Alive in the World: Conversation with Audrey Lin

Alive in the World
Conversation with Audrey Lin

April 2009, Oakland, California

I first met Audrey Lin at the Mehta home in Santa Clara where each Wednesday evening the Mehtas host a meditation followed by a circle of sharing and then a vegetarian dinner eaten in silence. No two Wednesdays are the same since the mix of guests is always changing along with the thoughts and stories that come to life there.
Whenever I attend one of these evenings, I help with the car-pooling. There are always five or six people, often students at UC like Audrey, who need rides. I'd gotten to know her from conversations among us all on the drives down and back from Santa Clara. And it wasn't long before I noticed that Lin exhibited a particular something my old college philosophy professor called "the disease"-really more of a dis-ease. Perhaps it's not always apparent who is afflicted in this special way, that is, having the persistent need to find out what is Real. It can be described with other words, but I think the effect is the same. For the individual in the grip of this need, following the certified pathways in life will never be enough. One will have to find the answers for oneself.
And so it was not entirely surprising when one day I got an email from Lin, sent to a group of us, announcing her intention to walk to Santa Clara for the next meeting at the Mehta's home. It wasn't entirely a surprise, but I admit to feeling a little alarmed. Was this really a good idea? My first reaction was followed by a feeling of guilt as I realized I wasn't about to join her.
In fact, Lin's invitation-given on short notice-netted no walking companions, and so she walked the fifty-some miles alone. Her walk created something of a stir among us. The buzz came and then faded as the weeks went by, but Audrey's act-not such a big thing compared with famous adventures we've read about-stayed with me. There is something compelling about any act of genuine courage, perhaps especially on behalf of the voice of conscience. No such act is really a small act. Quite the contrary. It's impossible to measure such things, but they exist in a special category. They are what Gandhi was talking about when he said, "Whatever you do may seem insignificant to you, but it is most important that you do it." And thinking about it all one day, it occurred to me to ask Lin to talk about her walk.

Richard Whittaker: I think it's courageous that you took this walk. Tell me what happened that made you decide to do it. Is it clear to you?

Audrey Lin: I was just talking about this at the Metta Center at our "hope tank." We call it a "hope tank" instead of a "think tank." Nipun [Mehta] came and we all went around in a circle and told our favorite non-violent moment. I couldn't think of anything and Nipun said, "Can I request that you tell us why you walked to Santa Clara?" [laughs]
It was a mix of a lot of things. To give you some context, I think it was the second Wednesday I'd gone to the meditation at the Mehta's home. Guri mentioned the book Planet Walker about John Francis who in the '70s, after an oil spill in the San Francisco Bay, decided to take direct action. He stopped driving and started walking everywhere, and he walked for 22 years. He walked up the coast to Oregon where he got his undergraduate degree. He walked up through Washington and started walking East. He stopped and got his masters and then his PhD in Madison, Wisconsin. Then he walked to the east coast, hopped a sailboat and went to South America, which he walked from tip to tip.
I was so intrigued by that. His story just is at odds with our whole sense of time and accomplishment.

RW: Right. He just started taking action in his own way.

AL: Yes. And I also thought it was really ironic that we drive two hours to meditate for one hour. What do we gain, and at what cost? One of those times I was just riding along in the car and thinking, and I said, "You know, one of these days, we should just walk down or bike down." People just laughed, but it stuck with me.
Another thing is I just spent a summer studying inspiring, great, incredible people and how they brought about change and transformed society and people and hearts. So being immersed in that kind of consciousness, on the one hand, and then living my life not completely on the same page with those ideals-still driving, still consuming, still feeding into our destructive habits-there's this cognitive dissonance. It just weighed my shoulders down.
Each semester, I've started out with the question, do I really want to be here? Because I believe in experiential education, and not just sitting in the classroom and being talked at and writing papers. I believe in the intrinsic value of things rather than doing things for a grade, or for some material gain.

RW: Could you say a little bit more about your interest in experiential learning?

AL: I believe we learn more naturally, and retain more, when we learn through experience. I'm grateful for all the lectures I've sat through and the books I've read, but I don't remember a third of it. The things I do remember are the things where I'm doing something, where I'm relating to people, where I'm connecting with my environment, with someone else, with an idea. Those are the things that stick with me and fuel me.

RW: Yes. I wonder if there aren't a lot of people who feel that something is missing, this other part of learning that you're talking about, real experience. Of course, some people drop out of school for that reason. It's not necessarily the best thing to do.
But you were feeling a gap between the incredible things you've read about Gandhi and the Salt March and, my God, huge things! And then driving down 880 back and forth to an evening of meditation. So tell me more about that decision. How did that happen?

