Why the Internet’s future needs social justice movements

by the Internet Social Forum

1. Introduction

The Internet and the electronic networking revolution, like previous technological shifts, holds out the promise of a better and more equitable world for all. Yet it is increasingly evident that certain elites are capturing the benefits of these developments largely for themselves and consolidating their overall positions of control. Global corporations, often in partnership with governments, are framing and constructing this new society in their own interests, at the expense of what is required in the wider public interest.

Several core sectors in wealthy, developing, and less developed countries alike are already seeing major disruption and transformation: retail shopping by Amazon, media by Facebook, the hotel sector by AirBnB, taxis by Uber. And Google and Apple are well advanced in digitally valorizing and commodifying the minutest aspects of our personal and social lives. On the surface, many of the new services and delivery models seem benign, even positive, and indeed they do bring tangible benefits to some people and institutions, so much so that many are willing participants in relinquishing personal data and privacy.

However, deeper analysis reveals shifts below the radar, triggering more fundamental societal changes and generating new forms of inequality and a deepening of existing social divisions. Unchecked, these could be forerunners of digitally-enabled business models and institutional dynamics that seriously undermine rights hard-won by workers and citizens and that significantly erode welfare regimes and, ultimately, democratic institutions. Analytical rigor and engaged activism must be applied to critique these emerging social and business models and to develop appropriate alternatives that actively promote social justice.

This applies particularly to the internal transformation of sectors, enabled by micro data aggregation and analysis at a global level. “Big data” is thereby creating new paradigms across many areas — for instance the idea of “smart cities” is presented as the new model of data-based governance potentially supplanting political and democratic processes. Yet these changes — unlike those at the consumer level — are largely invisible. They are transforming the terms and conditions by which people are employed and work, the knowledge they have access to, basic economic power relations, and ultimately the rights to which people are entitled. The implementation of these paradigms can, and will, impact everyone as their influence spreads through social and economic sectors and enters the mainstream in all countries, and for all socio-economic classes.

Challenging these dynamics is vitally important, and urgent, in the fast moving formative period of a new social paradigm, where almost all industrial-era social institutions are being undermined by the transformative force of a networking and data revolution. It is now, at this ‘design phase,’ that the engagement of progressive social movements will be most fruitful.

Yet while the dominant actors are densely networked and well on their way to shaping the digital society in their interests, progressive forces are only at the early stages of defining the contours of the issues and identifying the problems, usually around one specific issue; very little progress has been made in networking, developing appropriate collaborations and alternatives, strategizing and moving into action at a broader level.

The Internet Social Forum (ISF), through its various events and actions, will offer a response to this based on the real struggles of those fighting for social justice. It will build a dynamic and productive space for dialogue and action across different social sectors and interest groups that can raise awareness, inform, educate, and mobilize global civil society to bring about political change. From this space we will actively seek out and implement concrete and coherent alternatives. These will guide and energize the emerging innovative social movements, and lead toward a more sustainable development path that reinforces human rights and social justice outcomes.

The idea of launching an ISF first took root as a legacy of civil society’s accomplishments during the two UN World Summits on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 and 2005. However, with hindsight, ISF collective members now perceive that the vision and scope emerging from these were focused too narrowly on concerns about the Internet and ICTs and not enough on how these could and now are transforming cultural, political, social and economic life. As a Thematic Forum of the World Social Forum, and in pursuit of its principles, the ISF takes inspiration from its maxim: “Another world is possible” in this domain too.

The ISF process is still in its early days, but the ideological machines advancing a new normal are already moving into high gear. Utopian futures are being sold to the public: a world of free services and growing convenience and leisure. Such futures must be radically critiqued and exposed for what they are — the latest wave of technology-enabled capital accumulation. This wave is particularly dangerous given the transformational potential of these technological changes and their timing during an era in which neo-liberalism — despite being debunked in theory and practice — still firmly drives the global agenda.

As the challenge to much wider societal issues grows, and the dangers of undermining hard-won gains in social justice across sectors (health, education, environment, gender equality, economic development, etc.) become very real, the ISF facilitating group calls upon social justice movements around the world, as well as other concerned individuals and organizations, to engage with the ISF process.

