As Americans we may feel the need to give thanks for the immense wealth that we possess (that won't last): the wealth of material possessions, the wealth of comfort and security, and the wealth of opportunity. Of course, our wealth, under the so-called bailout plan, is becoming more and more concentrated among the hands of a few especially thankful Americans. Because of the economic crisis our wealth is also being foreclosed and deflated. It is a time to hope for the best and grasp what we hold dear; I am talking about what transcends the material world.
I hope you will keep this in mind as you watch the Tennessee Titans devour the Detroit Lions as you devour your warm turkey and mashed potatoes. Keep this in mind as you make vacation plans. Keep this in mind as you begin your Christmas shopping. Remember the children of Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember the indigenous people who walked this land for thousands of years before the White Man came, bringing disease and slaughter (not turkey or stove-top stuffing), and such nationalistic holidays as Thanksgiving. Remember the stolen African people who built this country under the crack of a whip. Remember the fallen. Remember the forgotten.
Let us be thankful for our heartbeat and our strength to build a better country and a better world based on truth, peace, justice, love, and harmony. Let us be thankful for the sacrifices that were made by our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, teachers, and noble ancestors to make our lives as good as they are today - so long as they did so not at the expense of another. Let us be thankful for each other and that, regardless of the circumstances that brought us here, we are all here: black, white, brown, red, and yellow. Let us be thankful that there is still time and opportunity for us all to shape our future together across generations, borders, races, and religions. These are the thanks I give today.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Remember Palestine
Out of everything I read about Israel and Palestine, the most powerful and inspiring prose always seems to come from foreign delegates who travel to the Middle East each year to educate themselves about the conflict and stand in solidarity with the peacemakers on both sides. This is a five-part report from a recent Interfaith Peace-Builders/American Friends Service Committee trip called "Trees of Peace: 2008 Olive Harvest Delegation." I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I did.
http://www.interfaithpeacebuilders.org/del29/default.html
http://www.interfaithpeacebuilders.org/del29/default.html
Nonviolence Works, Study Shows
http://www.progressive.org/
Nonviolence Is The Right Choice—It Works
By Amitabh Pal, October 30, 2008
Nonviolent resistance is not only the morally superior choice. It is also twice as effective as the violent variety.
That's the startling and reassuring discovery by Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, who analyzed an astonishing 323 resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006.
"Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns," the authors note in the journal International Security. (The study is available as a PDF file at http://www.nonviolent-
The result is not that surprising, once you listen to the researchers' reasoning.
"First, a campaign's commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target," they state. "Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime."
In an interesting aside that has relevance for our times, the authors also write that, "Our study does not explicitly compare terrorism to nonviolent resistance, but our argument sheds light on why terrorism has been so unsuccessful."
To their credit, the authors don't gloss over nonviolent campaigns that haven't been successes. They give a clear-eyed assessment of the failure so far of the nonviolent movement in Burma, one of the three detailed case studies in the piece, along with East Timor and the Philippines.
In some sense, the authors have subjected to statistical analysis the notions of Gene Sharp, an influential Boston-based proponent of nonviolent change, someone they cite frequently in the footnotes. In his work, Sharp stresses the practical utility of nonviolence, de-emphasizing the moral aspects of it. He even asserts that for Gandhi, nonviolence was more of a pragmatic tool than a matter of principle, painting a picture that's at variance with much of Gandhian scholarship. In an interview with me in 2006, Sharp declared that he derives his precepts from Gandhi himself.
Gandhi's use of nonviolence "was pure pragmatism," Sharp told me. "At the end of his life, he defends himself. He was accused of holding on to nonviolent means because of his religious belief. He says no. He says, I presented this as a political means of action, and that's what I'm saying today. And it's a misrepresentation to say that I presented this as a purely religious approach. He was very upset about that."
One of the authors of the study, Maria Stephan, is at the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. The group's founders wrote a related book a few years ago, "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict." Erica Chenoweth is at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
This study is manna for those of us who believe in nonviolent resistance as a method of social change. We don't have to justify it on moral grounds any more. The reason is even simpler now: Nonviolence is much more successful.Monday, November 24, 2008
JFK and the Unspeakable
Unmasking the Truth
By George M. Anderson, S.J.
America Magazine
NOVEMBER 17, 2008
JFK and the Unspeakable
By James W. Douglass
Orbis Books. 544p $30
With the 45th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November of this year, James W. Douglass's book serves as a timely and disturbing reminder of the dark forces that lay behind the president's death in Dallas in 1963. As JFK and the Unspeakable reveals, not only the author but many others believe these dark forces emanated from the C.I.A. and the military-industrial complex—powers that could not bear to see the president turning more and more toward a vision of total nuclear disarmament, as well as possible rapprochement with Fidel Castro and a desire to withdraw from Vietnam because of what Kennedy believed was an unwinnable war. But Douglass's book, as the subtitle reveals, is not so much about how Kennedy died as it is about why he died; and in entering this "pilgrimage of truth"—the why of the Kennedy assassination—Douglass invokes Thomas Merton as his guide and "Virgil."
This is indeed a strange and interesting way to begin yet another history on the Kennedy assassination. "While Kennedy is the subject of this story," Douglass explains, "Merton is its first witness and chorus." Douglass provides detailed history and biography, but Merton fulfills the book's ultimate purpose: "to see more deeply into history than we are accustomed." In 1962, Merton wrote to a friend expressing "little confidence" in Kennedy's ability to escape the nuclear crisis in an ethically acceptable way:
What is needed is really not shrewdness or craft, but what the politicians don't have: depth, humanity and a certain totality of self-forgetfulness and compassion, not just for individuals but for man as a whole: a deeper kind of dedication. Maybe Kennedy will break through into that some day by miracle. But such people are before long marked out for assassination.
The miracle happened, as did the assassination. The latter, according to Douglass, was a consequence of Kennedy's turn toward peace. This is the story that emerges in Douglass's re-telling of Kennedy's conversion and assassination.
The very group charged with investigating the assassination, the Warren Commission, Douglass contends, quietly went along with the now largely discredited theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin, rather than a scapegoat to provide cover for the real killers, whose real identity remains unknown. What is known, however, is that President Kennedy and the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had—through secret correspondence—begun to work together to stave off nuclear disaster. The Soviet leader agreed to withdraw his missiles from Cuba, even at a time when the U.S. military was pressing Kennedy to take military action there. As the author—a theologian and peace activist who has written four books on nonviolence—puts it, "half a world apart, in radical ideological conflict, both...recognized their interdependence with each other and the world. They suddenly joined hands...chose, in Khrushchev's words, 'a common cause to save the world from those pushing us toward war.'" Kennedy in turn, as the author goes on to say, implicitly helped the Soviet leader in a June 1963 peace-based commencement address at American University, which "led in turn to their signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." But in the eyes of the U.S. powerbrokers, the president had shown himself to be a traitor. His assassination thereby became all but foreordained in his "turning"—Kennedy's "short-lived, contradictory journey toward peace," Douglass calls it.