AL: It actually happened in mid-August when our mentorship program was ending. It was Chris's birthday. We all went to downtown Berkeley to write in chalk on the street-all positive messages. And all of a sudden these random people everywhere started asking us, what's happening? What are you doing? We said you want to join us and draw something nice?
People would write things like "Non-violence is love in action" or "Hope. There's nothing stopping us!"-and we'd draw pictures, too. All these kids were coming up to us. "We want to draw!" This was by the BART station and people were coming home from work. We wrote, "Welcome home!" So people were curious and they wanted to draw things, too.
It was incredible how it broke down all these barriers between strangers. So there was this guy, Ken. You know the Street Spirit newspaper? [yes] He was trying to sell those. "Want to buy a paper? One dollar." I was watching all these people pass by him. It's not unusual. There are so many homeless people.
So I went up to him and asked if I could buy him dinner. But when I went to my bag, "Oh, no!" I didn't have my wallet, and I felt so bad. But I had some chocolate banana muffins that I'd baked for Chris's birthday for all of us to have afterwards. So I said, "Can I give you a muffin?" He said, "Sure. I'll take anything."
What struck me about this guy was that he didn't have any sense of entitlement. He didn't have any anger. For someone on the street, that's a powerful script to have. And I ended up talking with him.
He told me a story about how one morning (this was when he had an apartment) how he woke up and really wanted to do drugs. But, no. He said, I'm going to ask God. So he closed his eyes and asked, "What should I do?" When he opened his eyes he had this urge to do the dishes. So he just went over and started washing them. He ended up cleaning the kitchen, and then the whole apartment. When he was done, there was a knock at his door. It was his sister who he hadn't seen in years and years! They spent the night together catching up. When she left, he thought, "Wow, those answers are out there! You just have to listen."
So after my mentorship program ended, I had a week before classes started again. And suddenly I was at a loss for what to do. I was totally not feeling like going back to school. There was no place I needed to be. I was just in a place of reflection or searching for that truth, and wondering. See, I really want to see people living much more compassionately. I want to see a lot of change happening and I want to help bring about that change if that's something you can even do.
So I went for a run and I thought about Ken. I thought, "Okay, I'm just going to ask." And as I was running back down the hills, this thought popped into my head: walking to Santa Clara. It was just such a perfect click! And I was so happy! I would walk from Berkeley and see everything I was missing on the drive. This was on a Saturday, and I left on Monday.

RW: I got your email and I wondered if you were really going to do that. It was kind of shocking, the idea of actually walking from Berkeley to Santa Clara to attend a Wednesday evening meditation. Then, of course, I wondered if anyone else would join you. But no one did, right?

AL: No. Well, Pancho [Ramos-Stierle] called and said, "This is a great idea!" But when I told him I was leaving Monday, it turned out he already had other plans. And Nipun sent me an email. "Oh, this is a great idea!" He told me about Reverend Heng Sure's pilgrimage all the way up the coast doing prostrations all the way. He said, "Why don't you start your walk at the Berkeley Buddhist Monastery? You can meet Reverend Heng Sure." So I got there and Nipun was there. He said, "Are you really going to do this?" I told him I was. "Are you okay with that?" he asked.
"Yes, definitely."
"Are you sure?"
I could sense him feeling a little bit responsible for me.

RW: He was worried, I imagine.

AL: Yes. For this young, childish-looking, college student. She seems pretty innocent. Later, after the walk, Nipun said, "Actually we were trying to convince you not to go!" [laughs]. So we met with Rev. Heng Sure and he told me about Peace Pilgrim, this woman who walked across the U.S. multiple times. And he gifted me with his book of letters he wrote to his teacher on his own pilgrimage. Then I left.

RW: You left and walked...

AL: I walked up Channing, took a right on Shattuck and walked down into Oakland. Then, in downtown Oakland, I turned left and walked past Lake Merritt and down E. 14th, a nine-mile stretch.


RW: Which gets into kind of a rough part of town. Tell me about some of your experiences.

AL: I remember, as I got into Oakland, that I became very aware of my race and my clothes and my privilege. Taking ethnic studies classes, these sociological positions really were fresh in my mind. These are things I grapple with all the time-especially the privilege part. So as I walked, I was getting into more and more black neighborhoods and I wondered, what would this be like if I was a black person? How would people look at me? How would this be different if I was a white person? It must be kind of funny to see this Asian American woman who looks like she's fourteen with a big backpack walking through these areas.
What's interesting is that when I was walking through the Fruitvale area and further down East 14th Street, which is a pretty bad area, I noticed that people really didn't notice me. I wondered if this is what homeless people feel in a nice area.

RW: So how did you know that people didn't see you?

AL: There was no eye contact. People were just doing their own thing. One woman was walking with three kids and she looked at me and asked, "Are you okay? Are you lost?" I was like, "Yes, I'm fine." She asked, "Are you trying to get to BART? I can help you." She just looked at me like, why are you here?
I said, "No, I just want to walk. Thank you."
She's like, "Okay. Well, where are you going?"
I said, "I'm going to Santa Clara." [laughs]
She says, "You're walking to Santa Clara!? No, honey, you've got to take BART for that! Take this bus, and then hop on that bus, and then you got to get on BART." [laughs] And I said, "Okay. Thanks. But I'm just going to walk."
She just looked at me. "Well, alright."
I almost had a feeling of guilt for walking through there like how some research student might feel going into some community as an outsider and studying them. I was just walking and wanted to meet whoever I happened to meet up with. My aim wasn't to do research, but I felt like that outsider intruding.
Then as I kept walking, I noticed in one neighborhood I got this sense that there were drug deals going on all around me. I could just feel it. There were all these cars parked with doors half-open with these guys looking out kind of shifty-eyed with music coming out of the cars. They weren't making eye contact. I think I was just so much out of their context, that they just weren't seeing me.