2. Disturbing global trends

Global society is now on the brink of a profound shift, driven by the rapidly emerging dominance of a new breed of transnational and neo-liberal corporate entity, equipped with a persuasive rationale for why private industry should not only play a part in but also lead in solving many of society’s most severe and urgent problems. Concerns over how the evolution of the Internet is impacting the social and economic environment, including the new areas of risk such as data mining and surveillance, pale into insignificance against the alarming possibilities that open up as this new big data driven paradigm enters the fabric and formative structuring of mainstream economy, society, and culture.

The first generation of transnational Internet and social media corporations stand accused, with some justification, of weakening collective identity, eroding any sense of privacy, and diminishing citizen or even consumer capacity for action. Other corporate players, from agro-chemicals to hospitality, many of them new, as they move to networking and data-centered business models, are poised to fully exploit this “new normal,” transforming one social and economic sector after another into machines for profit generation, very often at the expense of public services and spaces, and of rights and freedoms won over many generations.

Moreover, computer algorithms/artificial intelligence increasingly become a part, not only of surveillance, but also of policing, credit provision, education, employment, healthcare and many other areas, including in the public sector. There is a thus a growing risk of inheriting and entrenching the bias of data collected by institutions leading to a deepening of racist, sexist, ethnic, social class or age discrimination.

Social justice activists and movements everywhere must be concerned with these hugely significant issues and developments. Through concerted action, social justice activists are also essential to stemming the tide of these troubling trends and to developing alternative perspectives and options.

In the global context, current internet governance structures are largely under the control of corporations and their friends in major governments. Such strategic partnerships seek to remold global governance structures to align more with corporate interests and the interests of capital than with the broader public interest, even while appearing to include all ‘stakeholders’ as partners in decision making. Ultimately it is, at least in effect, part of a broader implicit agenda intent on replacing existing democratic global governance structures, however flawed, with even more opaque and ‘top-down’ governance by corporations. This would render national governments, even where they genuinely represent the public interest, and ‘bottom-up,’ participative, democratic processes, ever more redundant against corporate forces.

In essence, we are witnessing an assault, slowly but inexorably gaining momentum, on numerous fronts, but most importantly on the very idea of social justice. Its outcome, if successful, would be to dramatically reduce the significance of participatory democratic structures as core and legitimate goals for society.

To fully grasp the risks involved with these disturbing trends, to strategically build opposition to them, and to design and build effective alternatives, we need to initiate and sustain deep exploration of these dynamics coordinated around long-term engagement in actions focused on systemic change.

3. Building alternatives, together, through the ISF

Strategically interconnected neo-liberal interests across the globe are intent on capturing forever the power of these technologies to further their dominance. The alternative is not just to slow down, or even halt, this process, but to reclaim these technologies so that they promote and advance social justice.

Although the digital is connected to social justice through its impact in specific sectors — governance and democracy, education, health, labor rights, public services including welfare, gender equality, environment, and so on — it cannot be understood and addressed from within each sector in isolation. In addition to a sector-specific understanding and response, it is important to address the phenomenon as a meta-level or infrastructural element as it envelops new and emerging social structures and dynamics as a whole. Most sectoral response has focused on practical applications (or, at best, specific adverse impacts) of the digital phenomenon, and not its structural constructs and directions, which in any case are difficult to articulate and address from within any one sector. Yet in its very form and the nature of its impact, the digital revolution calls for a holistic, cross-sectoral response.

A space is needed that facilitates and nurtures social-justice oriented reflective learning and action on what all this means, and how best to address it. This is why the ISF seeks to engage with those already involved in social justice struggles across a whole range of issues and sectors.

Thorough analysis and critique as well as positive intervention experiences will reveal insights into how these same technologies can be turned towards social justice and democracy ends.

Among questions to be addressed are:

• What does social justice mean in the context of digitally induced transformations across issues and sectors (environment, public safety, education, transportation, public health, national security, immigration, etc.)?
• How are these digital trends already impacting social justice movements around the globe?
• How can the new business practices that dominate the digital age be effectively analyzed, critiqued, and influenced?
• What are the implications of these trends for global governance of the Internet, and for governance structures more broadly — as also for governance and democracy, generally?