Even afterward, the reader learns, the C.I.A pursued those familiar with circumstances that could have exposed the truth. Douglass makes much of the fact that the fatal bullet that killed the president entered not from the rear—as it would have if Oswald were the killer firing from a building by the parade route—but from the front, piercing the forehead and emerging at the rear of the skull. The sharpshooter killers were not even in the building where Oswald was arrested after the assassination, but at a spot farther along the parade route. A forensic physician who much later examined slide photos of the body, Lt. Cmdr. Bruce Pitzer, realized that the official Warren Report was erroneous in this regard. It was perilous knowledge: Dr. Pitzer was found shot to death in his working area in the National Naval Center near Washington, D.C., in 1966. The Navy ruled his death a suicide, but Douglass presents credible reasons to doubt that conclusion.
Dr. Pitzer's death was just one of several post-assassination deaths and suspicious events that suggest the dark forces at work would stop at nothing to disguise the carefully planned work of "the unspeakable"—a phrase coined by Thomas Merton in reference not only to the president's death, but to other tragic events of the 1960s as well.
Another person who died years after the assassination under mysterious circumstances was Richard Case Nagell. A U.S. counterintelligence agent, he was in possession of a secretly recorded audiotape of a conversation among several men involved in the conspiracy. Once aware of the plot and unwilling to enter into it, he walked into an El Paso bank one day and fired two shots into the wall in order to ensure his speedy arrest. Questioned by the authorities, he said: "I would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason."
Released from prison after five years, Nagell survived three attempts on his life. Finally, in 1995, he felt he could finally tell his story under oath to the Assassinations Record Review Board. But in November of that year, he was found dead in the bathroom of his Los Angeles home. An autopsy cited the cause of death as a heart attack, despite the fact that he had recently told his niece that he had been in good health. When Nagell's son searched for the trunk with the secretly recorded audiotape, he found it missing from the storage facility where his father had placed it. The theft of the trunk suggests to Douglass that even three decades after the assassination, Nagell's "turn to the truth seems to threaten the security of the covert action agencies he had once served." Sensing their importance, he devotes several pages to the deaths of both men and to similarly strange circumstances surrounding the post-assassination lives of others.
The very concept of a government-directed conspiracy may come as a shock to those who have trouble believing their country could ever be involved in "the unspeakable." Yet JFK and the Unspeakable is a compelling book, a thoroughly researched account of Kennedy's turn toward peace, the consequent assassination and its aftermath. By capturing the essence of John F. Kennedy's vision, it is also a reminder of the urgency of the struggle for peace in our world.
George M. Anderson, S.J., is an associate editor of America.
By George M. Anderson, S.J.
America Magazine
NOVEMBER 17, 2008
JFK and the Unspeakable
By James W. Douglass
Orbis Books. 544p $30
With the 45th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November of this year, James W. Douglass's book serves as a timely and disturbing reminder of the dark forces that lay behind the president's death in Dallas in 1963. As JFK and the Unspeakable reveals, not only the author but many others believe these dark forces emanated from the C.I.A. and the military-industrial complex—powers that could not bear to see the president turning more and more toward a vision of total nuclear disarmament, as well as possible rapprochement with Fidel Castro and a desire to withdraw from Vietnam because of what Kennedy believed was an unwinnable war. But Douglass's book, as the subtitle reveals, is not so much about how Kennedy died as it is about why he died; and in entering this "pilgrimage of truth"—the why of the Kennedy assassination—Douglass invokes Thomas Merton as his guide and "Virgil."
This is indeed a strange and interesting way to begin yet another history on the Kennedy assassination. "While Kennedy is the subject of this story," Douglass explains, "Merton is its first witness and chorus." Douglass provides detailed history and biography, but Merton fulfills the book's ultimate purpose: "to see more deeply into history than we are accustomed." In 1962, Merton wrote to a friend expressing "little confidence" in Kennedy's ability to escape the nuclear crisis in an ethically acceptable way:
What is needed is really not shrewdness or craft, but what the politicians don't have: depth, humanity and a certain totality of self-forgetfulness and compassion, not just for individuals but for man as a whole: a deeper kind of dedication. Maybe Kennedy will break through into that some day by miracle. But such people are before long marked out for assassination.
The miracle happened, as did the assassination. The latter, according to Douglass, was a consequence of Kennedy's turn toward peace. This is the story that emerges in Douglass's re-telling of Kennedy's conversion and assassination.
The very group charged with investigating the assassination, the Warren Commission, Douglass contends, quietly went along with the now largely discredited theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin, rather than a scapegoat to provide cover for the real killers, whose real identity remains unknown. What is known, however, is that President Kennedy and the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had—through secret correspondence—begun to work together to stave off nuclear disaster. The Soviet leader agreed to withdraw his missiles from Cuba, even at a time when the U.S. military was pressing Kennedy to take military action there. As the author—a theologian and peace activist who has written four books on nonviolence—puts it, "half a world apart, in radical ideological conflict, both...recognized their interdependence with each other and the world. They suddenly joined hands...chose, in Khrushchev's words, 'a common cause to save the world from those pushing us toward war.'" Kennedy in turn, as the author goes on to say, implicitly helped the Soviet leader in a June 1963 peace-based commencement address at American University, which "led in turn to their signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." But in the eyes of the U.S. powerbrokers, the president had shown himself to be a traitor. His assassination thereby became all but foreordained in his "turning"—Kennedy's "short-lived, contradictory journey toward peace," Douglass calls it.
Even afterward, the reader learns, the C.I.A pursued those familiar with circumstances that could have exposed the truth. Douglass makes much of the fact that the fatal bullet that killed the president entered not from the rear—as it would have if Oswald were the killer firing from a building by the parade route—but from the front, piercing the forehead and emerging at the rear of the skull. The sharpshooter killers were not even in the building where Oswald was arrested after the assassination, but at a spot farther along the parade route. A forensic physician who much later examined slide photos of the body, Lt. Cmdr. Bruce Pitzer, realized that the official Warren Report was erroneous in this regard. It was perilous knowledge: Dr. Pitzer was found shot to death in his working area in the National Naval Center near Washington, D.C., in 1966. The Navy ruled his death a suicide, but Douglass presents credible reasons to doubt that conclusion.
Dr. Pitzer's death was just one of several post-assassination deaths and suspicious events that suggest the dark forces at work would stop at nothing to disguise the carefully planned work of "the unspeakable"—a phrase coined by Thomas Merton in reference not only to the president's death, but to other tragic events of the 1960s as well.