RW: They're not looking for connection, but it was more than that?

AL: It's something you just feel in the air. Even with North Berkeley versus South Berkeley you get two different feelings. Walking through Oakland, when the sign came up "Welcome to San Leandro," I remember feeling the sense of relief and lightness. It was cleaner and there were sidewalks and grassy lawns. I thought, so this is why my parents wanted a stable secure life for me.
I wouldn't want to raise my kids out in East Oakland, either. It's pretty intense. I remember sitting at a bus stop and watching two kids, three or four years old. There was a young man, probably younger than me, watching them. I was sitting there, taking a break. I remember watching the young man. He was talking into his phone, and all of the sudden he got real angry and started swearing. Meanwhile, this little girl is cozying up to me. I was talking with her, "What's your name? Is that your brother?" Meanwhile he was wandering off. No one was watching him. He was climbing a chain link fence, really, really high. And this young man starts shouting into the phone and swearing. This little girl starts clinging tighter to me, and puts her hood up. She's scared.
I'm watching and "Oh, my gosh"-the state of life for these kids, being raised in this environment. I could see their need for some sort of validation and comfort and security, guidance, some sort of structure. Then the bus came. As the little boy was getting on the bus, I said, "You're a good climber." I wanted him to know that he'd been seen. And I wondered, where are these kids going to be in ten years?
So along the way, just watching, seeing little kids being neglected and watching adults in these states-I just don't know what to do sometimes. I want to connect with them and, really, [emotion comes up] I want to have some sense that it's going to be ok. That's it's not going to go who knows where...?

RW: One evening as we were driving back from the Wednesday night meditation I could hear that you really want to know what's real. And that has stayed in my mind about you, Audrey. You can follow a person like that for years. It's a life-long investigation. So how do you feel about me characterizing you this way?

AL: I think it's pretty accurate. I don't know when I became more into philosophy. I guess you could call it that. The love of knowledge, right? I remember in high school when I was a junior and senior, I'd always be asking that question: What is real? Is this real? It's interesting to revisit that-because my world has expanded so much from there. I've encountered so much this last year. But, at the heart of it, I'm still asking this same question.

RW: Yes. So you got into San Leandro. Are there other things you'd like to tell? You still had something like 25 or 30 miles to go.

AL: Two things stuck out for me. Right after the walk when people would be talking with me about it, it helped to show me where my own prejudices are. As I was walking, I'd notice what kind of people I was more receptive to. How do I see this person right in front of me?
In San Leandro there aren't as many benches as there are in Oakland, and I felt like sitting down. At the first bench there were a couple of kids, and I wanted to sit by myself. So I kept walking. I told myself, I'll sit at the next bench. When I got there, someone was sitting there, too. But I still wanted to sit by myself. Then I thought, "Do I really want to sit by myself? Or is it that I'm just not comfortable sitting next to a black man?"
So I decided to sit down next to him. I said, "Hi, How are you?" He said, "I'm good. How are you?" I think his name was Robert. I found out he was from Oakland and I asked, "Do you like San Leandro better than Oakland?" He said, "Yes, definitely!" He said it was so much better for his kids. He was telling me there are good and bad parts of Oakland and I asked which were the bad parts. "East 14th St." he said. "Oh, I was just there yesterday."
We had a great conversation. Then the bus came and he left.

RW: You challenged your own anxiety and it turned out being rewarding.

AL: Yes. There's a problem of projecting one's fears on people. People can sense fear or ill will. And we can also sense love. And we respond to what we sense.

RW: Yes. And some of us may be aware enough, at times, to know that I'm afraid and I'm projecting my fears on someone and still be in the grip of it. It's not like I'm asking you to solve my problem, but it is an issue.

AL: Yes. That's something I grapple with. But just name it in your head. "I'm afraid of this." In theory, I don't agree with this fear, but it's there nonetheless.
Then, for me, if I'm not living according to my values, if I'm not fully, to the best of my ability embracing something out of fear, then when I die-and we're all going to die-what's the point? What's the point of living if you're not really alive? What's the point of living half-heartedly? You have nothing to lose. That's how I look at it.
That's why I took this walk. I didn't really second-guess it that much. If I end up always asking, what if? What if? Then I won't have really lived. I want to be able to die and to say, I'm happy. I did what I could.
I still have fears. They pop up. And a lot of times, those fears aren't about anything real. It reminds me of my new year's resolution last year, not to be embarrassed about anything. Embarrassment comes from a rejection of oneself for some sort of social norm, right? None of that is rooted in anything real. Knowing yourself is something real.
When I first got to Berkeley, I'd never seen homeless people. I had lived in the suburbs. I was terrified, and it really bothered me. But after living in Berkeley for a few years, my feeling about homeless people began to change.
Here's a story. I met this guy named Eddie Zang. He came to speak in my Asian American Studies class. He had been in prison for twenty years for a robbery he committed when he was sixteen. His family moved here from China and they were really, really poor. He got into drugs and into a bad crowd. He was in San Quentin. He got his GED there. He started the first poetry slam in San Quentin. He started writing. He did lots of stuff.
He'd actually just gotten out of prison when he talked to our class. I ended up talking with him afterwards and we went out to lunch together. You've heard how in prison it's very segregated racially? So in class someone asked him, "How do you talk to black people? How do you talk to white people? How do you talk to latino people?" His answer was, "I just go up to people and I say, Hi. My name's Eddie. What's your name?" [laughs]
It's so simple!

