by Louis Adamic, October 1930, American Mercury

I.  In the Spring of 1923, working on the docks at San Pedro, in California, I knew a good many IWW’s.  The movement was then at its height on the Coast, and they were just starting a new longshoremen’s union in the harbor.  Most of the leaders and organizers with whom I came in contact seemed to me to be more or less lopsided fanatics, given to over-dramatizing themselves and their caus.

Perhaps the most level-headed and philosophical of the lot was a tall, gangling fellow, forty-five or so, sharp-featured, with deep-sunken brown eyes and bushy eyebrows, and his left leg stiff in the knee, which in walking made him swing it out sideways in a semi-circle.  He was obviously unwell, but still energetic; always coughing slightly, clearing his throat.  He had a suggestion of the Indian in his leathery, long face and dark straight hair, which was beginning to gray over the ears; later, when we got acquainted, he told me his was quarter Indian, and a native of Colorado.

One day someone pointed to him in an IWW hangout:  “That’s Jack Kipps, the guy who assassinated Woodrow Wilson.”

I took this as some sort of wobby joke and thought little of it at the time.  The wobblies were full of wild stories.  Wilson, in fact, then was still living.

Later I met Kipps, off and on, in the room of a mutual friend, and in the course of a few months he told me, in snatches, probably all there was to know about him.

As a very young man he had been a miner in Colorado.  Early in the 1900’s he became a Socialist and developed into an agitator for the radical Western Federation of Miners.  He had known Bill Haywood and liked to talk of him.  He had had but a few years’ schooling; was self-educated and read, unlike most wobblies, not only radical literature, but everything else that he thought worthwhile and could lay his hands on.

In the so-called Ludlow Massacre in 1913, in which thirty or more working people were killed by employers’ gunmen in a labor dispute, Kipps was shot in his left knee; hence his stiff leg.

During the war he laid low.  Having trouble with his chest, he went to the Mojave Desert in Calironia and read Plutarch’s Lives and re-read Dickens and Fielding’s “Tom Jones.”

His health strengthened after the Armistice and he drifted to Seattle, where, in the Spring of 1919, a powerful IWW movement sprang up almost overnight.  Ole Hanson was mayor of the city and immediately gained national prominence as a 105% American by his efforts to suppress the wobblies.  The country was being swept by the first wave of anti-Red hysteria.  There were great strikes along Pugent Sound.  The wobblies tied up the port of Seattle, and gangs of American Legion heroes warred upon them.

Kipps soon attained to a sort of leadership among the Seattle IWW’s.  He wrote pieces for Solidarity and other wobbly sheets, which often printed his portrait, playing up his part-Indian ancestry to offset the patriots’ charge that the movement was un-American and appealed only to “foreign scum.”  He was a leader of the faction that opposed dynamite, arson, gunfire and slugging; he advocated, instead, what he called “non-violent violence” or “the force of numbers.”  He published a pamphlet on the subject.

II.  One evening, in San Pedro, I remarked to him that I had heard wobblies refer to him as the man who had assassinated Woodrow Wilson; what did they mean by that?  I expected him to laugh at my question, but he didn’t, though I knew him to have an active sense of humor.  He just sat silent, evidently reluctant to talk about it.

Curious, I urged him to explain to me what the IWW understood by “the assassination of Woodrow Wilson.”

Then he began:

“It happened in Seattle in 1919.  As you know, in August of that year, Wilson went on his swing around the country, to appeal to the people for his League of Nations, which the ‘pigmy minds’ in the Senate were determined to kill.  He spoke in all the bigger cities and wherever he came the mob cheered him — not quite as wildly as he had been cheered in Europe a few months before, but still.

“According to his schedule, he was due in Seattle on September 13.  As you know, the IWW’s were then definitely on the up and up in Seattle, and so about the first of the month we accounced that when Wilson came a delegation of wobblies would call on him and present to him a petition for the release of the political prisoners in the Federal penitentiaries.  Of course we didn’t expect him to act on our request, but we figured that presenting the petition would be good propaganda.