The ISF collective would discover, document, and support promising alternatives such as the following, illustrative, list:

• Ways in which the world of Internet, “big data” and “artificial intelligence” can work for the social good, and the governance structures needed to achieve that.
• Civil society and social movement media that can be used to educate, inform, and engage local to global responses and activities.
• Community-owned technology systems that serve as alternatives to government or corporate controlled digital infrastructures.
• Commoning projects around the world (open source, open knowledge, etc.) and the solidarity economy movement.
• Internet tools to support social justice movements, and how to link with Internet activists to build these.
• Examples of effective stakeholder activism (for instance advances in Internet and privacy rights, movements that promote net neutrality or oppose zero-rating, social-justice oriented shareholder activism across industry sectors).
• Fighting surveillance by supporting security based on enhancing the fundamental rights of the end-user via strong encryption and privacy-enhancing technologies, rather than the cybersecurity discourse of corporations and governments.
• Examples of gender equity/women’s rights successes in ICT policymaking.
• Specific perspectives and approaches that young people can bring, growing up as ‘digital natives,’ as prime targets of digital corporate strategies, and as among the most articulate and creative builders of alternatives.

The Internet Social Forum collective encourages interested groups or persons to contact us by writing to: secretariat@internetsocialforum.net

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

Risk of a collision between Panama and the USA

by Marco A. Gandásegui, hijo

The interests of the North American financial center, whose seat is in Manhattan, with all of their global ramifications as well as Washington’s political interests, are not alien to that which is regularly published in The New York Times. Panama and the rest of the world’s countries are systematically caricaturized by an establishment that seeks to mystify and cover up their blacked out financial transactions that ever more serve to underdevelop people around the world.

A little while ago USAID (a US government agency) and others pointed out the papers of the law firm Mossack Fonseca, with its headquarters in Panama. Later the US Department of the Treasury put the spotlight on the Waked Group of companies, which was put on its “Clinton List.” More recently the Times washed all of the Panama Canal Authority’s dirty laundry with respect to the canal expansion (and in passing that of the country).

That last coverage was full of half-truths. It’s the same institution that published the Times reports attacking Noriega between 1987 and 1989, that opposed the Omar Torrijos foreign policy, that put its spin on the January 1964 student insurrection — and we can go back accumulating examples into the 19th century.

The reporting about the contradictions that characterized the canal modernization attempts to belittle the Panama Canal’s expansion and take advantage of the weaknesses that surrounded the megaproject. It started with the group that won the contract to build the new locks. It ended with the composition and dubious reputation of the ACP board of directors. On the way it visited the doubts about the new locks’ engineering. All of the rumors circulating among the workers gave the Times take a spicy flavor.

The Wall Street bankers, who still feel like they are the owners of the interoceanic waterway, face major competitors both on the global scale and on the isthmus. They are very weak here, almost out of the contest. In the first place, the international community wants to see a canal that’s capable of satisfying the trade demands of the countries on the shores of the world’s two biggest oceans. At the forefront of this sentiment is the waterway’s second largest user, the People’s Republic of China. One quarter of their exports — especially to the USA — depend on the Panama Canal.

Also out of it is the Panamanian government, absent and incapable of confronting any US intelligence and information offensive. Panama was militarily invaded in 1989 and since then has has no autonomy from Washington’s policies.

If the Panamanian elite don’t react intelligently to the American attacks in the short term, they will have to face a crisis similar to many others that are well known over the last 160 years of ur history. This crisis represents dangers, but also opportunies. But what are the opportunities of which Panama might take advantage?

There are several ways out of the trap that the United States has set for Panama’s dysfunctional oligarchy — and in passing, for all Panamanians. The first is that some sector can unite the different social sectors of the country around a clear and precise objective that identifies a national project. The elite seem to have that ability.

The second is to gather the countries of the region in a conference or alliance that undertakes a careful analysis of the relations between Panama and the United States. Something like the “Torrijista Way,” or the 1826 proposal of the Liberator Simón Bolívar, who convened the Anfictionic Congress in Panama City, with plenipotentiaries from all of the recently independent republics.

Third would be to take the problem (with all of the intelligence information about it) to the United Nations, where countries like China and others would have a voice that would allow Panama to face the United States with more opportunities than it presently has.