RW: Great story. Now I know on the walk you stayed the night with a friend. What other moments stand out that you haven't talked about?

AL: There are so many. And I'm still thinking about it all. But I do want to talk about Deepak. The first night, I'm in San Leandro and I'm thinking "maybe I could sleep here. Or maybe there." I had my sleeping bag. It was getting dark. I didn't want to sleep on someone's lawn. There were no trespassing signs. I didn't want to break the law. And so I just sat down. I thought, well, maybe I'll just eat a snack and turn on my cell phone to see if anything comes up. I had all these messages! And about a minute after I turned it on, Deepak called. Hello Audrey! Where are you? I'll come and pick you up.
I debated, but decided maybe it was ok to take this. He came and picked me up and he had all these ideas. You stay at my house tomorrow and I'll take you to Freemont and you can walk from there. "No. You're taking me back here tomorrow and I'm going to keep walking!" He took me out and got me ice cream. It was interesting to suddenly be on track with someone, because I'd just been on my own.

RW: You insisted that he drove you back to the same spot?

AL: Yes. So we went to his home. His wife, Mandi, had to work the night shift at the hospital, but she told Deepak, you call her every hour until she picks up the phone! Their generosity was another thing in itself.

RW: The next day you continued, and how did that go?

AL: I walked through the rest of San Leandro and Hayward and down into Fremont where Deepak and Mandi live. I stayed there again. The next morning I got up really early because I knew I had a long ways to go. But Deepak got up and fixed me breakfast: No, no! You have to eat this. And he packed all this food for me. So much kindness! At the same time, to what extent do I accept all this and to what extent is it too much?
But they told me life is a marathon, not a sprint. You don't have to do everything the first time around! I said, "Okay" [singsong voice] And I thought, "It doesn't matter. I'm going to walk." [laughs] But it was nice to hear those words and they've stuck with me.
It was really awesome because later that day I was walking along the Great American Parkway. You know, before Chromite? It was about 7:15. And I saw Deepak walking towards me and we walked the last few blocks.

RW: Not only did you have all those experiences out in the world, but you had these experiences with your friends and their caring. Is there anything you'd like to add?

AL: There are so many stories, but now sometimes it seems like a dream. It's like doing a Vipassana retreat. It's a complete experience. This walk was only three days, but I experienced things first hand.
A couple of times people offered me rides and I really got scared. This guy pulled over. "Where are you going? Can I give you a ride?"
"No, I'm going to walk."
"Come on. I'll give you a ride."
"NO!" -I don't know what hit me.

RW: You would have to admit, wouldn't you, that there are things to be afraid of?

AL: Yes. But I've heard so many stories of how dangers have been transformed. I know that's possible, too. That was the main time I got scared. I noticed how my body reacted. But you have to put yourself out there to get some street smarts. You can't live in a bubble all your life. And having encountered all these things on an experiential level, I take my experiences with me wherever I go.
I love this quote from Kurt Hahn who founded Outward Bound. He said, "There is more in us than we know. Perhaps if we can be made to see it, for the rest of our lives, we'll never settle for less."

I Am Dr. Tiller

New website expressing solidarity with Dr. George Tiller: http://iamdrtiller.com/

If you haven't heard the story, please visit http://www.democracynow.org and search through its recent coverage.

“Until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all.” -Dr. George Tiller

I was inspired when I heard that one of Dr. Tiller's colleagues had pledged publicly to continue providing late-term abortions. I have never been a pro-choice activist, but I am strongly considering becoming one in light of this horrible crime. While I object to calling the killer a "terrorist," I think that his goals were clear: He wanted to strike fear in the hearts of anyone who would dare perform an abortion in America by killing one of the country's most prominent abortionists. Fortunately I believe he and his cohorts will fail in this goal. This action has already sparked new debate over abortion, debate that is likely to continue until the anti-abortion-inspired violence is widely condemned.

As I listen to Dr. Warren Hern, director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic, call anti-abortion activists "terrorists" who would support or direct the killing of doctors like himself, I cringe because I know deep in my heart that upping the rhetoric on either side will not help this volatile situation. Why not refuse to acknowledge these violent elements (appealing to non-violent anti-abortion activists instead) and/or attempt reconciliation (where feasible)? To respond in fear or in hate/anger will not change the situation in favor of peace. I know the risk is great, but now is the time to stand up for the rights of women and abortion doctors and supporters. We must refuse to be intimidated or conquered by anger and dare to be compassionate for even the most violent of opponents. Let the dialogue begin.

