Peace Protester Meets Military Men; Perceptions or Promise
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
This morning, as I approached the peace corner, two of my fellow demonstrators made mention of the soldiers across the street. Weekly, a throng of Iraq war dissenters stands and pickets on the south side of the street. I position myself on the North end of the avenue. I stand alone. On this afternoon, two young men dressed in Army fatigues, soldiers, situated themselves on the median, yards from where I position myself. They carried plastic bins; patriotic banners were pasted onto these containers. American flags and pamphlets graced their station. The military men collected money from passers-by. They distributed literature. They did their work from the same side of the street I favor.
My comrades in peace and protest were concerned. Perhaps I would not wish to cross over into the abyss of possible confrontations or conflict of interest. I glanced over at the diligent warrior and decided they were as I, people that long for peace. I quickly gathered my sign, pressed the button on the traffic pole, and waited until it was safe to enter the intersection. Cars are my enemy. These fast moving vehicles are, in my mind Weapons of Mass Destruction. People, no matter their attire or philosophical views are not my foes.
Minutes after I took my characteristic stance, held up my sign "Love, Not War" and extended my forefinger and central digit to form the symbol universally acknowledged as "peace" one of the soldiers smiled at me. He faced me and flashed the same sign. Yes, we were on the same side of the street and the issue. Neither of us wants war. We work to bring harmony to a world wrought with distress. The serviceman and I each yearn for global calm.
Throughout the afternoon, I pondered what people might think a dichotomy. I wondered why other picketers thought there might be a problem with my being so near these troops. I reflected; what might those in their automobiles think. Was it likely those in cars would think to wave in appreciation of me was to defy the intent of the military volunteers, or might the travelers consider each of us, soldiers and myself, as joined forces. I observed various notions. I also accepted that some voyagers would see only what they wished to believe, or perhaps we all do.
We may walk down different philosophical paths; yet, I cannot help but believe we are one. We stroll in synch on the same side of a single street.
Days ago, Americans honored our war veterans. On that hallowed occasion, I wept as I thought of all the soldiers that passed. I mourned for those who would die on the battlefields abroad. Grief consumes me as I contemplate those who will take their last breath in transit. I feel such sorrow when I gaze upon a soldier some think fortunate enough to survive. I understand that many have lost the will to live. Those that made the trek and stand strong often tell tales. The war is alive and well within them, frequently for years, even if they appear settled, safe, and secure.
I might muse as many do, "I support the soldiers." However, I understand how trite, contrite, contrived such a claim might sounds, particularly to those that put their lives in on the line, the front line, in the face of great peril as they fight for America's freedoms.
I have infinite faith that each man or woman alive believes in the ethics of their actions, or on the rare occasion that any of us is reactive and engages in the unthinkable, we work to rationalize what we did. Sadly, frequently, we cannot. I have met many a soldier that speaks of how the mission was not what he or she thought it might be. I am familiar with numerous others that, long after, they return home from battle, still believe the cause was just. As I watch these two men collect funds for the fight, for families of the fallen, I wonder; what was and is their experience.
I look over and once more, I am greeted with a smile, a wave, and an acknowledgement that the three of us yearn for world peace. Ah, to be human is to love thy fellow man, and to fight?
Some say aggression is natural. Man by his very nature is combative. Others are certain confrontational behaviors are learned. No matter what we believe, every individual has to grapple with the fact that we are creatures of the Earth, complex, and difficult to understand. However, I believe no one truly wants war or wishes to kill another. Some say they think mass slaughter is an option; however, faced with the possibility, none of us is left unscathed.
Perception, passion, human emotions frequently give rise to errors, crimes against man and nature. People are easily persuaded, pushed, become fearful, and are filled with angst. Each can cause individuals to act against their best judgment or interest. I perpend the soldiers on the Boulevard and reflect. What is their reality. As we exchange glances and consistently acknowledge the other, I trust neither would have said . . .
"I came over here because I wanted to kill people."
By Andrew Tilghman
Washington Post.
Sunday, July 30, 2006; B01" I came over here because I wanted to kill people."
Over a mess-tent dinner of turkey cutlets, the bony-faced 21-year-old private from West Texas looked right at me as he talked about killing Iraqis with casual indifference. It was February, and we were at his small patrol base about 20 miles south of Baghdad. "The truth is, it wasn't all I thought it was cracked up to be. I mean, I thought killing somebody would be this life-changing experience. And then I did it, and I was like, 'All right, whatever.'"
He shrugged.
"I shot a guy who wouldn't stop when we were out at a traffic checkpoint and it was like nothing," he went on. "Over here, killing people is like squashing an ant. I mean, you kill somebody and it's like 'All right, let's go get some pizza.'"
As I read these words, I feel a palpable bravado. The boldness expressed for me is that of a man that felt so deeply, he wanted to feel no more. Months after Private Steven D. Green made this statement, he stood outside a federal courthouse in North Carolina. There he pled 'not guilty' to charges of premeditated rape and murder. Private Green was accused of these crimes. In Mahmudiyah, a fourteen-year-old Iraqi girl and her family fell victim to war and the emotions evoked by such a brutal practice.
Andrew Tilghman, embedded Journalist with the Washington Post wrote of his encounter with Steven D. Green and the tale the young serviceman told prior to his crime. The account was harrowing.
Tilghman describes the circumstances and situation. The correspondent explains he met Private Green in Mahmudiyah, on the edge of the zone known as "The Triangle of Death." It was there that the reporter realized the fear, foreboding of the frontlines. Andrew Tilghman remembers the unrelenting knot death and destruction left in his stomach. He recalls the low morale, the stories of fire, ambush, and the loss of innocence many soldiers and commanders expressed.