“But we no sooner gave out our announcement than the politicians in charge of the preparations let it be known the effective steps would be taken to prevent the wobblies from ‘annoying’ the President.  That was the word they used — annoying him.  It appeared that we were unworthy of consideration from anybody in authority.  We were an ‘outlaw organization’ made up of un-American, low-down foreign scum — an ulcer on the fair and otherwise immaculate body of the Republic.

“Naturally, although scum, we didn’t like this sort of treatment, but we knew that if they wanted to, they could keep our delegation from coming near Wilson.  They had their cops and soldiers.

“For two or three days we didn’t know what to do about it.  But we couldn’t let Ole Hanson and his gang of petty politicians, and the American Legion, lick us.

“Just then, we were talking a good deal among ourselves about non-violent violence and the force of mere numbers.  I was hot for that idea, and still am.  So I began to figure how we could get the best of Ole.  I hated the little squarehead — not because he was against us, but because he was such a small-time opportunist.  I had nothing much against Wilson, and that was true of most wobblies.

“We had numbers.  Some of the biggest unions in Seattle were IWW organizations.

“Then I got an idea — an inspiration.

“The idea seemed wonderful to me, and so I got together about a dozen wobs who were sort of active on the agitation end of the movement, and I said to them: ‘When Wilson is driven through the streets in a machine so that the mob can see him and cheer him, why don’t we — thousands of us — line up along certain blocks along the route, all of us dressed in our working clothes, sleeves rolled up, arms folded on our chests?  It’ll be Saturday afternoon and all the work will be suspended for the occasion, and some of us aren’t working anyhow.  We can get thousands of workers and mass them altogether, occupying, say, five or six blocks.  We can get out early so that hoi polloi can’t get those blocks.  And when Wilson comes by, we don’t give him a tumble; nobody lets out a sound of cheer and nobody claps his hands.  We just stand still, all of us, thousands of us.  Just stand still like this, our arms folded — nobody moves and everybody looks straight ahead, not at him, but at nothing at all — just stares past him — everybody still and silent.’

From a marijuana enthusiast advocating a boycott of Kellogg’s for not renewing Michael Phelps’s Endorsement deal, words found their way here:
 a quick Wikipedia search shows the founder of Kellogg’s – John Harvey Kellogg – was a total frickin’ weirdo who believe in putting children’s genitals in a cage to keep them from playing with themselves and also believed in yogurt enemas.

Might have mixed up the two Kelloggs, but their brothers — one invented Corn Flakes, the other founded the company that has/had its central product Corn Flakes.  The thing, though, is — I don’t know about the Yogurt Enema — I guess that’s best classified as a scientific experiment that reached a dead end, but I do believe that the antimasturbatory efforts wouldn’t make him a “weirdo”, but put him right in the center of the attempts to keep the nation Morally Clean.  The Weirdo would have been the man who did nothing to stop the child’s vice, or:

In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.

… Necessary means to stop any sense of pleasure.

The history of Kelloggs with regard to a form of Health-Concious Prohibitionism gets a bit off track, as when we enter the twentieth century, Kelloggs would start pumping to the youth of America cereals such as Sugar Flakes, Sugar Pops, Sugar Sugar, and from there.

The Kelloggs fit in the historical tradition carried out today by:

this a 2004 Campaign/Lecture flier from Prohibition Party candidate Gene Ambondson.  Unless you agree with the other side of the splinter dispute.  I don’t know… read the wikipedia focus, go to the discussion to see cries that this is “slander”, and decide for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_Party#Secession_of_2003

I was somewhat startled to see that Mr. Adams had gone into the “belly of the beast” by granting an interview with Just Out.  Then I re-read and saw I had read wrongly — Just Out.  Not The local gay press rag which called on his resignation, the national gay magazine.  It figures.

I guess the biggest whimper out of the story this week came in the form of KGW’s Exclusive Interview with Mr. Breedlove, the latest example in the shoddened word usage for “exclusive” — it was exclusive except for the other two interviews.  I’m sure it was a ratings sensation for KGW and this February Sweeps’ — so sweeping that it had to be cut off into some installments and stretched out over a week.  This exclusive, in combination with the exclsuive KOIN (local cbs affiliate) / Logo (“MTV Gay”, look high up on your premium cable service), offered nothing not already unveiled in the exclusive Oregonian interview from a week or so ago, except it would appear: HE’S WILLING TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST!  Regarding his assertion that he did not have sex with Mr. Adams until after he was 18.