Another person who died years after the assassination under mysterious circumstances was Richard Case Nagell. A U.S. counterintelligence agent, he was in possession of a secretly recorded audiotape of a conversation among several men involved in the conspiracy. Once aware of the plot and unwilling to enter into it, he walked into an El Paso bank one day and fired two shots into the wall in order to ensure his speedy arrest. Questioned by the authorities, he said: "I would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason."
Released from prison after five years, Nagell survived three attempts on his life. Finally, in 1995, he felt he could finally tell his story under oath to the Assassinations Record Review Board. But in November of that year, he was found dead in the bathroom of his Los Angeles home. An autopsy cited the cause of death as a heart attack, despite the fact that he had recently told his niece that he had been in good health. When Nagell's son searched for the trunk with the secretly recorded audiotape, he found it missing from the storage facility where his father had placed it. The theft of the trunk suggests to Douglass that even three decades after the assassination, Nagell's "turn to the truth seems to threaten the security of the covert action agencies he had once served." Sensing their importance, he devotes several pages to the deaths of both men and to similarly strange circumstances surrounding the post-assassination lives of others.
The very concept of a government-directed conspiracy may come as a shock to those who have trouble believing their country could ever be involved in "the unspeakable." Yet JFK and the Unspeakable is a compelling book, a thoroughly researched account of Kennedy's turn toward peace, the consequent assassination and its aftermath. By capturing the essence of John F. Kennedy's vision, it is also a reminder of the urgency of the struggle for peace in our world.
George M. Anderson, S.J., is an associate editor of America.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
JFK's Legacy
Commencement Address at American University
President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963
President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and the conduct of the public's business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.
"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."
I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.
So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world.
To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system--a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.
At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others--by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law--a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament-- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort--to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.
The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Indictment Day Action
Indictment Day Action – Department of Justice – Washington, DC – November 10, 2008
Joy First – Madison, WI
I have been working with others in the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR) (www.iraqpledge.org ) since March of 2003, organizing actions of nonviolent civil resistance, risking arrest, to bring an end to the war and occupation of Iraq. We organize actions in DC about twice a year – in March and again in the fall. This summer we decided that as part of our call for justice we must hold the Bush administration accountable for war crimes. We were inspired, in part, by the book by Vince Bugliosi calling for the prosecution of George Bush for murder. We decided to design an action for the fall of 2008 focusing on the indictment of Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
We began in September when NCNR sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking for a meeting to discuss the indictment of Bush and Cheney for war crimes. In the letter, we outlined some of the crimes we believe they are guilty of committing. Of course, as we expected, we did not receive a response from Mukasey. After several phone calls trying to confirm whether or not he had received the letter and still no response, we decided we needed to go in person to the Department of Justice, and we planned our action for November 10.
As part of getting ready for the action, we wanted to check out the Department of Justice building. So when I was in DC for a trial in October, several of us walked to the Department of Justice office building to get a lay of the land. There were two guards standing at the sidewalk with large concrete planters lining a 10x20 ft. plaza-like area leading to the door. Because of the concrete planters, the area was inaccessible to the public except for the small opening between the planters where the guards were standing. We tried to simply walk into the building but were immediately stopped by the guards. They said that we could not enter unless we had an appointment with someone inside. We asked how we got an appointment and they were not very helpful in telling us how that could be accomplished. This experience gave us valuable information. We knew it would be unlikely we would gain access to the building on November 10 and we planned our action for outside.
On Sunday November 9, I flew to DC, again leaving my family in Madison behind, but knowing this is what I had to do. We planned to meet at a restaurant in Union Station to discuss plans for the action the next day. As I walked towards the group, Max, one of my great teachers on nonviolence, greeted me saying, “Here’s Joy First all the way from Madison. We know that if we do an action, she will be here because she believes she can make a difference.” His words confirmed for me why I have to do this work. Sometimes people make comments to me about whether it is worth my time and effort to continually return to Washington, DC for these actions and trials. But Max said it so simply and so truthfully. I believe that I can do nothing less, and that ultimately what we are doing will make a difference in the world.
We talked for a couple of hours at the meeting on Sunday making plans for the action, and then about 25 people met again in the restaurant of the Hotel Harrington on Monday morning at 10:00 am to finalize our plans. This is a wonderful group of citizen activists that I am working with. They are all so committed and inspiring people and we have worked together for several years and have developed a good rapport and relationship so we came together easily as our plans developed.
At 11:30, we broke to take care of final details, such as bathroom breaks etc., before gathering to walk together to the Department of Justice which was about three blocks away from the hotel. We had a solemn procession to the DoJ carrying large banners calling for the indictment of Bush and Cheney. When we came around the corner, we immediately saw that there were about 10 extra police officers waiting for us, and two vans for transporting prisoners. We had posted information about this action on various websites and they knew we were coming. But even if we hadn’t posted the information publicly, we know from past experience that they spy on our private emails, so we were not surprised that they were ready and waiting for us.
We walked past the entrance and past all the officers, smiling and greeting them as we walked by. We gathered on the corner to strategize and discuss our final plans for a few minutes. Then we decided it was time. Max and I were chosen as the spokespeople to talk to the guards, so we approached them with a copy of the letter we had mailed to Mukasey in September. The group had decided previously that we would not accept just handing the letter to a low-level official and then walking away. That is exactly what the Department of Justice tried to do. Max and I talked to a Public Affairs officer from the DoJ who said he would take our letter and give it to the Attorney General’s office. We told him this was an urgent matter because over a million innocent Iraqis and over 4100 US soldiers had died and people were continuing to die everyday and that it was necessary that we talk to AG Mukasey about indicting Bush and Cheney for war crimes. We told him we were committed to having a meeting with AG Mukasey or one of his close aides. Again, we were refused. All the spokesperson could do was to say he would take our letter.
Max turned and told the group the results of our conversation and asked what we should do next. Pete Perry said, “We must make evident the crimes of the Bush Administration.” As planned, those of us risking arrest, numbering about 15, began to lay down on the ground representing the dead, representing what has happened as a result of the illegal and immoral war perpetrated by the Bush administration. A couple of people drew chalk outlines around the bodies and then lay down themselves. By this time, we had the 15 people lying on the sidewalk and about 30 supporters there in solidarity and witness. A couple of supporters began to string up crime scene tape which was immediately ripped down by the police. A couple others began to read names of the dead. I was feeling so overwhelmed with emotion as a laid down thinking about why we were there, thinking about the incredible human suffering that has brought us to this place.
The officers began telling us that we were going to be arrested if we didn’t leave the area immediately. They were standing there with their plastic cuffs ready to go. Some of them were aggressive. There were reports of police officers deliberately stepping on activists as we lay there and saying that they hoped others would step on us. People who had business in the Department of Justice building were only able to enter the DoJ building by stepping over bodies and so even though we were lying on a public sidewalk, we expected that we would be arrested.
However, time passed and we knew there was a lot of discussion going on among the authorities about what to do with us. In the meantime we continued to lie there, names of the dead were read, and other supporters stood by the street holding up large banners calling for the indictment of Bush and Cheney so we had a long time to be there and get our message out.