The columnist recounts a narrative. The company commander in charge of Green's unit said of himself, he "almost had a nervous breakdown." This trained, experienced, hardened officer was confined to a hotel-style compound in Baghdad for three days of "freedom rest." Without this time away he could not resume his command.
Yet, the journalist notes, he experienced extraordinary camaraderie among the soldiers in Mahmudiyah. Tilghman states, "They were among the friendliest troops I met in Iraq." These troops had been through much together. Washington Post Andrew Tilghman inscribes . . .
When I met Green, I knew nothing about his background -- his troubled youth and family life, his apparent problems with drugs and alcohol, his petty criminal record. I just saw and heard a blunt-talking kid. Now that I know the charges against Green, his words take on an utterly different context for me. But when I met him then, his comments didn't seem nearly as chilling as they do now . . .Green was one of several soldiers I sat down with in the chow hall one night not long after my arrival. We talked over dinner served on cardboard trays. I asked them how it was going out there, and to tell me about some of their most harrowing moments. When they began talking about the December death of Sgt. Kenith Casica, my interview zeroed in on Green.
He described how after an attack on their traffic checkpoint, he and several others pushed one wounded man into the back seat of a Humvee and put Casica, who had a bullet wound in his throat, on the truck's hood. Green flung himself across Casica to keep the dying soldier from falling off as they sped back to the base.
"We were going, like, 55 miles an hour and I was hanging on to him. I was like, 'Sgt. Casica, Sgt. Casica.' He just moved his eyes a little bit," Green related with a breezy candor. "I was just laying on top of him, listening to him breathing, telling him he's okay. I was rubbing his chest. I was looking at the tattoo on his arm. He had his little girl's name tattooed on his arm.
"I was just talking to him. Listening to his heartbeat. It was weird -- I drooled on him a little bit and I was, like, wiping it off. It's weird that I was worried about stupid [expletive] like that.
"Then I heard him stop breathing," Green said. "We got back and everyone was like, 'Oh [expletive], get him off the truck.' But I knew he was dead. You could look in his eyes and there wasn't nothing in his eyes. I knew what was going on there."
He paused and looked away. "He was the nicest man I ever met," he said. "I never saw him yell at anybody. That was the worst time, that was my worst time since I've been in Iraq."
At the time, Private green had served only four months of a one-year stint. He was resigned to a life that recruiters do not speak of. Servicemen and women intent on signing up young enlistees focus on the best of what we would all wish to believe. The military will train enlistees to do a job. The service will provide security. There is money for college, ample adventures, and a well-disciplined community will help to establish leadership skills.
All that may be true. However, there is a price to pay. The cost of engagement in a cold, cruel war, may be too high. Five months before he brutally sexually assaulted a young woman and slaughtered her and her family Private Steven D. Green said . . .
"I gotta be here for a year and there ain't [expletive] I can do about it," he said. "I just want to go home alive. I don't give a [expletive] about the whole Iraq thing. I don't care."See, this war is different from all the ones that our fathers and grandfathers fought. Those wars were for something. This war is for nothing."
Private Green, the soldiers that stood across the street from me, and I may not agree completely. We may differ on the broader construct of combat. Nonetheless, it seems to me, those that served in Iraq, those that expect to ship out, military men and women that saw war firsthand in years past, and I each concede war is not wonderful. It does not bring out the best in people. To kill or be killed is not a quest anyone pursues with love or intent.
Private Steven D. Green reflects and expresses his frustration with the Army brass. Green cries out as he contemplates the calls for caution. He states, soldiers are ordered to be prudent, exercise vigilance, even in the most horrific, dreadful, and grave circumstances. The Private ponders when your life is threatened you are commanded to remain calm.
"We're out here getting attacked all the time and we're in trouble when somebody accidentally gets shot?" he said, referring to infantrymen like himself throughout Iraq. "We're pawns for the [expletive] politicians, for people that don't give a [expletive] about us and don't know anything about what it's like to be out here on the line."
Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, in his book published in 1935 wrote, "War is a racket." The two-time Medal of Honor winner continued, "It has always been." The General would find no fault with the assessment Green makes.
Wars are rarely fought for the reasons that are claimed. Those reasons amount to nothing more than bogus excuses, ways to hoodwink the gullible public, and the vilest propaganda designed to incite people to sacrifice their children for a supposedly glorious cause.The defense of freedom and democracy is one false claim that we often hear in this country. This shameful claim could not be further from the truth.
No one ever bothers to explain how our freedom and democracy are at risk in some obscure little country halfway around the world. That's because the sad and dirty truth is that wars are fought for empire and the financial gain of the few.
I yearn for peace planet wide and I continue to do all that I might to ensure global harmony. Each weekend, I take to the streets to protest the war, just as I did today. The pilgrimage began years ago, before the first bomb struck the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Since then much to my chagrin, many innocents, soldier, and civilians have died, all in the name of terrorism. Americans, allied forces, and citizens of the Middle East. It is a challenge for me to understand; who is the fanatic, the foe, the revolutionary, or the rebel. I know not who fights for freedom and democracy, who occupies, or who liberates. For me, if we resort to killing we are as savages. War and combat are incomprehensible to me. Yet, I long to understand.
~ Thomas Edison [Scientist, Inventor]
Soldiers on active duty and off, also struggle to grasp the greater significance. Some warriors resent persons such as I, or what they believe to be my intention, my presumed purpose, or me. Just as those at the peace protest thought the soldiers on the calm city street in America might approach me with resentment or judgment, some of the troops feel support expressed by dissenters is shallow. Five Iraq War veterans spoke of their return to American life to editors of The New York Times.