To which I can only ask, “To what end?”  Why does it matter?  The criminal code is pretty firm that that pro-longed intimate toilet stall kiss figures as sexual conduct, at this point I’d just as soon punt Mr. Breedlove out of mind and punt away — he I have no particular interest in, whereas Mr. Adams I do.

Media item the next for L’Affaire Adams, Lars Larson made an appearance at city council to confront Mayor Adams.  I won’t be too impressed unless he continues this on at least a weekly basis for a prolonged period of time, say three months.

1.  Barack Obama, Democratic  – – – – – – – 69,456,897
2.  John McCain, Republican  – – – – – – – – 59,934,814
3.  Ralph Nader – – – – – – – – – – - – – – – – – 734,804
4.  Bob Barr, Libertarian  – – – – – – – – – – 524,524
5.  Chuck Baldwin, Constitution – – – – – – 196,461
6.  Cynthia McKinney, Green  – – – – – – – 161,195
7.  Alan Keyes, American Independence – 47,768
8.  Ron Paul – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -41,905
9. Roger Calero, Socialist Workers – – – – – 7,561
10. Brian Moore, Socialist – – – – – – – – – -  7,315
11.  Gloria La Riva, Party for Socialism / Liberation – 6,808
12.  Richard Duncan – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 3,902
13.  Charles Jay, Boston Tea Party – – – - – 2,420
14.  John Joseph Polachek, New Party – – – 1,149
15.  Frank McEnulty, NewAmericanIndepedent 828
16. Jeffrey Wamboldt, We The People – – -  764
17. Tom Stevens, Objectivist - – – – – – – – – 755
18. Gene Amondson, Prohbition – – – – – – – 653
19.  George Phillies -  — – – – – – – – – – – – – 522

Interesting observation in the margins at “Conservapedia”, the website devoted to clearing up wikipedia’s Liberal bias, the commentary provided for “In the News”:

An overweight and over-the-hill Bruce Springsteen is performing songs from the 1980s at the Super Bowl halftime. Wonder why? He supports the liberal agenda hook, line and sinker. But he hasn’t yet performed his “Born in the U.S.A.” … perhaps Obama types wouldn’t like that one???

He flubbed the hook, line, and sinker of the liberal agenda regarding Wal-Mart.  But I impressed of a possible double standard being sunk in comparison with the recent flub over Jessica Simpson.  Born in the USA’s lyrics are found here, by the way — Springsteen didn’t play it — he turned it into a down-tempo song years ago, and one would think that would be a downer in a Superbowl concert.

The set was disappointing.  I was hoping Springsteen would play homage to prvious Superbowl Half-time shows.  Alas, Springsteen did not expose his nipple.

I guess it’s a rule.  No sooner does a Democrat start a new administration than Rush Limbaugh stakes out a claim of renewed relevance.  Limbaugh ascended to a pumped up role in that “Loyal Opposition” at the start of the Clinton Administration in 1993, and history repeats.

Or maybe I’m not giving Rush Limbaugh enough credit for what he did during the Bush Administration, enlightening us all on race relations by opining that one of the better quarterbacks in the NFL is over-rated and is over-rated because he is black and we’re all desperate to see a black quarterback succeed in the NFL, and providing the margin of victory for the election of a Democratic Senator in Missouri by suggesting that Michael J Fox was hamming up his Parkison’s Disease.

Sometime after the 2004 Election — I think deep into 2005, Harry Reid was interviewed with that type of “five quick questions” survey, where he was asked to “name the most powerful Democrats.”  This was something like the task of naming, say, the “Tallest Midgets”, and maybe if we go ahead and suggest this as specifically organizationally for “most powerful within the Democratic Party” — Reid answered with himself, Nancy Pelosi, I think he could add DNC Head Howard Dean, and still the Clintons — the Clintons having become a singular entity.  I think he also tossed in the head of the Governor’s Association, the minority party always wanting to specify the dynamism of their state actors as a means to relevance.  That’s a fair enough assessment, indeed, the reason no party ever falls down to the level that the parties might fall in, say, Great Britain (Labor in the age of Thatcher or the Conservatives in the age of Blair.)  Reid’s suggestions probably erred in some respects, but the role of your Chuck Schumer in king-making for Democratic Senate candidates wasn’t yet there.