We always go into these actions knowing that we are risking arrest, but it is not our goal to get arrested. Our goal is to speak truth to power and get our message heard, We go into these actions never knowing if we will be arrested or not. From what I could hear, it sounded like the federal officers at the Department of Justice wanted us arrested and out of there. However, I am guessing the DC Metropolitan Police did not want to arrest us. They would be the ones who would have to take care of us and spend many hours processing all of us and I think they just didn’t want to do it. In our meeting at the hotel on Monday morning, we had decided that we would lie there for an hour and if we were not arrested in an hour, one of the supporters would don a black shroud and raise us from the dead.
It was very emotional lying on the ground for an hour and listening to the people bustling around, listening to the names of the dead being read. There are innocent people of all ages who have died in Iraq. It is especially difficult to hear the names of the children. It was comfortable to stay there on the ground for so long, but we were committed to being there and getting our message out. After lying on the ground for an hour, Ty came around to each person saying it was time to rise up because we had more work to do.
We all stood and then we came together to make a decision on what to do next. It was during this time, that Max announced a man from India had joined us. He was a practitioner of Gandhism, and he was in the United States for 10 days to talk about nonviolence. I am not sure if he just stumbled on our action and decided to join us or if he found out about the action somehow and purposely came to the action to be part of it. He said he was glad to see nonviolence being practiced in the U.S. He also said that it is not the number of the group that is important, but the spirit and that we had a great spirit.
Not being arrested gave us the opportunity to do something else and so we decided that we would go to the White House to see if we could share our message, asking for an indictment of Bush and Cheney, with Obama who was there to meet with Bush. We walked to the White House carrying our banners, chanting and singing. There was a large crowd of onlookers and media at the White House hoping to catch a glimpse of Obama.
For about 30 minutes or so, we stood holding our signs and chanting. Then we decided to try to give a copy of the letter to Mukasey and a book by Dennis Kucinich outlining the 35 articles of impeachment to the guards at the White House gate. About 10 of us approached the guards and asked them to deliver these items to Bush. They refused and said we would have to move back. They pushed their chests out and came towards us to push us back in a very aggressive manner. We backed up a few feet and then several of the activists kneeled on the ground so we could not be pushed back any further. We thought we might get arrested at that point. I remained standing next to those kneeling as we started singing. There were many onlookers lined up on each side of us. From somewhere inside of me I began to speak in a very loud voice. I don’t exactly know where this voice came from because I am a very shy, scared person. I don’t do this work because I want to be noticed. In fact, I have always felt invisible and in some ways would prefer to remain that way. But here was this voice coming out of me.
It seems that in this work, I continuously find my voice to speak out because I have to. I yelled out, talking to the onlookers and to the officers who were trying to hold us back, that we have to arrest George Bush. He is responsible for the deaths of a million Iraqis – many of them are innocent children. I said that I was a grandmother of five from Wisconsin and that I had to come here to try to make a better world for them. I said that we needed to indict Bush and Cheney for war crimes. While I was speaking the singing stopped and the onlookers became quite and listened. Then Manajeh said that we have the obligation to stand up to this. We must not be good Germans. We must demand justice. Both Manajeh and I are grandmothers calling out for the hope of a better world for future generations. As a grandmother, I feel like my time has come, and it doesn’t matter how scared I am, I MUST speak out now.
I was glad that we were not arrested at the Department of Justice so that we could go to the White House. Our action there that day was spontaneous, but it felt like we were just where we needed to be. Throughout our actions at both places, there was a feeling of spontaneity. We have a cohesive group and there is a lot of trust among members and so many of us were able to speak out at different times during the day as our hearts moved us to speak and that enriched the actions.
We cannot stop our work now. Many people have hope that Obama will be our savior. But social change starts with the people, at the grass roots. It does not come down from the top. I believe that we must cry out for peace and justice now more than ever before. We have someone in the White House who we may be able to move, but it is our responsibility to make our voices heard. We are the people, we have the power, and it is our time to be heard. Please join us as we continue our struggle for peace and justice. We will prevail.
Please see a video of the action at:
Nonviolent Terrorists?
Many Groups Spied Upon In Md. Were Nonviolent
By Lisa Rein and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 19, 2008; B01
Maryland State Police labeled members of a Montgomery County environmental group as terrorists and extremists days after they held a nonviolent protest at an appearance by then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. at a Bethesda high school.
Police files released to the activists reveal that the governor's security detail alerted the state police's Homeland Security and Intelligence Division to what troopers guarding Ehrlich described as "aggressive protesting" by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network in 2005.
A review by The Washington Post of those and other files given in recent days to many of the 53 Maryland activists who were wrongly labeled as terrorists in state and federal databases shows an intelligence operation eager to collect information on the protest plans of a broad swath of nonviolent groups from 2005 to at least early 2007.
Those groups included not only death penalty and Iraq war protesters who were spied on by undercover troopers in a 2005-06 surveillance operation exposed in July, but also those who opposed abortion, the manufacture of cluster munitions, globalization and the government's expansion of biodefense research at Fort Detrick.
The intelligence officers were particularly interested in determining the groups' intentions ahead of specific rallies scheduled in the Washington area.
The files, whose release and eventual purge were urged in an independent review of the undercover surveillance operation, are heavily redacted in black ink. Many contain about five pages, consisting largely of tidbits of information about each person and his or her protest group. Some list what they call "monikers" for the activists, which are also blacked out.
The individuals are listed under headings for "terrorism" with such labels as "anti-war protestors," "threats," "environmental extremists" and "anarchists," although there is no explanation why any of the groups or individuals would be considered terror threats or extremist groups.
The ACLU of Maryland, which represents many of the activists, is scheduled to release more of the files today.
State police spokesman Greg Shipley said yesterday that he could not discuss the contents of the files. He said redactions were made to protect confidential "methods, techniques, procedures and other individuals who may be named" in the documents.
Shipley said that a group or an individual's inclusion in state police files does not mean it was the target of long-term surveillance. "These actions were incident-based in response to intelligence information and in response to proposed events or actions that led to concern on the part of police for issues of public safety," he said. "Checks were made based on information, and they moved on."
The police appear to have discovered some of the activists on the Internet. In the case of the Takoma Park-based Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the executive director and three other staff members were entered into the database after the group attracted the attention of Ehrlich's personal security detail, state troopers known as the Executive Protection Division.
A dozen members of the climate group showed up at Walt Whitman High School on Nov. 17, 2005, to protest as Ehrlich announced his support for tighter rules to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants. The network and other environmental groups criticized the rules for not going far enough.
The protesters held up banners and chanted, "Governor -- What about global warming? What about carbon?" as Ehrlich and his staff entered the school, several recalled in interviews. They asked several students to hold up signs during the news conference inside the school.