Q: Are we mature enough as a country to thank those who risk their lives on our behalf while voicing our outrage at the actions of the politicians who put them in harm’s way?Michael Jernigan: To people who support the troops but not the war — that is your right. But remember there was someone holding a gun who fought so you can have that right. It is tough for me to smile when someone tells me that they support our troops but feel the war is wrong. I stand there and smile and say, “Thank you for sharing your feelings.” I think people say that because it makes them feel better to say it, but they really mean, “Thank you for your service, but really you are an idiot for following that insane president.” It makes me feel belittled. I do not want to hear it. I was a corporal in the United States Marine Corps and I do not make policy so save it for your congressman.
Perception is the truest reality and I believe it is the reason we war. I could have surmised that the soldiers were warmongers, fighters, aggressors, ready to attack and antagonize me. However, that conclusion would be contrary to my basic belief: people are good. I have faith, in the human form, we each error. Emotions cannot be easily understood or controlled. Often, what we feel, what we think true, rules us. Then, later, with regret for what we have thought or done, we rationalize.
This week, as I listened to a National Public Radio interview A Soldier's Journey from Iraq to Grad School, I realized again, the power of the mind, and the role it plays in peace.
Demond Mullins spent a year in Iraq with the National Guard. When he came back, he felt alienated and angry at what he had seen and done in the war. Now Mullins has found a degree of peace in higher learning."Academia ... that's where I'm at," the City University of New York grad student says. "Right now, school, books — Weber, Marx, Durkheim — that's my medication."
That's his medication now. But if it's true that there are seven stages of grief, it's fair to say that Mullins is going through several stages of adjusting to his new life.
Upon his return from Iraq, Mullins hoped to resume his life as it was. Yet, he realized this was not possible. He was no longer the same person; his views changed. The way Demond Mullins saw the world and considered himself had been altered.
Before he enlisted and shipped out, Demond Mullins had been a clothing model. This romantic gentleman once followed a girl to Las Vegas. He had plans. Ambitious and reflective, Mullins joined the National Guard to pay for college; he did not join the armed Services to fight. Yet, that is what he did.
when he tried to resume it, Mullins' old friends kept asking questions, like "What was it like when you shot someone?""I don't know," he says. "My experiences are not pornography for my friends or for anyone else. I use the word pornography because I feel like it is just the ... exploitation of my personal experiences for someone else's entertainment."
Mullins says he either ignored the question "or I would just say, 'You know, I don't want to talk about things like that' or just say, 'I didn't shoot anybody or whatever.'"
'Stressed Out and on the Edge'
He says he's not sure if he did shoot and kill anybody, though he knows exactly what he did at close range."I dehumanized people," Mullins says. "I don't even know how many raids I did while I was there. But during raids you're throwing them up against the wall, you're tying their hands behind their back, you're dragging them out of the bed. You're dehumanizing them in front of their wives and their kids and, you know, the women are crying and the children are crying and you're just like, whatever. Put a bag over their head or blindfold, drag them into the Humvee.
"Certain exhibitions of violence on my part that were probably unnecessary — were definitely unnecessary. But I was really stressed out and on edge at the time and I conducted myself . . . like that."
When he returned from Iraq, Mullins says he felt angry at himself. He broke up with his girlfriend. He spent days in his apartment.
"Staring at the wall. Not eating. I lost about 15 to 20 pounds," he says. "My friends still look at me and like, 'What happened to you?'"
Mullins says he was depressed to the point of being suicidal. Two of his friends have died since their return from Iraq, including one who shot himself in the face, Mullins says.
"To me, that would be the only way that I was capable of doing it because it was fast and it was a tool that I was very familiar with," he says.
Mullins got counseling from the Department of Veterans Affairs. He didn't like it and didn't want to take medication.
He managed to resume college, get a degree and move on to graduate school.
However, the path Demond Mullins took had many twists and turns. Initially, he immersed himself in his anger. Then dedicated to a cause, Demond took action and protested the war. Mullins appeared in an anti-war documentary called The Ground Truth.
"When I first started anti-war activism, it was because I felt guilty," Mullins says. "Because I'd meet people, especially a lot of civilians on the street, and they say, 'Oh, thank you for your service. Thank you for protecting America.' Like, what are you talking about? I wasn't protecting America. I was protecting myself and my buddy, you know?"After Mullins participated in the film, he felt less of a need to speak out.
And by this semester at graduate school, most of his fellow students and at least one of his professors had no idea of his background.
Demond Mullins is now more reflective, philosophical, and aware. He knows, to authentically assess America and this society, he must study.
Perhaps, the servicemen I watched stroll from car to car on this day, were on a similar journey. Perchance, later, after we all finished our work we would speak, not as peace protestor and participants in war, but as people. For now, they had a job to do as did I. Interestingly, in the abstract we each were motivated by peace.
As I interacted with those in vehicles as they passed I continued to ponder. I am close to numerous Veterans. As friends and as fellow protestors against the current wars, I know many a Vietnam Veteran.
One noble and honorably discharged soldier, whom I first met in cyberspace, again dedicates himself to his country. Jerry Northington aspires to be the Congressional Representative from Delaware. As one who fought in country, he understands the woes of warfare.
Family members engaged in battle during World War II. A nephew is off about to depart for Basic Training. Jason joined the Marines. I cannot imagine what his future holds. Will Jason be injured. Will he return whole, if at all. What will my nineteen year young nephew see, hear, and feel. Will he be willing or able to discuss such an ordeal. I am certain what I have been told by those once there on the frontlines is true. War is not pretty. A soldier cannot fully explain what he or she witness. Combat is experienced. It scars the spirit and deprives a man of his senses.
Soldier describes killing unarmed Iraqi
One of three members of sniper team accused of murder makes a tearful confession during testimony in the court-martial of a colleague.
By Ned Parker
Los Angeles Times
September 28, 2007BAGHDAD — U.S. Army Sgt. Evan Vela spoke in a low voice Thursday at the court-martial for his fellow soldier. Tears slid down the 23-year-old's cheeks and the judge prompted him to talk louder.