A Letter from Hamas to Obama

Monday, June 8, 2009

Obama administration envoy George Mitchell is traveling to the Mideast. Rep. Donna Edwards recently returned from Gaza.

As Obama was traveling to Cairo, the Palestinian group Hamas, which won the most recent Palestinian election, sent a letter to President Obama through the feminist peace group CODEPINK, which just had a delegation in Gaza. Here is the text of the letter:

His Excellency President Barack Obama,
President of the United States of America.
June 3rd 2009

Dear Mr. President,

We welcome your visit to the Arab world and your administration's initiative to bridge differences with the Arab-Muslim world.

One long-standing source of tension between the United States and this part of the world has been the failure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.

It is therefore unfortunate that you will not visit Gaza during your trip to the Middle East and that neither your Secretary of State nor George Mitchell have come to hear our point of view.

We have received numerous visits recently from people of widely varied backgrounds: U.S. Congressional representatives, European parliamentarians, the U.N.-appointed Goldstone commission, and grassroots delegations such as those organized by the U.S. peace group CODEPINK.

It is essential for you to visit Gaza. We have recently passed through a brutal 22-day Israeli attack. Amnesty International observed that the death and destruction Gaza suffered during the invasion could not have happened without U.S.-supplied weapons and U.S.-taxpayers' money.

Human Rights Watch has documented that the white phosphorus Israel dropped on a school, hospital, United Nations warehouse and civilian neighborhoods in Gaza was manufactured in the United States. Human Rights Watch concluded that Israel's use of this white phosphorus was a war crime.

Shouldn't you see first-hand how Israel used your arms and spent your money?

Before becoming president you were a distinguished professor of law. The U.S. government has also said that it wants to foster the rule of law in the Arab-Muslim world.

The International Court of Justice stated in July 2004 that the whole of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are occupied Palestinian territories designated for Palestinian self-determination, and that the Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal.

Not one of the 15 judges sitting on the highest judicial body in the world dissented from these principles.

The main human rights organizations in the world, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have issued position papers supporting the right of the Palestinian refugees to return and compensation.

Each year in the United Nations General Assembly nearly every country in the world has supported these principles for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every year the Arab League puts forth a peace proposal based on these principles for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Leading human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch have also stated that Israel's siege of Gaza is a form of collective punishment and therefore illegal under international law.

We in the Hamas Government are committed to pursuing a just resolution to the conflict not in contradiction with the international community and enlightened opinion as expressed in the International Court of Justice, the United Nations General Assembly, and leading human rights organizations. We are prepared to engage all parties on the basis of mutual respect and without preconditions.

However, our constituency needs to see a comprehensive paradigm shift that not only commences with lifting the siege on Gaza and halts all settlement building and expansion but develops into a policy of evenhandedness based on the very international law and norms we are prodded into adhering to.

Again, we welcome you to Gaza which would allow you to see firsthand our ground zero. Furthermore, it would enhance the US position; enabling you to speak with new credibility and authority in dealing with all the parties.

Very Truly Yours,

Dr. Ahmed Yousef
Deputy of the Foreign Affairs Ministry
Former Senior Political Advisor
to Prime Minister Ismael Hanniya

Cynthia McKinney Announces New Organization

Which way forward for the Black Left? The path leads in the same direction it always has: agitation, organization, and confrontation with Power. Cynthia McKinney chose a Harlem church to announce formation of DIGNITY, to bring the Black body politic back from its current comatose state. "Dignity is attempting to show real change is possible" - if people fight for it. "We want to organize networks so that we can relay information quickly to a large number of people."

Cynthia McKinney Announces Formation of DIGNITY
the editors

Former congresswoman (D-GA) and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney addressed a packed house at St. Mary’s Church, in Harlem, on Sunday, May 31. Also sharing the podium were Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberley, of Black Agenda Report, Nellie Bailey, Harlem Tenants Council, Prof. Anthony Monteiro, of the African American Studies Department, Temple University, and writer/activist Mae Jackson. The event was titled, “Which Way Forward for the Black Left?”

” We agreed to found an action organization and to call it Dignity.”

Thank you all for being here.

On Thursday, General Taguba spoke to journalists and said that the photos currently being withheld by President Obama show rape. On Friday, he went even further and said that he saw video of U.S. soldiers raping and sodomizing detainees. From the first batch of photos that were released, we know that detainees were also murdered. In your name and mine.

But some of us here in the U.S. are not shocked or surprised that this kind of behavior could occur. For those of us who have our eyes open, the gritty streets of America are filled with the experience of unarmed black and brown men being beaten, raped, sodomized, and even murdered by terroristic agents of the state.

We remember the Black Panther Party, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Kwame Touré. We remember George Jackson, Soledad and Attica. We remember the American Indian Movement, the Puerto Rican Independistas, the Chicano Movement, and we remember the FBI. We know about Area A in Chicago and we’ve heard the San Francisco 8 recount for us their experiences of torture at the hands of law enforcement. We’ve heard them tell how 30 years later, the very same people who tortured them showed up on their doorsteps to re-arrest them for crimes they did not commit.