No arrests were made. Eleven days later, the detail alerted the police intelligence division to the group.
"One of the protestors 'aggressively' tried to approach the Governor, others tried to get into the school and some of the protestors tried to recruit students to carry signs inside of the event," according to Executive Director Mike Tidwell's file. Tidwell's photo, taken from his group's Web site, was included in the database. He did not attend the protest.
Josh Tulkin, the group's deputy director at the time, recalled that when he walked into the school, security guards grabbed his shoulder and wrist, led him into an empty classroom and questioned him.
After the undercover surveillance was revealed in July, the group reviewed its own records. It appeared that a trooper working for the program had used an alias to join the group's e-mail list.
"I believe this was political retribution," Tidwell said yesterday.
Ehrlich spokesman Henry Fawell, who was a press secretary in 2005, said yesterday that Ehrlich had no role in the security detail's day-to-day judgments.
"He's not in the business of telling Executive Protection how to do their job," Fawell said. He said he did not recall Ehrlich "ever expressing any opinions" about Tidwell's group.
Other files appear to have been created just days before expected protests.
They include those on leaders of such national antiwar groups as Code Pink, three of whom landed in the database. One, Nancy Krecorian of New York, said she has never been to Maryland. Files also exist on local groups including Pro-Life Carroll County. The efforts of leaders Vince Perticone and Maria DeCesare to organize and apply for a permit for a rally in downtown Westminster were documented in one-page files, their attorney told The Post. The files showed that a plainclothes trooper attended the event.
Attorney Steven Tiederman, who represents Perticone and DeCesare, said the police seem to have put peaceful protesters in the same category as violent ones who bombed abortion clinics.
Files were also compiled on two Catholic nuns from Baltimore and a former Democratic candidate for Congress, Barry Kissin. Kissin, his wife and two colleagues have marched peacefully through downtown Frederick since the anthrax attacks in 2001 to argue that the government's planned expansion of biodefense research poses a health threat.
Ten days before Medea Benjamin was scheduled to speak at the 20th Annual Peace, Justice and Environmental Conference in Frederick in April 2005, state police created a database entry for her. Benjamin, co-founder of the antiwar group Code Pink and the fair-trade group Global Exchange, was described as a San Francisco activist who gives speeches on "her brand of in your face civil disobedience."
When Code Pink was scheduled to appear at another Frederick conference a few months later, state police again researched Benjamin. From the files, it appears that police copied language from the Internet -- some directly from the group's Web sites and documents -- and pasted it into their database.
"It shows the ridiculous connection they're trying to make between peace activism and terrorism," Benjamin said. "Two of these events I was never at."
Benjamin's file lists two potential terrorism "crimes": a primary one as an environmental extremist and a secondary one as an anarchist and animal rights activist.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Obama: The Next 'War President'?
In a recent CBS "60 Minutes" interview, President-Elect Obama made clear that "stamping out Al Qaeda once and for all" and "capturing or killing Osama bin Laden" were among his top priorities. Is this sound policy or petty revenge?
I would argue the latter, particularly because it is quite likely that bin Laden is dead already, serving only as a justification for militarism and paranoia, and even if he were alive, how is his capture or death at all helpful to, let's say, saving the United States (and the world) from economic collapse, bringing our soldiers home promptly and safely, resolving global and domestic poverty, countering racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination - need I go on?
Let's take the issue of national security. How does a dead or captured bin Laden make the United States and its allies safer? If he's half as important as the media and the politicians say he is, wouldn't his capture or martyrdom only serve to strengthen the resolve of what few foot soldiers he still has at his disposal? Would not another man, or even another bin Laden (he has dozens of brethren), take his place?
When I hear all this rhetoric about "getting" Osama bin Laden, it makes me wonder whether Americans know the difference between real life and Hollywood - otherwise how could the Obamas and McCains of the world continue to insult our intelligence? In the wonderful world of Hollywood, when you catch or kill the "bad guy," all his cronies seem to disappear. Even his ideology fades into the margins. Afterward there is only light where darkness once reigned supreme. This is not reality.
First, in the real world "good guys" and "bad guys" are much harder to define. Bin Laden is, in fact, a "good guy" to those who support him or understand that there is a method to his madness: that he has expressed concrete grievances against U.S. foreign policy that have been shared by much of the world along with some Americans. Conversely, the soldiers that make up any unwanted and/or illegal military expedition whose goal is to capture or kill bin Laden, whether he be in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bermuda, would be considered "bad guys" by the fearful locals, especially if they harmed civilians along the way (which they are bound to do if history is any lesson).
And say they actually find him somehow, six years after Bush himself admitted he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about Osama bin Laden, and they don't harm any innocent bystanders in the process. Say there is no backlash from his lieutenants or from sympathetic Muslim populations. Let's pretend no one arises to replace him, assuming he is more important than his name recognition. Earlier in the same press conference in 2002, Bush said the simple words that should serve as a guide (though not in the direction Bush had intended): "Terror is bigger than one person."
It certainly is far bigger than one person. It involves people who have been "marginalized," as Bush put it, by oppressive governments and their militaries. It involves grave disputes between state and nonstate actors. It involves poverty and hopelessness. But Obama, like his opponents and predecessors in typical Hollywood fashion, would rather attack the symptom instead of the disease.
I would argue the latter, particularly because it is quite likely that bin Laden is dead already, serving only as a justification for militarism and paranoia, and even if he were alive, how is his capture or death at all helpful to, let's say, saving the United States (and the world) from economic collapse, bringing our soldiers home promptly and safely, resolving global and domestic poverty, countering racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination - need I go on?
Let's take the issue of national security. How does a dead or captured bin Laden make the United States and its allies safer? If he's half as important as the media and the politicians say he is, wouldn't his capture or martyrdom only serve to strengthen the resolve of what few foot soldiers he still has at his disposal? Would not another man, or even another bin Laden (he has dozens of brethren), take his place?
When I hear all this rhetoric about "getting" Osama bin Laden, it makes me wonder whether Americans know the difference between real life and Hollywood - otherwise how could the Obamas and McCains of the world continue to insult our intelligence? In the wonderful world of Hollywood, when you catch or kill the "bad guy," all his cronies seem to disappear. Even his ideology fades into the margins. Afterward there is only light where darkness once reigned supreme. This is not reality.
First, in the real world "good guys" and "bad guys" are much harder to define. Bin Laden is, in fact, a "good guy" to those who support him or understand that there is a method to his madness: that he has expressed concrete grievances against U.S. foreign policy that have been shared by much of the world along with some Americans. Conversely, the soldiers that make up any unwanted and/or illegal military expedition whose goal is to capture or kill bin Laden, whether he be in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bermuda, would be considered "bad guys" by the fearful locals, especially if they harmed civilians along the way (which they are bound to do if history is any lesson).