On May 11, Vela's sniper team had detained an Iraqi man near Jarf Sakhr, Vela testified. Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley undid the ropes that had pinned the prisoner's arms and asked Vela whether he was ready, he said.
The dark-haired Idaho native told the court he wasn't sure what his superior meant at the time. Vela said Hensley cradled the Iraqi's head, straightened his headdress, then moved away from Vela, who gripped a 9-millimeter pistol.
"I heard the word 'shoot.' I don't remember pulling the trigger. I just came to and the guy was dead. It took me a second to realize the shot came from the pistol in my hand," Vela said.
Vela is one of three soldiers from the same sniper team who are accused of premeditated murder in three shootings this spring. Their cases have provided a picture of mentally exhausted troops and the role they allegedly played in a "baiting program," in which snipers are believed to have planted fake weapons and bomb-making materials, then killed anyone who picked them up.
The alleged tactic was revealed in a hearing in July that eventually sent Hensley and Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval Jr. to face court-martial on murder charges. The Pentagon refuses to speak publicly about baiting or other such tactics, but insists that military practices are within the law.
"My client is no murderer. He is a victim," said James Culp, Vela's civilian defense attorney, who suspects that baiting contributed to the slaying of the Iraqi man on May 11.
We are all victims of war and those that command young men and women to shoot another being. Enemies, as nameless and faceless as we wish them to be are as we are. They are humans, with hearts and souls. Minds can be manipulated for a moment or for months. People persuaded or unduly influenced to do as they would never have done may commit crimes. Emotions can evoke feelings of fright that cause us to temporarily separate ourselves from our greater wisdom. However, after any of us does the unthinkable, we are left with the memories. Overtime, we reflect on the meaning. Perhaps that is why those that fought in battles are often less likely to resort to combat.
There must be a lesson, a means to communicate the tragedy of war before we engage. For now, I can only propose what I envisioned as a child. As I reflect on the story, The Truce of Christmas, A Silent Night 1914, I understand the power of true knowledge. When people stop and listen to the hearts of others, not the harangue of irrational "intellectualizations," they learn to love. When we see strangers as similar to us, we cannot kill. Indeed, we connect to the commonality that is humankind.
Hence, I believe, world leaders must face each other alone in a room for more than a moment. The argumentative among us must eat and sleep with those they disagree with. Perhaps, if the need to compete overwhelms those in power, they might arrange a chess tournament. A "war game" played on a checkered board might relieve the angst some feel when they argue. Thoughtful battles would do far less harm. Physical and financial wounds would be less severe. This is but a thought. I trust there are infinite opportunities to connect that we might consider. Unquestionably, there must be a better way to learn the lessons of war before a soldier loses a limb.
Jonathan Bartlett, one of 25,000 military persons injured during the Iraq war speaks of his trauma and trials. When Bartlett was a 19-year-old Army Corporal his truck hit a bomb on a road near Fallujah. That was three years ago. The explosion blew off both of his legs. Today, he appears in a Home Box Office [HBO] documentary titled Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq. In an interview with Vanity Fair Columnist Austin Merrill, Jonathon shares the conflict within. He explains how the battle has just begun, or perhaps Bartlett plainly states how the battle never ends. Merrill inquires . . .
At one point in the film you say that you'd do it all over again. Then later you say that if given your legs back, you'd move on to do something else.[Jonathon Bartlett] replies] I would do it all over again if I went back to the age of 18 and they told me, you're going to join the army. I'd say yes. But if they gave me new legs tomorrow, I wouldn't go back. I was 18 and idealistic and naïve and uninformed, and I didn't know how the world works. Now I'm 22 and idealistic and naïve, but I do know how the world works. And I'm not going to go fight in a war that's so badly run, that some people don't give a [expletive] about. There's just so much bad [expletive] going on in this war. I don't want any part of it.
Yet, Bartlett goes on to clarify for him the problem with this war is not the warriors. It is the leaders. Jonathon Bartlett is angry with the Commander-In-Chief and his Cabinet. This soldier believes the nation's leaders did not have a plan. The soldiers were well trained. He was a good trooper.
I was good at being a soldier. I say that with no shame or no boasting. I was good at being a soldier. Mostly because I enjoyed it.What does being a good soldier mean, exactly?
I could shoot straight, I could ride true, and I could speak the truth. I could fight, I could think. I took care of my stuff. I took care of my vehicles. I looked the part all the time, which is very important. I knew how to talk, which gets you in trouble. I knew how to work the system. I knew how to acquire things. I could take care of my buddies.
Bartlett believes the Bush Administration is at fault, not the soldiers. On this, we would agree. However, when asked of peace protesters and retired Generals that speak out against the conflict he offers a view that befuddles me.
How do you feel when you see people rallying for or protesting against the war?
I think all of them have a massive disrespect for the soldiers who are over there, because they do not understand. They have no [expletive] clue. We don't have a choice. As soon as you sign that paper and swear that oath, we do not have a choice. We go wherever the hell the president and the generals tell us to. People who say if you're against this war you're against the soldiers are displaying their ignorance. Most people don't understand. They just don't get it. You know how many times I've been asked by some stupid person, some civilian, how many people did you kill? You don't ask a soldier that. I was a trained killer. That was my job, man. Somebody has to do it. Being a soldier is a job.What do you think of the retired generals who have come out against the war? Is that a betrayal?
No! It's good! They should have been doing that [expletive] when they were still in. I don't think it's a betrayal. These generals understand that they have soldiers on the line. The best generals are those who know what it means to be a troopie. A ground pounder. A supply clerk. This administration keeps throwing people at a problem and expecting it to fix it. It's not how things are done. You have to give them a plan. You have to lead them. And these generals understand that. The president does not. The president doesn't have a [expletive] clue.