It is difficult for me to see what the Republican road back to victory is right now.  I know that that’s going to happen eventually, but staring at the forest ahead, I’m guessing 2014.  Perhaps I should explain my reasoning here, and the disclaimer is that all things are in flux; I could be wrong — so might everybody.  The presumption of 2014 comes from the current parallelling of The Great Depression and Roosevelt’s tenure with our current “The Greatest Financial Crisis Since The Great Depression, though not nearly as Serious”:  The Republican Party was irrelevant from 1932 to 1938 (at which time they managed a miniscule but significant comeback).  The significance in this is the Economy still was bad in 1934 and 1936, but Americans had internalized it and taken measure of any economic improvement.  If the Republicans aren’t in as dire straits it’s because our financial troubles aren’t in the same dire straits.

So, who are the most powerful Republcans at this moment?  If you go by the logic of where the Democrats were when they were down just a few years ago and simply transpose the position, it should be Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michael Steele, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, and… I don’t kow… George W Bush?  But somehow that list doesn’t strike quite right.

So it’s Rush Limbaugh, fools.   Well, it worked out okay for them in 1993, so maybe a re-tread will bring the “Republican Rump Team” back into control.  I would suggest that Grover Norquist probably qualifies for a list of “Most Powerful figures in the Republican Party”, and it’s difficult for me to come up with the Democratic equivalent for their most recent down-time — which might suggest something about the difference in the two parties.

Channing Frye — Thinks Sam Adams should go.

Greg Oden — Thinks Sam Adams should stay.

The others — either plead ignorance on what a “Sam Adams” is, or runs the non-comittal apolitical Michael Jordan / Lebron James / Tiger Woods route.

Good to know.  Adjust your rooting of Channing Frye (can you root for a bench-warmer?) and Greg Oden accordingly.

I’ve posted enough times (three, as the case may be) to suggest a simple bit of friction in my mind regarding Sam Adams.  I don’t much like Mr. Adams, but my sense of outrage starts way too late in the proceedings to much care for your — what is it?, www.samadamspleasegooffyourself.com and www.predatorareyousam.com ?

There’s this thing where I don’t quite understand Randy Leonard.  Sam Adams met with him privately, Leonard asked him if anything more was going to come out, Adams said “no”, the Oregonian published the interview with Beau Breedlove, Leonard muttered on the lie from Adams has new damaging information had come out.  It may be that I’m too far out of the orbit and Leonard is too close to Adams and works with him every day, but I didn’t see too much new information in that interview that significantly altered my view:  I had pretty well inferred sexual advances at the age of 17; it seems implausible to imagine just out of the blue two weeks after the 18th birthday — Sex, with nothing unsordid before then.  Mind you, Mr. Breedlove denies actual sex, but acknowledges prolonged kissing in a public restroom (the detail of setting I wave away as neither here nor there).  But, mind you, I cannot accept even here the cries out of a pedophile (or, rather whatever the term is to “phile” for pubescent teenagers) “grooming” for, like three weeks.

Dissecting some issues of concern, coming to conclusions based in the minituae of details further than some would come to conclusions, and just what damaging details Breedlove revealed, Adams comes off badly for two reasons:  #1:  He initiated it.  Ergo:  Predator, such as it is.  As a means of comparison, the 22 year old Monica Lewinsky that the 17 going on 18 yeard olf Breedlove is being compared to was the one who flashed her thong at President Clinton.  #2:  Another difference between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clinton in their Major Age Gulf Affair, a dent in Dan Savage’s g-danged “Rules of the Game”.  Clinton, in his recollections, in his wary “I just screwed up” reflection, collected the thoughts that Lewinsky is a smart good young woman — worthy of giving a collection of Walt Whitman to, it would appear.  Mr. Adams to Breedlove after this ill-advised fling:  see panel two in this cartoon:  “I didn’t find it compelling.”  Logical enough – Adams is in his 40s, and Beau is bouncing from the age of minority to the age of majority — not much in common there except an active Libido.  But Beau named his dog “Lolita”, couldn’t Adams at least give him a Nabokov book and put in a good word for him?  (The latter one just suggests a matter of sleaziness, the former one suggests a matter of criminality.)