And say they actually find him somehow, six years after Bush himself admitted he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about Osama bin Laden, and they don't harm any innocent bystanders in the process. Say there is no backlash from his lieutenants or from sympathetic Muslim populations. Let's pretend no one arises to replace him, assuming he is more important than his name recognition. Earlier in the same press conference in 2002, Bush said the simple words that should serve as a guide (though not in the direction Bush had intended): "Terror is bigger than one person."
It certainly is far bigger than one person. It involves people who have been "marginalized," as Bush put it, by oppressive governments and their militaries. It involves grave disputes between state and nonstate actors. It involves poverty and hopelessness. But Obama, like his opponents and predecessors in typical Hollywood fashion, would rather attack the symptom instead of the disease.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Priest of Conscience
Published on National Catholic Reporter
(http://ncronline3.org/drupal)
(http://ncronline3.org/drupal)
Father's blessing brings peace to Roy Bourgeois
By THOMAS ROBERTS
Published:
November 17, 2008In his own words, Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois has "poked at a lot of hornets nests" along the way from soldier in Vietnam to committed pacifist and persistent critic of U.S. military policy. He's poked at the presumptions of major institutions and systems, including, most recently, standing in opposition to the Catholic church's ban on ordaining women.
But for all of the heat he's taken, for all of the scary episodes that come with bucking the status quo, one of the most emotionally wrenching moments of his life occurred just days ago in the living room of his childhood home.
There he stood, with his sisters, Ann and Janet, and his brother, Dan. They had read his response to the Vatican's threat of excommunication if he did not recant his position supporting women's ordination. In it he had said he could no more rescind his position on ordination of women than he could recant his opposition to the training of foreign troops at what was once called the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga., or his opposition to the war in Iraq.
So they all knew that his 36-year career as a priest was probably nearing an end, that after 36 years of service, work among the poor and against military violence, he would be ostracized, no longer considered a part of the church community.
They waited now to hear what 95-year-old Roy Sr., devout Catholic and daily Mass attendee, would say about this latest in a long history of controversies involving his son.
"My siblings were afraid this would break his heart. My sister Ann was the first to ask him, 'Daddy, how do you feel about this?' " Bourgeois recalled in a Nov. 17 phone interview. "My dad cried. He's a soft-hearted guy. But then he got his composure and said: 'God brought Roy back from the war in Vietnam. God took care of Roy in his mission work in Bolivia and El Salvador, and God is going to take care of Roy now.' Then he said, 'Roy is doing the right thing by following his conscience, and I support him.' "
They all wept, said Bourgeois. It was curious, he said, because all of them had worried that the news would be terribly upsetting to his father. "But then this person of great inner strength looked at us and said, 'God will look after the family, too.' "
Bourgeois, who faces almost certain excommunication, was the founder of an annual protest outside the gates of Fort Benning and what once was called the School of the Americas. This year's protest will be held Nov. 21-23. The school's name was changed in recent years to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
As the School of the Americas, the facility trained scores of Latin American military who can be traced to committing or overseeing some of the most horrendous human rights abuses in modern Latin American history. Troops engaged in assassinations, disappearances, torture and massacres of hundreds of thousands throughout the region. Some of the most heinous crimes occurred in El Salvador and Guatemala during periods of civil war there in the latter part of the 20th century.
Bourgeois is known primarily for his campaign against the School of the Americas and opposition to the war in Iraq as well as his advocacy of the story of Franz Jagerstatter, the Austrian farmer who was executed for refusing induction into the German military during World War II.
Increasingly in recent years, however, he has become a vocal critic of the church's ban on women's ordination. He said he kept meeting women who said they had a call from God for ordination. "Who are we, as men, to say their call is illegitimate," he regularly asked.
For Bourgeois, the issue was a matter of justice, and he reached a point this past summer when he could no longer remain on the sidelines. Janice Sevre-Duszynska, a regular protester at the School of the Americas, asked Bourgeois to attend her ordination Aug. 9 in Lexington, Ky. She became the sixth woman to be ordained in the United States this year as part of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement.
The Vatican response arrived Oct. 21, threatening excommunication unless Bourgeois recanted his statements saying the church is wrong and unjust in maintaining the ban.
When he received the letter, Bourgeois, canceled all plans. He travels widely, giving talks and consulting with representatives of Latin American governments to persuade them to stop sending soldiers to the United States for training.
He decided to go into solitude for two weeks to meditate and pray and to work on his response to the Vatican. He completed the response Nov. 7, mailed it and headed off on a seven-hour drive to his childhood home in tiny Lutcher, La., where his father still lives.
He had arranged a meeting with his siblings and his father. His sisters, especially, were fearful about what the news would do to his father.
"When I received his blessing and the blessing of my family, I felt a great peace. A total peace came over me. And I've felt peaceful ever since I came back from Louisiana." Nothing the Vatican does, he said, can take that peace and serenity away.
Still, he prepares for a lonely move into the unknown. Fellow priests have called and written to voice their agreement and support, but all of them say they can't do it publicly because it would jeopardize their ministries and positions within the church. He doesn't know what kind of association, if any, he'll be able to maintain with Maryknoll in the future.
Bourgeois expects a final word from Rome soon. His deadline to recant is Nov. 21.
Betsy Guest, Maryknoll spokesperson, said the society was led to believe that a response will be made Nov. 24. She said that unless Rome levies further penalties, such as revoking Bourgeois' membership in the society, he can remain a member of Maryknoll, though he will be unable to function as a priest. He hopes that when the final word comes he would be given the courtesy of 15-minute visits with Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that issued the warning of excommunication.
"I am not angry," said Bourgeois, who acknowledged early on that his attendance at the ordination could have serious consequences. "I don't want to respond in anger. I would like to meet with them personally to explain my position and make my appeal."
Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large.
Related Bourgeois articles:
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan
My Perspective
Regardless of your stance on the U.S. military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the experiences of the many young men and women who have served on both fronts should not go unrecognized.
Last night at Busboys and Poets, a progressive bookstore/restaurant on the corner of 14th and V streets in Northwest D.C., Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) unveiled its book "Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations" as an encore to the weekend of live testimony from veterans last March that marked the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War.
I can only wish it had come sooner and that more Americans, particularly policymakers, would dare listen to what they do not wish to hear, much less believe. While I was not able to attend the original hearings at the National Labor College (the original venue was my alma mater the University of Maryland, but the 5th anniversary of the war coincided with Spring Break), I did watch the testimony on my favorite media outlet, Democracy Now!, and was struck by the courage of the men and women who so boldly spoke out against atrocities I had never witnessed and could only imagine. Looking every bit like the famed Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) over thirty years prior, except with shorter hair, they defied their superiors in Washington, presenting the realities on the ground in sharp contrast to the jockeying of the politicians and the reports of the top U.S. newspapers and major networks. Needless to say, there was a virtual blackout in media coverage of the event.