The clue may be cryptic and not part of our conscious mind. As I stood at the corner, I thought the soldiers were on a peaceful mission. Fellow dissenters were certain there might be a confrontation.
Our view of others and ourselves provides, perspective. Perceptions are profoundly altered. Jonathon Bartlett has long believed military service was in his blood. His mother and father were each in the Navy. Jonathon was trained to protect, defend, and kill, and to consider each of these options tantamount. The young man trusts that Generals understand this. Yet, Mister Bartlett believes there must be a strategy if a mass massacre is to be effective.
Perhaps, that is the paradox. We coach our young to be combative. As a culture, we do not expect world harmony. We do not believe it can exist.
We must acknowledge and accept, what each of us believes affects our idea of war, peace, perpetrators, and protestors. An experience may cause us to blame, to frame friends and foes in a manner that does not make sense to others.
As I reflect on the words of Jonathon Bartlett, I am confused. While critical of those that demonstrate in favor of global accord, Private Bartlett also believes the individuals that think protestors are against the soldiers are in error. The Iraq war Veteran reasons, military leaders must speak out, stand strong, and stress ''we need a plan. The dichotomy befuddles. Perchance, another soldier explained the circumstances best. Sandi Austin discussed her view of the peace protestors.
For the most part, I feel that the majority of anti-war activists focus on our political leaders and not the soldiers. Driving by the anti-war protests I usually see signs the relay messages in support of the troops, but opposing the cause. Perhaps if I still wore a uniform I would feel differently, I might get glares or comments, but because I too am a civilian, I haven’t faced any hostility or felt unappreciated on a regular basis.
I wonder. When people go to war, do they flail at uniforms and forget that a person inhabits the clothing? Might appearances motivate us to engage in battle? As I reflect on the day, I realize, I could have reacted to the olive green and khaki camouflage fabric. The shaved heads, the American flags, the military garb . . . I might have been offended. If I had done as advised, I would have kept a distance. The servicemen might have concluded I did not understand. They too could have chosen to do other than they did. War, on a small scale may have ensued. Instead, each of us gave peace a chance.
Imagine if world leaders chose not to presume, assume, suppose or surmise, if soldiers were not sent off into battle, if we established a Department of Peace and left the Defense Department behind. I can dream and act in accordance.
Perceptions; The Promise of Peace . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 18, 2007 at 08:15 PM in Active-Duty Troops , Activism, American Patriotism, Civil Disobedience, Iraq War, Military Missions, Morality in an Immoral War, Peace Movement, Peaceful Protests, War and Peace, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Why War?, World War I Christmas Truce | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Climate of Fear Permeates; Morton High School Students Protest
Climate of Fear
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It was a quiet day in America; yet, the feeling of fear was palpable. Oceans away, in Baghdad, the air was filled with the smell of napalm. Frightened, as the young contemplated their future, seventy some courageous and committed students filed into the Morton West High School cafeteria in Berwyn, Illinois. Trepidation for their lives, and the lives of friends, family, and those innocent Iraqi citizens they never met prompted these pupils to take action. The young and eligible enlistees protested the war in Iraq.
Years earlier, dissent against this unjust battle was unthinkable. The Twin Towers fell. The Pentagon was hit. Other buildings were threatened and the nation panicked. America could not comprehend there might be blood shed on the tranquil shores of their homeland. Citizens were willing to do anything to ensure no more lives would be lost in the land of their birth. If it meant countrymen must sacrifice their freedoms, so be it. Immediately, Congress was called into session. Bills were passed and liberties lost. America was attacked; and thus, we were at war.
Theories were bantered about. Osama Bin Laden, the enemy behind the assault, was in Afghanistan. Terrorists were within our country. Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The thousands killed on September 11, 2001 were just the beginning. Certainly, we must know as a continent, North America is no longer safe. Air travel has opened all borders. Trains, boats, and planes were no longer means of transport. These are potential missiles.
Acquiescent, the American public believed they were not safe. Yet, fearful as the people were they knew this country must come together and show its strength. At ground zero a crowd stood and chanted, "USA, USA!" The Commander-In-Chief took the bull by the horn or the bullhorn and calmed the throng. He said . . .
"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,"
It was then that the former friendly fellow, the man that had failed in most all of his business ventures, the son of a President whose success was said to be tied to his name, appeared decisive. The President, placed into the Oval Office by the Supreme Court, not by the people, became the protector. From the moment Bush stood on the mound of rumble and raised his voice, Americans followed his lead.
George W. Bush led his Secretary of State astray. Colin Powell addressed the United Nations with what Bush and Vice President Cheney knew was not "solid" intelligence. The Commander prompted his Cabinet to lie to Congress. The President's pal and Attorney General told a nation the Rules of the Geneva Convention are quaint. Our leader authorized torture. He trolled telephones. President Bush took us to the airport and asked us to take our shoes off. He read our library records and convinced us there was reason to forfeit our rights. The President of the United States played on our fears and we accepted his truths. Americans became apathetic and perhaps pathetic.
However, just as in years past, when an unpopular war was sold to the American public, when a threat [then communism, now terrorism] loomed large in the minds of those told to fear the youth responded, Morton High School's young scholars decided they must speak out. They entered the dining hall, a nook in the cranny of a huge building, a place where pupils often feel, or felt able to break from bureaucracy. For students, the canteen is considered a safety zone. Every high school has one, a place where pupils can relax, chat, gather, and forget the fears that flank them in the halls, and stalls of academia.
Yet, on this day, November first, All Saints Day, and a national day of peace, the lunchroom furnished no refuge. Apprehensive Administrators swooped down on the young scholars as they exercised their democratic right to free speech. Frightened school officials did just as a petrified President had done. Under the guise of informed authority, the Superintendent and Principal imposed retaliatory measures.