So when General Taguba verifies that torture, rape, and murder were used by U.S. service men and women, we cannot be surprised.

When we see Dick Cheney say that torture worked, we in this audience, are not surprised.

The gritty streets of America are filled with the experience of unarmed black and brown men being beaten, raped, sodomized, and even murdered by terroristic agents of the state.”

When we hear that Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown who allowed the San Francisco 8 prosecution to move forward is rumored to want to be the Governor of California, and expects our votes to win, we are not surprised.

Or that Gavin Newsome, current mayor of San Francisco who is abetting the ethnic cleansing of the last remaining black neighborhood in that city wants to be Governor and expects black, brown, and progressive white votes, we are not surprised.

So, when yet another young man is gunned down by the police, be it Oscar Grant in Oakland or Omar Edwards in New York City, and the policy doesn’t change to stop it. We shouldn’t be surprised.

The authorities have proven that they will do everything and more if the people let them get away with it.

Our President has breathed new life into the Democratic Party. But the fact is, our precious breath, that gives that Party life, is killing us.

Glen Ford, Roy Singham, Dedon Kamathi of the All African People’s Revolutionary Party, and I all came together earlier this year, to not only lament the present, but to change the future. We decided that while our movement was nascent, coming out of my Power to the People campaign, that there was power in organization. That there was hope in mobilization. And that victory was possible in implementation. We agreed to found an action organization and to call it Dignity.

There will be some who will maintain that this country, founded as a settler state, never had any dignity since it rested on taking and not sharing land that belonged to someone else.

” We decided that while our movement was nascent, coming out of my Power to the People campaign.”

After deep engagement in slavery, the take-over of whole countries, denial of self-determination, and endless war and occupation, still others would say that our country has certainly lost whatever dignity it might have been able at one time to earn.

And after Abu Ghraib, dignity is no longer possible.

For about ten years, I went around the country proclaiming the black body politic to be at first moribund, then comatose. I now see the same fate awaiting the Progressive community even as we witness ongoing war, even ramping up the war machine during the greatest transfer of wealth out of black and brown communities by the wholesale theft of people’s homes.

Bait and switch schemes, whitewashing, and red herrings shouldn’t be left for the people alone to decipher as they are also trying to save themselves from drowning. Some of us know what’s going on and we’re organizing Dignity in order to inform and then stop it.

We are tired of watching politicians acknowledge our pain, win office, and then go about their business adding more to the existing pain.

We can change the policies only by changing the nature of the debate that leads up to the selection of our policymakers. That means that we must have a way to get our message out independent of CNN, FOX, the New York Times, Clear Channel, or Public Radio. People must know in advance what the issues are, what the possibilities of policy are, and be informed, correctly, not only in slick Madison Avenue style campaigns designed to mislead. We need media of our own.

” I went around the country proclaiming the black body politic to be at first moribund, then comatose.”

And finally, we need actions that serve as a wake-up call to all of our elected officials that for a critical number of us, and Glen just happens to believe that we have the right number of people supporting us in general now, business as usual is over.

We have brains, we have brawn, and we’ve got guts. But is that enough?

We’ve learned from our neighbors to our South, from Mexico, Cuba, and Haiti; Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua that we don’t have to settle for less than what we need from politics.

And I’m tired of feeling trapped in the politics of self-abnegation. If people in other parts of the world can do it, then we must be able to do it, too. That remains to be seen, however.

So, Dignity is attempting to show that real change is possible.

Dignity will show that just voting for special interest politicians who reflect special interest political parties in new faces is not enough.

It is clear that some people are satisfied with that, but we demand more.

Honestly, I called Glen, ready to give up, saying that I’ve done what I could do. And Glen, then Dedon, then Roy, and so many others across our country said, no. People began contacting me personally, as if they could sense what I was feeling. They started adding comments on our youtube videos, and I know many people are talking among themselves, expressing disappointment in whispered tones with the direction so far of the Obama Administration.
” Dignity is attempting to show that real change is possible.”

I was saddened to read a message from Cindy Sheehan saying that she won’t run against Pelosi next election. That’s a big blow to us and I hope she will reconsider.

Who was it that said the race goes not to the swift but to he who can endure?

I’m willing to try one more thing, one more time. And Dignity is our effort to endure; to deliver a much-needed victory to the people. Before it’s too late.

Please support us with your money, your brain, and your time.

Please be sure to sign in. In the days ahead, we will contact you. You all have networks. We want to organize networks so that we can relay information quickly to a large number of people.

Because of your contributions today, Dignity soon will have an internet presence and a weekly television show. We intend to have a distribution mechanism so that our supporters can place our television show on cable access stations across the country; we want to be on the radio, and we also want to be in the faces of the people who got our votes or have authority over our tax dollars and who continue to disappoint us.

We are not abused spouses turning the other cheek for another slap in the face. We are individuals who know that this country can be better because we still have faith in the good will and the values of the American people.

Help us organize Dignity, and with dignity, we will stand up for our rights!