Back to Randy Leonard and the sense of not having “anything new come out”.  I sort of feel the same way with the Willamette Week.  Mark Zusman came on KPOJ the day of Obama’s Inauguration and relayed the story.  And relayed the story of confronting Sam Adams with the story, and Adams’s reaction — shaken to the core, denial, fidgeting nervously — then having to accept its reality.  At any rate, an understandable reaction.  Zusman left out an important detail which I wished I knew — its omission allowed me to at least take the Adams result as “understandable reaction”.  I understand why this had to be omitted with journalistic practices of sourcing, but its omission throws a chink in the story of Adams’s reaction and my ability to at least understand Adams.  Here:

During the Jan. 15 interview, WW asked Adams why Vezina would say something that Adams—at the time—was contending was a lie. Adams suggested it was because Vezina had an ulterior motive. Adams said it was because “I accused him of trying to rape Beau.”

Wait.  What?  Adams accused his accuser of rape? 

Seriously, everything — including the character assassination of Mr. Ball, makes some type of semi-respectible sense.  But — um — you don’t falsely accuse people of committing rape.  That’s a… no-no…. significantly shifting my impression of Mr. Adams.

And its omission contradicts the impression left by Zusman when first hearing the story.  I suppose a dripping of information allows the Willamette Week to prolong its import on the story, a by-product of the more assured import in having to handle your sources, and there was probably no way for Mr. Zusman to relay this withoug biting his tongue.  But, beyond that, I do have a bit of a problem with this:

There is no evidence that Adams’ claim has any factual basis. WW waited to publish this story until it could get responses from Vezina and Breedlove. But Breedlove did not return more than 15 messages asking about the alleged rape attempt.

“More than 15 messages”?  Couldn’t it have stopped at, like, reach attempt number 10?

As for Adams, Bang #2 here comes with:

Contacted on Friday, Jan. 23, Adams backed away from his earlier explanation of Vezina’s actions and offered a new one. He acknowledged that Vezina was telling the truth about Adams’ having had sex with Breedlove. But the mayor still insisted that Vezina’s motives weren’t pure.

Okay.  The “Rape” allegation wasn’t floating here — is there another equally contemptible thing Adams could float?  He’ll have to sit on that one, until he comes up with something to fill in the vague “motives weren’t pure”.

Instead, he said Vezina was angry because he learned that Adams lied to him about his whereabouts on July 9, 2005.

Hm.  A bit of defense comes in the comments section, which I don’t quite buy because at this point Mr. Adams should know he’s speaking to a broader crowd:

Boy24  writes on Jan 28th, 2009 1:28pm Comment 33 | Respond

I have read this again. The obviously distraught mayor states on January 15 that at some point four years earlier he accused a person he was then dating of trying “to rape” a mutual 18yo friend. Then he says that he does not really know what happened between the two men but the young man was very upset. In the context of the conversation between two middle-aged gay men, “rape” can only mean unwanted sexual attention. It is an unfortunate wording, because some people can think that an actual sexual assault was discussed. Which is an absolute impossibility, given the young man’s physique and other factors.

This report will certainly leave readers feeling dirty, both because of the tactic developed by this tabloid in attacking the mayor and actual content of the conversation. I do, however, strongly object to framing this story as a new development (Mayor Goes On Attack) when it is just another droplet of the interview conducted on January 15 and and reported a week ago. WWeek is serializing the bit of compromising information about the mayor they have, in order to boost readership while disregarding completely the negative impact this reporting has on people (other than Sam) and the city. It also sounds like the reporter really took advantage of the mayor’s distraught state during this interview.

annie  writes on Jan 28th, 2009 1:48pm Comment 36

Mr. Boy24, “Rape” is not a word to just be bandied about. It has a serious and real connotations associated with it. Your mayor appears to have a problem with using powerful words that could get him in a whole lot of trouble, should the person he’s labeling a “Rapist” decide to fight back. Yep, it appears Sam’s level of being distraught has amped a couple of notches… […]

I see the activists of that sort (the sort that placed an angry note at an emptied Willamette Week box) have an empty “Just Out” bin downtown with a paper plastered saying “Worried About Perceptions?  In 2009?  Imagine ‘Just Out’ Covering Stonewall”.   Whatever.  We’re a few paces too far for that to qualify.

