data about everything from measles to firearms death, they decided, a congressman by the name of Jay Dickey said, hey, we don't want them doing this research on guns. He originally wanted to shut down the whole unit that does all research. And finally they compromised and said, okay, you just can't spend any money on guns.

So we have told the only national public health research agency, you can look at anything else. You can look at measles, you can look at workplace accidents, but don't look at guns. So that's one. Number two, there's an agency a law enforcement agency, a federal law enforcement agency called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I'll call it ATF. ATF does something, it’s called tracing crime guns, which means if a gun is used in a crime or is found at a crime scene or illegally possessed, they trace that gun from its manufacturer, because Federal records are, the manufacturers are required to keep records, to the fist point of its public sale.

And then if they can they follow it to the point which it was either found or used in a crime. The value of that in terms of law enforcement is law enforcement investigators can tell was this gun used in another crime or crimes, how did this person get the gun, was it possibly sold by gun traffickers?

From a public health point of view the value of this data, and we're talking about millions upon millions of cases investigated, that is, traced, by ATF, is that we can answer some of the questions that now are just veiled. For example, when I worked in this field people would call me and say, well, how many Glock pistols were used in shootings in the last ten years? And I would say, nobody knows. And we don't know.

We could know if we could access the ATF database. The same thing when the horrible shooting in Newtown, people would say, well, how many of these Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifles have been used in shootings or crimes? We only know anecdotally. But if we could get that ATF data we would know precisely. So it would answer questions about do these designs make a difference? Are specific kinds of guns implicated in crime?

So that's the ATF contribution. If you take those two together, public health, law enforcement, you have a very good picture of what is the impact not only of guns generally in the United States, but of specific types, calibers, manufacturers. The industry is terrified of this.

BILL MOYERS: How is it they've kept Congress from giving us that basic information? How do you explain the power of the industry over our political process? They own our political process now.

TOM DIAZ: Well, I think there are two answers to that. And it doesn't give me any joy to say it. One, the, one of the things the NRA has a program called Refuse To Be A Victim. The American, certainly the American national, and I'll say liberal, progressive, whatever you want to say, political establishment has chosen to be a victim.

They have given up on guns. They've bought into a thing called the third way which is somehow there's this mythical common ground we can reach with the NRA or the gun industry, and let's not talk about gun control. They call it the third rail of politics, so you have a victim here. On the other hand it must be said that the National Rifle Association has what every politician wishes they had, that is they have somebody in every congressional district.

Even if it's only one or two people they have somebody. When Wayne LaPierre in his palatial headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia pushes the button, the talking points go out, the phones or the emails arrive in Congress. The other side is not that organized. People who are gun control advocates have typically been small groups in Los Angeles, Washington, New York. They can't respond to that. That I hope, I think is changing.

BILL MOYERS: Tom, we're out of time right now, but let's continue this discussion online.

TOM DIAZ: Great, thank you.

BILL MOYERS: The book is The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It. Tom Diaz, thanks for joining me.

TOM DIAZ: My pleasure, thank you.

BILL MOYERS: Coming up on Moyers & Company, fifty years after the historic march on Washington, we go back to the scene with civil rights hero John Lewis, the youngest man to speak on that historic August day and the last of the speakers still living…

That’s next week on Moyers & Company.

I’ll see you then.

M&C | Full Show: Fighting for Farmworkers | Jul 19, 2013 | vm | 网页