For more information on DIGNITY, contact Ms. McKinney at hq2600@gmail.com

Letter to Obama from the Japanese Communist Party

Shii calls on Obama to display initiative in initiating international talks aimed at banning nuclear weapons

Japanese Communist Party Chairperson Shii Kazuo on April 28 met Jim Zumwalt, charge d'affaires ad interim in U.S. Embassy Tokyo and handed him a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama calling on him to take the initiative in starting international negotiations aimed at abolishing nuclear weapons.

April 28, 2009

The text of the letter is as follows:

The President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

I am writing this letter to you, on behalf of a political party that has worked resolutely for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, hand in hand with the people of Japan, the only A-bombed nation, which suffered untold disasters.

I was deeply impressed to read your speech delivered on April 5 in Prague in which you said, "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." For the first time, the United States, the biggest nuclear-weapon state in the world, put forward its national goal of "a world without nuclear weapons," namely the elimination of nuclear weapons.

You also said in the speech, "as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act." You made clear to the world for the first time as U.S. president that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an event that has a bearing upon human morals and talked about the U.S. having a responsibility to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

You added in the speech, "To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends." By so saying, you called on all nations to cooperate for establishing "a world without nuclear weapons," and stressed that "voices for peace and progress must be raised together."

That you made such official declarations as a U.S. president is of historic significance for both humanity as a whole, and the people of the world's only A-bombed country in particular, which I heartily welcome.

However, I beg to differ with you when you said in the speech: The goal of a world without nuclear weapons will not be reached, "perhaps not in my lifetime." I cannot agree because nuclear-weapon states have never engaged in negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons as their common goal, and therefore, we cannot set a timeframe in advance for how long it takes, as this is a task no one has ever tackled.

After its establishment, the first United Nations General Assembly resolution adopted on January 24, 1946 decided, in response to the proposal by six countries including yours, and with the support of all the member countries, that the United Nations will work for the "elimination of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction." But in the 63 years since then, the nuclear-weapon states have not even called for negotiations for their elimination, not to mention entering into such negotiations.

By demonstrating the initiative for "a world without nuclear weapons," you will open up the door to a challenge that no one has ever undertaken. It might take long to proceed from a call for negotiations to their actual opening, and then to reach agreement. This is an historic undertaking that demands "patience and persistence" as stressed in your speech. But it is only by taking the leadership in starting this undertaking that your speech in Prague will exercise its real power to bring about progress and world peace. Consequently, I strongly request that you take the initiative for starting international negotiations for the conclusion of an international treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

In your speech in Prague, you promised to take "concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons." These include starting negotiations for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, pursuing the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a new treaty that verifiably ends production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons. I believe that these concrete steps can have a positive and constructive significance when they are tackled together with the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons.

Having seen these kinds of negotiations on partial measures, I am convinced that the whole process has proved that "a world without nuclear weapons" cannot be achieved only through these measures in the absence of the objective of abolishing nuclear weapons themselves. Indeed, this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are still more than 20,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled all over the world.

As an illustration, we cannot forget that the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water (Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, PTBT) concluded in 1963, banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, but that it actually legitimized underground nuclear tests, and, in the end, triggered a massive nuclear arms race.

The same holds true for the regime of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is a discriminatory treaty unprecedented in history because it allows the five powers to possess nuclear weapons while imposing on non-nuclear-weapon states an obligation of non-possession. The Japanese Communist Party is of course against an increase in the number of nuclear-weapon states for any reason, but it has at the same time criticized the discriminatory inequality of the treaty.

The international community accepted such inequality only because the nuclear powers pledged that they would make sincere efforts for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the existence of this treaty has not prevented new nuclear-weapon states or those planning to go nuclear from coming into existence. To be candid with you, underlying this is the fact that the nuclear powers have not been true to their pledge in the last 39 years since the NPT entered into force.

Above all, it is regrettable that the previous U.S. government and other countries disaffirmed in the 2005 NPT Review Conference "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals" that had been agreed upon in the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Mr. President, you stated in the Prague speech, "(the NPT regime) could reach the point where the center cannot hold." We have to stress that underlying your fear is the fact that the nuclear-weapon states have maintained the said attitudes for the last 39 years.

The way out of this danger will come when the nuclear-weapon states adopt an attitude of sincerity and responsibility for the elimination of nuclear weapons. We must stress that only when they tackle the task of eliminating nuclear weapons, will they obtain the political and moral power to dissuade other countries from pursuing nuclear weapons. I sincerely hope that the nuclear-weapon states confirm the "unequivocal undertaking" towards the elimination of nuclear weapons in the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

As regards the Japan-U.S. relationship, the JCP's basic policy is to turn it from the present one of domination-subordination to one of equal footing. Our firm belief is that only under an equal relationship can we develop real friendship between our two peoples. On this mutual relationship, there are many differences of opinion between your government and our party. Nevertheless, I dared to focus, and wanted to convey our opinion, on one point, the task for all humanity, namely the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The only guarantee against nuclear weapons being used is to create "a world without nuclear weapons." You raised this major goal to the world. Let me repeat once again that I welcome your statement, and hope that the spirit of your statement will be given full play in world politics. I would like to conclude my letter with a wish for the friendship between the United States and Japan to develop.