A survey conducted by the USA Today, the phrasing be-fuddles me:  Do the 9-7 Cardinals NOT BELONG in the Superbowl?  Good thing the responses given clarify the positions instead of offering up a “Yes” and “No” to the negative-loaded question (“Belong” and “Don’t Belong”), because otherwise it’s a confusing and badly phrased question.

This writer believes that the Cardinals don’t belong.  And he spins the Cardinals appearance in the Superbowl, gilded with two home playoff games against teams with better records, to the NFL’s expansion to 32 teams and sub-letting into divisions of four teams.  And to a degree, I agree and thought at the time that this would lead to this sort of inevitible situation where an 8-8 team was going to get in in the form of the San Diego Chargers versus an 11-5 New England Patriots team sitting out.

But going down this list presented of anomolous results, I can come up with a perfectly good reason for the results.

The 2005 Steelers were the first No. 6 seed to win a Super Bowl and the first team to win the Super Bowl without the benefit of a home playoff game. The 2005 Steelers, in other words, were an anomaly by historic standards.
The 2005 Steelers would have been a #1, or perhaps #2 seed — similar to the season before when they finished 15-1, if not for Ben Rothenberger mid-season injury.  The team sucked for a few weeks.  They then got their quarterback back, and were good again.

The 2006 Colts entered the playoffs with the worst run defense the NFL had seen since the expansion Vikings of 1961 (Indy surrendered an awful 5.33 YPA) and a unit that surrendered 360 points that year. It was the worst defense of any Super Bowl champion. The 2006 Colts, in other words, were an anomaly by historic standards.
This strikes me as an attempt to force an argument.  The Colts also finished with a 12-4 record.  Their defense proved their undoing the previous season, they managed go get past it this season.  If the Bears had won — the NFC Superbowl team and #1 seed– they would have been an anomolous team with a historically subpar offense and quarterback.

The 2007 Giants were a 10-6 team that outscored opponents by a mere 22 points. Yet like another No. 6 seed, the Steelers two years earlier, the Giants won three straight road games before winning the Super Bowl. Their +22 scoring differential is the lowest of any Super Bowl champion and only the 2006 Colts (360 points) gave up more points than the Giants (351). The 2007 Giants, in other words, were an anomaly by historic standards.
Whose fault is it that the Undefeated New England Patriots couldn’t defeat a team that, in a six team per conference playoff scheme, was legitimately  Team #6?  For what it’s worth, the supposed “Turning Point” for the team in becoming Championship Contenders was the final week of the season, when they went toe to toe with the Undefeated New England Patriots, thus shoring up the idea that they could battle anyone, a Moral Victory which tend to be lame except here it was surpassed by an Actual Victory.  At any rate, The Giants’s Legitimacy as Team #6 out of 6 stands in opposition to:

The 2008 Cardinals are the latest Team Nobody Saw Coming – the anomalous Super Bowl contender that not only lost seven games this year, but lost many of them badly. The Cardinals were blown out by 21 points or more four times this year. They scored just one more point than the surrendered (427 to 426) and if they do win Sunday – remember, they get to play at home – they’ll easily be the worst team and the worst defensive club that’s ever reached a Super Bowl. 

 Okay.  This is the first anomoly of Championship Contending that can be placed on these out-of-balance divisions.  The Cardinals turning point was said to be, again, their defeat against the New England Patriots, where they lost by 40 points, and where the Coaches decreed, as they were going to stumble into the playoffs even if they ended with a 7-9 record, that the team needed to get better.  Losses against New England appear to be what spurs teams into the Superbowl, apparently.  What can be said?  If this were a fair world, they wouldn’t have scratched at the playoffs.  Once there, they rallied around the idea that they were the Worst NFL Team Ever to make the Playoffs.  Maybe everyone just sucked this year?