Of all the testimony that moved me, compelled me to vomit, cry, or even laugh at the absurdity of it all, I will never forget the veteran who broke down into tears after recounting how he was ordered to steal an Iraqi man's car and followed through with the order despite serious misgivings. I forget his name, but I remember his voice: "I took his car...his livelihood. That's probably all he had." He knew at that point that he did not belong in Iraq and that confiscating an innocent man's car was not what he had enlisted to do. The gentleness of his spirit sends shivers up my spine as I write this. Juxtaposed with the testimony of former sniper Garret Reppenhagen, who I have heard speak many times at IVAW events, recalling the bloody deaths of countless Iraqi civilians (some at his own hands), this soldier's compassion for that one car-less Iraqi inspires hope.
Regardless of your stance on the U.S. military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the experiences of the many young men and women who have served on both fronts should not go unrecognized.
Last night at Busboys and Poets, a progressive bookstore/restaurant on the corner of 14th and V streets in Northwest D.C., Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) unveiled its book "Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations" as an encore to the weekend of live testimony from veterans last March that marked the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War.
I can only wish it had come sooner and that more Americans, particularly policymakers, would dare listen to what they do not wish to hear, much less believe. While I was not able to attend the original hearings at the National Labor College (the original venue was my alma mater the University of Maryland, but the 5th anniversary of the war coincided with Spring Break), I did watch the testimony on my favorite media outlet, Democracy Now!, and was struck by the courage of the men and women who so boldly spoke out against atrocities I had never witnessed and could only imagine. Looking every bit like the famed Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) over thirty years prior, except with shorter hair, they defied their superiors in Washington, presenting the realities on the ground in sharp contrast to the jockeying of the politicians and the reports of the top U.S. newspapers and major networks. Needless to say, there was a virtual blackout in media coverage of the event.
Of all the testimony that moved me, compelled me to vomit, cry, or even laugh at the absurdity of it all, I will never forget the veteran who broke down into tears after recounting how he was ordered to steal an Iraqi man's car and followed through with the order despite serious misgivings. I forget his name, but I remember his voice: "I took his car...his livelihood. That's probably all he had." He knew at that point that he did not belong in Iraq and that confiscating an innocent man's car was not what he had enlisted to do. The gentleness of his spirit sends shivers up my spine as I write this. Juxtaposed with the testimony of former sniper Garret Reppenhagen, who I have heard speak many times at IVAW events, recalling the bloody deaths of countless Iraqi civilians (some at his own hands), this soldier's compassion for that one car-less Iraqi inspires hope.
Open Letter to Obama from Alice Walker
Nov. 5, 2008
Dear Brother Obama,
You have no idea, really, of how profound this moment is for us. Us being the black people of the Southern United States. You think you know, because you are thoughtful, and you have studied our history. But seeing you deliver the torch so many others before you carried, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, only to be struck down before igniting the flame of justice and of law, is almost more than the heart can bear. And yet, this observation is not intended to burden you, for you are of a different time, and, indeed, because of all the relay runners before you, North America is a different place. It
is really only to say: Well done. We knew, through all the generations, that you were with us, in us, the best of the spirit of Africa and of the Americas. Knowing this, that you would actually appear, someday, was part of our strength. Seeing you take your rightful place, based solely on your wisdom, stamina and character, is a balm for the weary warriors
of hope, previously only sung about.
I would advise you to remember that you did not create the disaster that the world is experiencing, and you alone are not responsible for bringing the world back to balance.
A primary responsibility that you do have, however, is to cultivate happiness in your own life. To make a schedule that permits sufficient time of rest and play with your gorgeous wife and lovely daughters. And so on. One gathers that your family is large.
We are used to seeing men in the White House soon become juiceless and as white-haired as the building; we notice their wives and children looking strained and stressed. They soon have smiles so lacking in joy that they remind us of scissors. This is no way to lead. Nor does your family deserve this fate. One way of thinking about all this is: It is so bad now that there is no excuse not to relax. From your happy, relaxed state, you can model real success, which is all that so many people in the world really want. They may buy endless cars and houses and furs and gobble up all the attention and space they can manage, or barely manage, but this is because it is not yet clear to them that success is truly an inside job. That it is within the reach of almost everyone.
I would further advise you not to take on other people's enemies. Most damage that others do to us is out of fear, humiliation and pain. Those feelings occur in all of us, not just in those of us who profess a certain religious or racial devotion. We must learn actually not to have enemies, but only confused adversaries who are ourselves in disguise. It is understood by all that you are commander in chief of the United States and are sworn to protect our beloved country; this we understand, completely. However, as my mother used to say, quoting a Bible with which I often fought, "hate the sin, but love the sinner." There must be no more crushing of whole communities, no more torture, no more dehumanizing as a means of ruling a people's spirit. This has already happened to people of color, poor people, women, children. We see where this leads, where it has led.
A good model of how to "work with the enemy" internally is presented by the Dalai Lama, in his endless caretaking of his soul as he confronts the Chinese government that invaded Tibet. Because, finally, it is the soul that must be preserved, if one is to remain a credible leader. All else might be lost; but when the soul dies, the connection to earth, to peoples, to animals, to rivers, to mountain ranges, purple and majestic, also dies. And your smile, with which we watch you do gracious battle with unjust characterizations, distortions and lies, is that expression of healthy self-worth, spirit and soul, that, kept happy and free and relaxed, can find an answering smile in all of us, lighting our way, and brightening the world.
We are the ones we have been waiting for.
In Peace and Joy,
Alice Walker
Source: http://www.theroot.com/id/48726
Monday, November 10, 2008
Olbermann Decries Passage of Prop 8
MSNBC Commentator Keith Olbermann's words:
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Some Latin American Reactions to Obama
VIO Venezuela Weekly News Roundup
Friday, November 7, 2008PRESIDENT CHAVEZ CONGRATULATES OBAMA ON 'IMPORTANT VICTORY'
Messages of congratulations continue to roll in from around the world after Tuesday's Obama victory in the U.S. elections. In a statement released Wednesday, Venezuela's Foreign Ministry called it an "important victory" and reaffirmed the commitment of the Chavez government to building better ties with the U.S. It reads: "we are convinced that the time has come to establish a new relation between our countries and with our region based on the principles of respect for sovereignty, equality and real cooperation."
Ahead of the elections, Chavez declared "I am ready to sit down and talk ... and I hope we can enter a new stage," according to Reuters. The AP reported that Chavez said he anticipates meeting Obama "on equal and respectful terms." Chavez has been cast as an "anti-U.S." figure in the media, which often passes over the context of aggression against Venezuela by the Bush administration.
LATIN AMERICA REACTS TO NEW U.S. LEADERSHIP
In Latin America more broadly, Reuters and Bloomberg reported that leaders are poised to begin a new era of diplomacy in the region. The presidents of Brazil and Bolivia, for example, are urging an Obama administration to lift the crippling embargo against Cuba. Experts, though, expect only modest changes, according to the BBC. While increased dialogue and multilateralism are expected under Obama, many wonder to what extent relations with the region will be made a priority in the coming years.