As is often true in a climate of fear, the terrified meet the terrified, and the trouble begins. When filled with fear a person in a powerful position does not wish to show his or her weakness. Thus, they adopt a punitive posture to appear in control; George W. Bush, Superintendent Ben Nowakowski , you decide.
The Berwyn School District bureaucrats selectively singled two-dozen students for expulsion. [Might these individuals be as those sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison, or off to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records, for interrogation.] Morton West, Morton High School District 201 Superintendent Nowakowski told parents, pupils involved in the protest that are seventeen years or older would also face police charges. [Ah, those of a certain age may be as the persons of Middle Eastern descent. People in power think it just to profile agitators.] High achievers, athletes, and those whose parent are well connected were exempt from the more severe penalties. [Frequent fliers, white businessmen, and little old ladies . . .perhaps these persons are above reproach.] Indeed, school officials telephoned many prominent Moms and Dads and warned them. Take your child home. Be sure your son or daughter returns to class. Cease or dismiss.
The injustice was obvious; even mothers and fathers were distressed. Parents questioned School Board members and Administrators. They asked, what have we as a people become when we suppress speech, suspend dialogue, and arrest those that assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps, after all these years of war and Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were, the adults realize they too must question authority.
Parents and students say that penalties were too harsh -- and unfairly dispensed -- for some of those involved in the protest. More than a dozen parents at the meeting in the Morton East auditorium told the board that students who play varsity athletics or have a high grade point average were given less stringent penalties.Maniotis said her daughter Barbara, a junior at the high school, participated in the protest but was given a 5-day suspension and does not face expulsion because she is an honor student with a 4.5 GPA. Other students received 10-day suspensions with the possibility of expulsion.
"She did the same thing they did," Maniotis said. "This entire incident is outrageous. The school missed out on a wonderful teachable moment. Instead, they cracked down on them right away and turned it into a punitive situation."
Parents have said they want their children reinstated and the penalties removed from their records.
However, the Board and the Superintendent chose to exert its power. The community gathered thousands of signatures in support of the students. Parents, neighbors, concerned citizens met with authorities and stated, the punishment for protestors is too harsh. Those in power argued the point. School authorities might have said, "We do not torture." Waterboarding, while repugnant, is just in "real life" situations.
School officials also sent a letter to the parents of all the school’s students calling the protest “gross disobedience” and reminding parents that any disruption to the educational process could lead to expulsion.
Disobedience and dissention must be deterred. There can be no distractions. Our mission is clear. If we are to accomplish our goal, all threats must be eliminated. Presidents and Principals, Secretary's of State and Defense and Superintendents remind us, we have reasons to fear. This is the "age of terror."
Americans know by now, as we accept our telephones are tapped, any time we question authority we are in insubordination. Countrymen chuckle on reflection as they ponder, I almost got sent to Guantanamo. We are anxious regardless of what is real, for in truth, reality is perception. As long as we perceive a threat, there is one, and those in power will act in accordance. Innocents will be sent to [Guantanamo Bay] prison without due process.
Morton High school Principal, Mister Lucas was fretful despite of what occurred or did not. The protesters, pupils were extremely peaceful. They did as they were told to do. Law enforcement officers observed all went well. Nevertheless, fear flourished amongst Administrators.
[S]everal students said the protesters, whose numbers had dwindled to about 25, obeyed the administration’s request to move from a high-traffic area in the cafeteria to a less-crowded hall near the principal’s office. There, they intertwined arms, sang along to an acoustic guitar and talked about how the war was affecting the world, said Matt Heffernan, a junior who took part.“We agreed to move to another side of the building,” Matt said. “We also made a deal that if we moved there, there would be no disciplinary action taken upon us.”
Matt said the group had been told that the most severe punishment would be a Saturday detention for cutting class that day.
Police officers were on the scene, and Berwyn’s police chief, William Kushner, said no arrests were made. “It was all very peaceful and orderly,” he said.
But at the end of the school day, Matt said, Dr. Nowakowski gave the remaining protesters disciplinary notices stating that they had engaged in mob action, that they were suspended for 10 days and that they faced expulsion.
The sense of being actively involved in the community and in the civic process is weighty and can be woeful. As a Morton High School student stated; upon reflection he had "feelings of confidence — of a job well done." However, faced with expulsion he also embraced anxiety "and fright, because my whole educational future is at risk.”
Education for American students is at risk whether they protest the war or not. As the battles in the Middle East intensify, our youngest citizens watch expectantly. Currently, they are not forced to take up arms; yet, the cost of an advanced degree, the expense of living on your own, salaries, or more accurately, practically speaking, minimum wages threaten the security of a young mind. Military recruiters know this, as does the Administration, local and Federal. Armed Forces representatives maximize on the fear and the White House blesses such actions.
The practice began just after America surrendered itself to permanent apprehension. The Twin Towers fell and so too did the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was set aside in favor of the Patriot Act. The Commander-In-Chief of the United States, George W. Bush proposed we leave no child behind. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Mister Bush garnered support for a initiative that would change the lives of young Americans forever. The "Education" President signed the measure and a new military force was born.
Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
"I was very surprised the requirement was attached to an education law," says Shea-Keneally. "I did not see the link."
The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation's high schools are "problem schools" for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."
Slights or the restricted right of entry seemed odious to pro-war Congressman Vitter, a man too young to have fought in a foreign battle. Attitudes such as his may helped build a system of recruitment that expanded our military defense. Prior to the initiative that allowed military representatives to sell their schpeel to High School students interest and investment in America's youth was not equally distributed. Nor is it now. The difference is, under current law, military recruiters can more easily find men and women willing to enlist. With thanks to No Child Left Behind the armed forces can focus on those most in need. That is best. After all, the affluent have opportunities that ensure economic and academic success. The rich are less likely to enlist.