The Americans and their mouthpiece, The New York Times, know that the Panamanian oligarchy is divided and at this point are fighting among themselves over the lucrative business of the proposed port at Corozal on the canal’s southern entrance. Their myopia only lets them see the glitter of gold that the land along the canal represents.They do not realize that there is a whole country that’s eager to work and build a nation that will benefit its future generations. The oligarchy has to give up the helm before it’s too late.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

La salud no debe depender de rifas,
colectas, bingos o tamaladas

por la Comisión Médica Negociadora Nacional (COMENENAL)

COMENENAL informa a sus bases Médicos, Odontólogos, Veterinarios y a todo el país.

Hoy vemos en las noticias como sigue adelante la camita que recorre el país “Unidos de Corazón”.

1. Esta vez era para recolectar donaciones por más de 350,000 $ para poder mandar a operar a Colombia a 13 niños panameños que necesitan urgentemente cirugías cardíacas.

2. Vemos como la solidaridad impregna a la mayoría del país que dona, como en otras tantas ocasiones para salvar vidas de compatriotas.

3. Pero hoy la noticia es dolorosa. Uno de los niños ha muerto y su padre con lágrimas habla de que sigan adelante aunque su hijo ya no esté.

4. ¿A que punto hemos llegado? Que, como decía un colega nuestro “la salud de nuestro pueblo depende de rifas, colectas, bingos o tamaladas.”

5. La salud de nuestra gente no puede depender de rifas, colectas, bingos o tamaladas.

6. La salud según nuestra Constitución, es responsabilidad del Estado garantizarla.

7. Entonces, como es posible que hemos llegado al punto de tener que recurrir a colectar 350,000 para 13 niños, y uno ya no está; mientras las autoridades de Panamá permiten el despilfarro de los recursos de la CSS.

   1. Han permitido sobre costos en compras directas y no toman medidas radicales para solucionar el problema.

   2. Han permitido excesos de compras de cantidades de medicamentos e insumos que se pierden simplemente porque no habría forma humana de gastarlos antes de que se venzan.

   3. Siguen permitiendo el alquiler de ambulancias con sobrecostos.

   4. Siguen permitiendo Primas de productividad que agotan los escasos recursos y son solo un Show para decir que hacen algo, mientras que las moras de citas, cirugías y procedimientos siguen exactamente iguales.

   5. Permiten que liciten más obras de cemento que no podrán servir mientras no haya el personal de salud adecuado, como sucede en el “Chicho” Fábrega de Veraguas. ¿de qué sirve hace más construcciones?!!!! Solo lucrar.

   6. Permiten que quieran destruir hospitales que están en pie para favorecer a alguien con construir otro nuevo, mientras no contruyen el bendito puente para conectar los viejos hospitales con los nuevos.

   7. Permiten “errores de equipamiento de ascensores” para tener que hacer adendas para comprar más. ¿para qué? ¿Por qué no exigir a la empresa que corrija el supuesto “error”?

   8. Contratan suministros de compañías brujas que compran a maquilas de países asiáticos, donde sus insumos no tienen registro sanitarios siquiera para usarlos en los países de origen.

   9. Contratan compañías formadas espuriamente para una licitación de equipos e insumos que luego no tienen buen desempeño y dicha compañías desaparecen del mapa, incluso sus hojas y catálogos de internet.

   10. Permiten que se liciten cocinas supuestamente de línea fría, que no lo son, y con sobrecostos exorbitantes.

   11. Pretenden contratar para ello una compañía de ventas de “repuestos de autos y de insumos hospitalarios” ¡¡¡!!!!!!!.

   12. Primero fue cambiar el contrato de los pasajes de avión a COPA, con lo cual los pacientes llegan a Tocumen muy distante a los centros de destino: ION, Complejo Hospitalario, etc.

   13. Persisten en financiar las Hemodiálisis externalizadas (privatizadas) con lo cual se acaban los recursos.

   14. Persisten en financiar las OEs (organizaciones externalizadas) que atienden planes de salud de miseria en las comarcas. Y que luego de 20 años no han impactado en los resultados de salud de esas regiones. Al contrario ahora la mortalidad infantil y la materna son peores en esas áreas.

   15. Ahora quiere alquilar aviones (como alquilar ambulancias) para chárter para trasportar pacientes a la capital. Y SIGA SUMANDO GASTOS INNECESARIOS DE LA CSS. Y de seguro harán cálculos matemáticos y financieros que demostrarán que es ventajoso hacerlo. Al fin y al cabo son economistas.