In an article in the Guardian today, British scholar Richard Gott is cautiously optimistic about US-Latin America relations in an Obama presidency. He suggests that the new administration should end the embargo against Cuba and reach out to new elected leaders in the Andes. Dialogue with Venezuela's Chavez would be particularly productive, Gott predicts: "If a personal meeting can be engineered, these two improbable leaders, with many similarities in their outsider backgrounds, will get on famously."
No Obamamania for Brandon Marshall
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/zirin
No Obamamania for Brandon Marshall
By Dave Zirin
All Brandon Marshall wanted was the opportunity to be part of the moment. The Denver Broncos' wide receiver wanted to feel connected to the thousands who have flooded into the streets and the millions in a state of shock and awe around the world, celebrating the election of Barack Obama.
Marshall's plan was to score a touchdown on Thursday night and then take out a black-and-white glove and hold it up to the sky. "I wanted to create that symbol of unity because Obama inspires me, our multi-cultured society," he said after the game, choked with tears. "And I know at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico, Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised that black glove in that fist as a silent gesture of black power and liberation. Forty years later, I wanted to make my own statement. I wanted to make my own statement and gesture to represent the progress we made."
Unfortunately, we will never know what would have happened, or how the crowd would have reacted. We will never have that image of a football player bringing politics to the field. Marshall did score a touchdown, but as he removed the glove from his pocket, his teammates stopped him.
The problem was that Marshall's touchdown came with only one minute and twenty-two seconds left to play, putting the Broncos ahead, 34-30. His teammates--particularly fellow wideout Brandon Stokley and tight end Tony Scheffler--saw what he was about to do and stopped him, fearful of an automatic fifteen-yard penalty for "unsportsmanlike conduct."
One can be charitable toward Stokley and Scheffler, given the moment in the game-although the image of two white players surrounding a black player to block his political statement is the antithesis of the very ideas Marshall was attempting to communicate.
Yet the reaction from ESPN was even worse. The first talking head back at the SportsCenter headquarters took a shot at Marshall's emotional press conference saying, "Well the sentiment is exactly right, even if the speechwriting needs some work." His partner then said of Marshall, "It's not about you or what you think. It's about the team and what they need to do." Ex-player turned broadcaster (and sometime soap opera star) Mark Schlereth called it, "The best play of Stokley's career." The Sporting News' Chris Mottram called it "Marshall's Moronic Touchdown Tribute to President-Elect Obama."
Mottram then wrote of Marshall, "He's not bright, or flat out selfish, or a combustible mixture of the two."
There is no question that Marshall was taking a risk. There's no question he could have cost his team the game. He also could have paid a professional price.
His coach, the stone-faced Mike Shanahan, has a written rule about not bringing the politics into his all-business locker room.
Marshall could have risked the ire of the NFL, known as the No Fun League for cracking down on any hint, any whiff, of individuality on the part of players.
But maybe Marshall thought that the moment was more important than the game. Maybe he looked at basketball players like Kevin Garnett, who had the slogan "Embrace Change Vote '08" written on his sneakers, or Carmelo Anthony, who said that he would score forty-four points Wednesday in honor of the forty-fourth president. Marshall wanted to be part of the energy that has inspired more pro athletes to take part in this election cycle than ever before.
Instead of derision, Marshall merited our respect--sports fan or not-- which should actually be exponentially higher since he was willing to take this risk when the game was on the line. The image of a pro football player raising a black-and-white hand to the skies forty years after Smith and Carlos and two days after the election of a black president in a country built on slavery could have echoed through the ages. Someone should tell the suits and ESPN: some things are actually more important than sports.
No Obamamania for Brandon Marshall
By Dave Zirin
All Brandon Marshall wanted was the opportunity to be part of the moment. The Denver Broncos' wide receiver wanted to feel connected to the thousands who have flooded into the streets and the millions in a state of shock and awe around the world, celebrating the election of Barack Obama.
Marshall's plan was to score a touchdown on Thursday night and then take out a black-and-white glove and hold it up to the sky. "I wanted to create that symbol of unity because Obama inspires me, our multi-cultured society," he said after the game, choked with tears. "And I know at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico, Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised that black glove in that fist as a silent gesture of black power and liberation. Forty years later, I wanted to make my own statement. I wanted to make my own statement and gesture to represent the progress we made."
Unfortunately, we will never know what would have happened, or how the crowd would have reacted. We will never have that image of a football player bringing politics to the field. Marshall did score a touchdown, but as he removed the glove from his pocket, his teammates stopped him.
The problem was that Marshall's touchdown came with only one minute and twenty-two seconds left to play, putting the Broncos ahead, 34-30. His teammates--particularly fellow wideout Brandon Stokley and tight end Tony Scheffler--saw what he was about to do and stopped him, fearful of an automatic fifteen-yard penalty for "unsportsmanlike conduct."
One can be charitable toward Stokley and Scheffler, given the moment in the game-although the image of two white players surrounding a black player to block his political statement is the antithesis of the very ideas Marshall was attempting to communicate.
Yet the reaction from ESPN was even worse. The first talking head back at the SportsCenter headquarters took a shot at Marshall's emotional press conference saying, "Well the sentiment is exactly right, even if the speechwriting needs some work." His partner then said of Marshall, "It's not about you or what you think. It's about the team and what they need to do." Ex-player turned broadcaster (and sometime soap opera star) Mark Schlereth called it, "The best play of Stokley's career." The Sporting News' Chris Mottram called it "Marshall's Moronic Touchdown Tribute to President-Elect Obama."
Mottram then wrote of Marshall, "He's not bright, or flat out selfish, or a combustible mixture of the two."
There is no question that Marshall was taking a risk. There's no question he could have cost his team the game. He also could have paid a professional price.
His coach, the stone-faced Mike Shanahan, has a written rule about not bringing the politics into his all-business locker room.
Marshall could have risked the ire of the NFL, known as the No Fun League for cracking down on any hint, any whiff, of individuality on the part of players.
But maybe Marshall thought that the moment was more important than the game. Maybe he looked at basketball players like Kevin Garnett, who had the slogan "Embrace Change Vote '08" written on his sneakers, or Carmelo Anthony, who said that he would score forty-four points Wednesday in honor of the forty-fourth president. Marshall wanted to be part of the energy that has inspired more pro athletes to take part in this election cycle than ever before.
Instead of derision, Marshall merited our respect--sports fan or not-- which should actually be exponentially higher since he was willing to take this risk when the game was on the line. The image of a pro football player raising a black-and-white hand to the skies forty years after Smith and Carlos and two days after the election of a black president in a country built on slavery could have echoed through the ages. Someone should tell the suits and ESPN: some things are actually more important than sports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)