Sincerely yours,

Kazuo Shii

Chairperson of the Executive Committee
Japanese Communist Party
Member of the House of Representatives, National Diet

Bail Out the Press?

As newspapers drop like flies all across the United States, I can't help but wonder why I majored in print journalism at the University of Maryland.

What was I thinking? Didn't I realize that the Internet would dig the grave of the newspaper? This is what many of my professors said, especially during the last couple of years at the college (I graduated in May 2008). The answer was to be flexible and multifaceted. We were told that we would have to understand online journalism as well as print journalism if we were to make it in the field.

I have long been a fan of the Internet, so much so that you will hardly ever catch me reading a clunky old newspaper. People say the newspaper is more intimate and versatile; I say it's too thick, too messy, and too confusing for someone who wants to browse the headlines quickly and pick and choose what's worth my time. I don't like to jump pages or see ads or get newsprint on my fingers. It's a matter of style; I would rather read the online versions of those newspapers or choose from the wide array of current events coverage that only the Internet can offer.

However, I understand the importance of print newspapers, which function both as the foundation of most of the accurate, detailed day-to-day reporting in the United States and as the tool of the less technologically equipped. I do not want to see their total demise.

What I would like to see is a change - a revolution even. I approve of many solutions put forward by Free Press, whose website provides an essential body of information that explains what has gone wrong with our press and how to make it right. The fundamentals are pretty clear: We need to diversify and decentralize our media in order to foster balanced and local coverage of important events affecting all sectors of society. We need to end the for-profit model of news and seek to provide news coverage just as our society provides police officers and fire fighters (a public service, if you will). This does not imply government control - only government support - and as much as people fear anything resembling a "government-owned media," I would offer that the government has always provided some financial or other support to media, whether it be better postage rates for magazines or public broadcasting licenses. We need not fear any government involvement.

The point is that the people control the media. We don't allow the media to control us. I will add on to this entry later.

On Hate

Some say the world will end in fire.
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire,
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate,
To say that for destruction ice,
Is also great,
And would suffice. -Robert Frost

I don't know why I chose to start this entry with one of my favorite poems. What I do know is that I, like Mr. Frost, associate the end of the world quite closely with the concept of hatred. If there is any thing I stand against (and look to solve), it is hatred.

If you, like me, are fortunate enough to pass your days with loving souls and gentle spirits, you may not often see hate manifest itself. All you have to do is turn on FOX News or read through enough anonymous comments posted on Internet message boards; you will see hate. You might even feel hate as a response. But I would hope that you rise above it.

I was never raised to hate. Even now I can honestly say that I have forgiven all the individuals who have done me the most harm. I am fortunate to also say that not much harm has been done to me in my 22 years. I say this with caution because I know that I have only begun to be tested by the world.

I don't bring up this topic as a personal manner. I wish to call out this ugly monster for what it is: insidious, self-serving, ignorant, and counterproductive. No amount of hatred or response to hatred will ever move humanity in a direction toward peace, justice, and community.

I believe Malcolm X, also known as Al-Hajj Malik al-Shabbazz, recognized this late in his life. I mention him because his birthday passed this week (he would have been 85), and I just recently finished reading his famous autobiography. I would also call myself a great admirer of X, despite his 12 years of promoting separatist religious dogmatism.

Various anecdotes in his autobiography have inspired me not to form exclusive groups based on race, religion, or other arbitrary divisions, but to understand the reasons why such groups form and how they can be transcended. I am talking about building a human family. I strongly believe that had Malcolm survived, he would have been at the forefront of this effort in his later years. He was one of the few Afro-American leaders of his time with a global Black consciousness. African leaders highly respected both his pride and his forthright assessment of apartheid and repression in the United States. His words and deeds also galvanized the Muslim World far beyond Africa.

I admit he had his shortcomings, but I object to the mainstream (read "white") association of Malcolm X with hate. He could indeed be characterized as a hateful and angry man (he once said he was the angriest black man in America); he could be dismissed for being a part of the Nation of Islam alone or for spending the majority of his ministry referring to whites as "devils." Yet the essence of who he was and what he did for fellow blacks and for America went far beyond his harshest words. He stood up to the white man at a time when doing so meant fire hoses, beatings, imprisonment, and even death, and he spoke for (and with) arguably the most oppressed people in the United States: ghetto-dwelling blacks. An oppressed, brutalized people cannot be expected to go straight from centuries of pain to speedy resolution. Indeed many white people understood and respected Malcolm's rage. Some even offered to join his organization or insisted they would do so if they were black.

And as for his effect on the black community, Ossie Davis, who gave Malcolm's eulogy, put it succinctly by calling Malcolm the most shining example of black manhood.

He indeed was a man and would not allow himself or any of his black brothers and sisters to be treated as anything else. As for whites, even after he softened his prejudiced views he maintained the highest of standards. I will never forget Alex Haley's report of his press conference in 1964, when he announced the founding of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU). He was asked if white people were allowed to join. His response: "If John Brown were alive, maybe him."