   16. Y luego no saben de donde les cayó el espantoso desabastecimiento que aun persiste.

   17. PERO NO TENEMOS 350,000 PARA 13 NIÑOS (ANGELITOS) PANAMEÑOS. ¿??!!!!

   18. Solo los 2 primeros ítems representaron sobrecostos por casi 180 millones de $.

Si gastamos tanto en despilfarro, por ello luego no tenemos para nuestra gente lo que necesita. COMENENAL denuncia que esto es inmoral.

1. Inmoral de los regentes del país.

2. Inmoral de los regentes de la salud.

3. Inmoral de los diputados que recortan todos los años el presupuesto de la nación, sobre todo en salud. Y luego se dan golpes de pecho, pidiendo ¿porque no hay médicos en Cuidados Intensivos permanentemente?

4. Y es inmoral que haya que mandarlos a otro país, no creemos las condiciones aquí.

5. Esta cantidad tan irrisoria debió salir en última instancia de la partida discrecional de la Presidencia. Sino debió salir de la partida de la primera dama que tanto se preocupa por el cáncer, pero no por 13 angelitos de nuestro pueblo. Esta irrisoria cantidad debió salir de la CSS y del MINSA. Pero dicen no hay porque siguen guardando para sus contratos dirigidos.

COMENENAL llama a todo el pueblo, a la Sociedad Civil organizada, a todas las organizaciones decentes y honestas del país, a levantarse en lucha en contra del despilfarro y corrupción en la CSS, en el sector salud en general, y contra la inmoralidad que prefiere ver morir a los hijos de otros sin hacer nada. Ya es suficiente y no hay pueblo que lo resista 100 años.

~ ~ ~

Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web

I never stopped learning from Tom Hayden

by Mark Rudd — from his Facebook page

Last week, reading in the NY Times about Bob Dylan’s having been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, one quote struck me, “We’re terrifically lucky to be alive at the same time when he is.” I always felt the same way about Tom Hayden. His death is devastating in the same measure as the enormity of his contribution.

I first came across Tom Hayden when I read The Port Huron Statement (PHS) in 1965, a freshman at Columbia just learning about SDS. Though SDS’s founding document had been a collective product, Tom, the first president of SDS, was the principal author. His prose and his clear logic knocked me out: Port Huron was a critique of the Cold War and anti-communism, a call for party realignment into true left and right, most of all, for me, a blueprint for a role that students could play in creating social change. It even included a vision of something called “participatory democracy” to replace the sclerotic passivity and hopelessness of our political system. I decided to join the Columbia chapter because these SDS people were so damned smart. Over the years 1962-1969 hundreds of thousands of students read Port Huron and responded in the same way.

I think I first met Tom in the summer of 1967, right after the Newark, NJ, riots, at SDS’s community organizing project house there. Tom patiently explained to me, a kid from the all-white Newark suburbs, about the misery that had caused the riots, and also why he was organizing there: to help bring into existence “an interracial movement of the poor.” His quiet idealism was downright infectious.

Less than a year later, in April, 1968, Tom responded to Columbia SDS’s call for organizers to come to the building occupations against the university’s institutional racism toward the Harlem community and its participation in research in support of the war in Vietnam. Tom had already been to Czechoslovakia to meet with Vietnamese from the National Liberation Front and in a short few months had been instrumental in teaching so many of us in SDS about the nature of the American aggression against Vietnam and the Vietnamese resistance. He immediately joined “the Math Commune” (located in Mathematics Hall) and offered his expertise in chairing endless meetings discussing tactics to hold the building as well as strike strategy. His leadership style embodied the ideal of participatory democracy, insisting that all sides of every question be heard. Paul Cronin, the documentary filmmaker who has been laboring for the last 10 years on a comprehensive film record of the 1968 Columbia Strike, called A Time to Stir, is in possession of remarkable footage of Tom leading meetings in Math. I hope he can get these broadcast or up on the internet. Paul also has footage of members of the Math Commune commenting on how important and inspiring Tom’s democratic style was to them.