[I]t appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."
The kinds of people that are targeted are poor or lower Middle Class. Plebeian families will sacrifice their progeny disproportionately. Morton West High School in Berwyn, is nestled in a working-class suburb just west of Chicago. Soldiers dressed in uniform, don sparkly metals, and wear shined shoes as they stroll the halls of this blue-collar neighborhood school campus. They smile and sweet-talk eager teens. Recruiters befriend students and promise them a bright future if they enlist. In part, this helped to provide perspective for the pupils and prompted the protest.
Disabled Gulf War veteran Cesar Ruvalcaba, dressed in his military uniform, chose to lash out at military recruiters allowed to roam the halls of the school."Shame on the administrators who think receiving military money from recruiters is more important than the education of their students," he told the board. "I am 100 percent disabled, and I learned the hard way that education, not carrying a machine gun, is the key to success. It's those people who are pro-war who would never drop everything and go fight for the red, white, and blue. These kids should receive extra credit for speaking up, not expulsion."
Morton High School students are not alone. After years of subjection, some schools are fighting back. Administrators have decisively stood up for their students. Principals refuse to be part of the Bush regime or relegate academics to expulsion. Principals ask whether funds from No Child Left Behind provisions are worth the cost, the lost of freedom.
Rift over recruiting at public high schools
A Seattle high school bars military solicitation, touching off debate over Iraq war and free speech.
By Dean Paton
The Christian Science Monitor
May 18, 2005Seattle - While most Parent Teacher Student Association meetings might center on finding funding for better math books or the best way to chaperon a school dance, a recent meeting here at Garfield High School grappled with something much larger - the war in Iraq.
The school is perhaps one of the first in the nation to debate and vote against military recruiting on high school campuses - a topic already simmering at the college level . . .
High schools are struggling with a similar issue as the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools receiving federal funding must release the names of its students to recruiters. Some feel that's an invasion of privacy prompted by a war effort that has largely divided the American public. Others say barring recruiters is an infringement of free speech - and a snub to the military, particularly in a time of war.
Garfield High School took a decisive step last week with a vote of 25 to 5 to adopt a resolution that says "public schools are not a place for military recruiters."
All this comes as recruiters struggle to meet enlistment goals.
Perchance, Americans no longer wish to live a life in fear. Our countrymen finally decided to vote for change. However, it did not come. Now the children take up the cause. Perhaps they will be more successful. With the support of their parents, the impossible may be probable. Indeed, it is, slightly.
Last evening, the Superintendent of Berwyn Schools released a statement. [On the same day some troops are slated to return home to American shores, not because the President heard the people say exit Iraq, but because, physically, they could no longer remain in battle] suspended students could and would return to class. School records will not reflect, peaceful rebellions as a dishonorable reason for discharge. Although Administrative faces are saved, it is important to consider that this is a step. We may move closer to educational experiences and further from a culture of fear. One can hope.
I offer the link for your perusal. Please read the Superintendent's proclamation. Please share your thoughts, quietly. Remember class is in session. Recruiters may still be listening and the Bush regime remains in office.
As you, dear reader, breathe deeply and ponder the protestors' plight, might I submit, alls is not well; nor did this situation truly end well. Granted, the students will be reinstated. Those that wish to pursue a military career will, and those that do not, will not. However, there is more to this story. Power plays; those that instill fear, fear not. Even when we think the Authorities care; they are concerned, and will no longer abuse, use or manipulate, we discover they continue to do as they have done.
Eight million veterans got their education thanks to the World War II GI Bill, which covered tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend while they were in school. A 1988 Congressional study proved that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.Unfortunately, the current educational benefits offered to veterans are far lower than the original GI Bill. In fact, they cover only 60-70% of the average cost of four years at a public college or university, or less than two years at a typical private college. Our veterans deserve better.
A new GI [Government Issue] Bill is being crafted in Congress. However, Americans have reason to think this too shall not pass. If we the voters learn from the Morton High School students and state what we think, perhaps, veterans will have the chance they were promised . . . that is if they live to return home.
Let s fear no more. Americans cannot sit silent. If you wish to communicate to your Congress Person, please do. The time is now.
Help Veterans Continue their Education.
Sources of Fear; Culture of Care. . .
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 15, 2007 at 01:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Activism, Adult Influence on Children, Afghanistan, American Patriotism, Americana, Bush 43 Administration, CIA Prisons, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Congress and Bush, Current Affairs, Domestic Security, Education or War, Emotional Decisions, Exit Iraq Now, Fear, Inequality in America, International Security, Iraq War, Lies, Military Missions, National Security, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Peace Movement, Politics, Question Everything, Saddam Hussein, Teach The Children, The Patriot Act , War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
War of Words. Bloggers, Broadcasters, Rappers Code of Ethics
Oprah on Imus (Public forum with Russell and others) 2
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
In this tome, I am not advocating autocratic censorship. I ask each of us to look within and consciously choose an empathetic ethical code.
"There is a problem." However, Americans do not agree what the problem is. Sexism, racism, homophobia, violence, or the words we use to promote such social ills. For weeks, language has been in the news, on the blogs, in the airwaves, and in music-industry executives meeting rooms. Free speech is the topic in question, as is the power of words. As children, we learned that "Sticks and stones may break our bones; but names will never hurt me." In fact, the opposite is true. Words and the inferences can cause greater, and more last injuries than twigs or rocks might. The body heals far better than the heart does.
After receiving numerous death threats, blogger Kathy Sierra called on the blogosphere to confront the culture of cruelty in cyberspace. This active author and public speaker, fears for her life. Missus Sierra recently canceled public speaking engagements and suspended her site. On her weblog, Kathy Sierra writes . . .