After the police bust, Tom wrote an article about Columbia for New Left Notes, the SDS weekly out of the Chicago National Office, the title of which was “Create two, three, many Columbias.” (Always thinking strategically, Tom appropriated Che’s famous rallying cry, “Create two, three, many Vietnams”). And that is precisely what SDS and students all over the country did for the next two years.

The early summer of 1968, Tom began visiting Columbia SDS to recruit for the Democratic National Convention demonstrations in August. Again, his vision of masses of people protesting the war and racism outside the convention proved infectious, as hundreds of us went out there, often serving as leaders in the streets for the many thousands of unorganized kids who joined. Those demonstrations raised awareness of the mass desire for peace, challenging the party that had given us the war. When Tom and seven others were eventually charged with conspiracy to riot, SDS jumped to their defense.

I only learned years later that Tom had been a friend and supporter of Robert Kennedy at the same time as he was organizing the mass demonstrations. Clearly, his pragmatic side had coexisted with his militant radical side. Anyone else might have seen this as a contradiction–indeed, most of Columbia SDS had rejected what we called “McKennedy” (Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy being the anti-war candidates) reformism for “voting in the streets”–but Tom had no problem in exploring both strategies. In retrospect I honor him for it.

A few days before the opening of the conspiracy trial of the Chicago 8, in September, 1969, I went to hear Tom speak on the case at the University of Chicago. I distinctly remember being struck by his quiet, almost anti-charismatic style. The opposite of a rabble-rouser, his clear explanations embodied a democratic humility and trust in his listeners. His was a leadership style that built other people’s leadership. I suspect he was first exposed to that democratic vision back in 1960-1962 while working with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, SNCC, in the South. Miss Ella Jo Baker, the brilliant mentor of SNCC, a lifetime organizer against segregation and for black freedom, had always insisted on participatory democracy as both a goal and a method.

Tom was close with most of us in Weatherman and the subsequent Weather Underground, but he always insisted on his right to differ with our strategy while at the same time lending support. This is a complicated subject, one I don’t wish to rehash at the moment, but if you’re interested, take a look at the heartfelt essay on his relationship to us which he included in The Long Sixties, published in 2009, in which he summarized 50 years of movement experience. In a nutshell, he understood and was sympathetic to those of us who were driven crazy by our country’s mass slaughter in Vietnam.

I watched Tom’s career as an representative to the California State Assembly, realizing over the years that he had adopted an electoral strategy toward building the mass movement. This was at a time when most of us ex-New Leftists were stuck either in single issue organizing or, much worse, the complete waste that was Marxist-Leninist party-building in the Seventies and Eighties. Through his example Tom was showing us how important it was to have leftists in elected office. I often wonder whether, had more New Leftists bit the bullet and followed Tom’s lead into the party, we would have been stuck with the neo-liberal center-right Clintons and the Democratic Leadership Council which have dominated for over 25 years. At least it would have been a fight for the soul of the party–which, in fact, is only coming into the open now with Bernie’s candidacy. The key thing, though, is that Tom was always thinking about strategy toward power, real power, unlike so many of us who preferred the purity of being on the outside.

Tom helped found Progressive Democrats of America, an organization which was instrumental in convincing Bernie Sanders to run. In a famous piece in the Nation, however, Tom explained why he was supporting Hillary Clinton against Bernie in the primary. His reasoning is worth looking at: we had no real socialist movement to take power behind Bernie — that movement is still to be built. Also, most of his African-American friends were pragmatists voting for Hillary because they knew her, and knew nothing of Bernie on race matters. Lastly, he advocated a mass movement to push Hillary to the left after the election. All ideas worth considering.

I last encountered Tom in May, 2015, at the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam anti-war movement in DC, “The Power of Protest,” an event that he had helped organize. There he presented a brilliant analysis of how we built a mass movement that helped win the end of the war. I just read in the LA Times obit that Tom has a book on the subject to be published in 2017. Always teaching strategy.

If you want to get a good view of Tom’s life in the movement, and of his thinking on movement building, take a look at The Long Sixties. He spends the first five pages of the introduction outlining a theory of how mass movements grow, win, and then decline. Then the rest of the book is an explication based on his fifty years experience. A theory of mass movements is an incalculable contribution to our work of developing strategy. I have no doubt that we’ll be learning from Tom Hayden long after he’s gone.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.