If you want to do something about it, do not tolerate the kind of abuse that includes threats or even suggestions of violence (especially sexual violence). Do not put these people on a pedestal. Do not let them get away with calling this "social commentary," "protected speech," or simply "criticism."For weeks, Missus Sierra has been immobilized. After becoming the focus of ample threats, inclusive of a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose, she stated . . .
"I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."The police are investigating the harassment and the blogosphere is blazing. Discussions of how women are treated online are fueling a fire. While, on her own site, Creating Passionate Users, Kathy Sierra receives much support, there are those that think her call for civility and courtesy is ridiculous.
In Death threats and blogging, by the famous Kos condemnation of a proposed code was evident.
[T]he rantings of a lunatic. For my part, I've gotten my fair share of such vile emails. Some of them have threatened my children. One or two actually crossed the line into "death threat" territory. But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats. For better or for worse, this isn't a country in which media figures -- even hugely controversial ones -- are routinely attacked by anything more dangerous than a cream pie.This dictum on Daily Kos was posted on April 12, days before an angry aggressor, Cho Seung-Hui avenged those he loathed at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The shooter's rants were his truth. His threats proved to be powerful. Cho Seung-Hui may not have sent his last package in a timely manner. Nevertheless, he did warn and alarm many years before he carried out this horrific and planned deed.Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work. Because no "blogger code of conduct" will scare away psycho losers with access to email.
Words can be wicked. They are often used as weapons. Expressions wound a heart and soul; they hurt. Yet, we excuse these repeatedly. Mel Gibson declared, "I am not anti Semitic" after a tirade that was terribly intolerant. This was not the Directors first show of fury against Jews. Nevertheless, it was excused. It did promote momentary concerns.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Gibson's apology "unremorseful and insufficient." Prominent Hollywood talent agent Ari Emanuel called for an industry boycott of Gibson in a blog posted Monday.Nonetheless, money ruled. His next movie "Apocalypto," distributed by The Walt Disney Company received rave reviews, even from periodicals that some consider Progressive. The almighty buck may not reduce bigotry. Actually, it may help to create it."At a time of escalating tensions in the world, the entertainment industry cannot idly stand by and allow Mel Gibson to get away with such tragically inflammatory statements," he wrote. "People in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him, even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line.
"There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money."
In recent years, [Mel Gibson] has turned his attention to producing films and TV shows through his Icon Productions. The hundreds of millions of dollars he made producing the 2004 film "The Passion of the Christ" has given the star the ability to finance his own films, giving him a measure of independence from the major studios.Some "artists" using racial slurs make millions. They defend their right to do so. Many or most apologize. However, there is skepticism. Why are they contrite. Can a heart change in a moment or is cash their concern.
When Michael Richards railed against Blacks in his audience, he was quite impassioned. His "hate speak" seemed infinitely sincere. Smears spewed; slights slammed, all said with sincerity. These affronts fell trippingly off his tongue. The comedian apologized while explaining, "I am not a racist." The response was "Really?" It is difficult to know whether Michael Richards has or will recover from such a blunder or the unbelievable statement, "I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane about this."
Will Don Imus be deeply effected by his debacle? The debate continues. Again, cash was cut off, at least temporarily. Imus was apologetic and ashamed, perchance more so after advertisers raised the volume on this discussion. Ultimately Don Imus lost his battle. The major television and radio networks that carried the Don Imus Show felt they could no longer support him. The load was too great; the rewards realized too little. Don Imus had become a distraction.
Executives at CBS and MSNBC saw where the numbers were heading. They may well have been genuinely disgusted by Imus' reference to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos," but their decision to dump him had little to do with moral outrage. They simply did the math. They'll miss the millions they would have earned from Imus' show, but they stood to lose even more if they let him stay on the air, and so he was toast.However, unlike Don Imus who justifies his antics as comedy, and whose money is or was tied to corporate sponsors, there are the rappers. They too are coming under attack.Free speech, meet free enterprise.
For political prominents, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Bruce Gordon enough is enough. These gentlemen want the smears to end. These Black leaders think even Black on Black rubs need to be eliminated from our common language. Two wrongs do not make a right. Racism, bigotry, and misogyny cannot be defined differently depending on who exhibits such behavior. Reverend Al Sharpton is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to punish artists and announcers alike for advocating violence in word and deed.
In 2005, this issue was fresh and addressed. Then, a member of rap group, The Game was wounded during a shooting outside a New York hip-hop radio station. The cause was clear; another hip-hopper, 50 Cent was on the air criticizing The Game. Tempers flared. The effect of word weaponry was realized. The rest is rap or American history. After this volatile event, civil rights leader Al Sharpton . . .
The founder of the National Action Network emphasized in the letter: "We cannot sit silently by while young Americans feel that shootings and bloodshed is now synonymous with success and celebrity. We understand you're in the business of making money, but it cannot be at the expense of polluting the cultural outlook of young Americans."However, two years later, rappers again speak to their creativity, just cause, and the need to communicate their concerns.
Rappers reason they are poets; they please the people. Although admittedly, not all the people. The recent allegations of racial and misogynistic rhetoric against Don Imus amplified a too often delayed or dissuaded discussion. Is it proper to demean women or people of other ethnicities. Might a poet use his or her artistic licenses? Is it just when an performer uses racial slurs, or vile vernacular against one of their own? Today, USA Today reported . . .
Imus fallout: Music execs discuss rap lyricsAgain, we stand still. Money moves mountains; yet, capital does not necessarily change minds. We think, and act on our beliefs. When people profess their deepest, darkest chauvinistic values, spirits are often broken. Lives can be lost.NEW YORK (AP) — In the wake of Don Imus' firing for his on-air slur about the Rutgers women's basketball team, a high-powered group of music-industry executives met privately Wednesday to discuss sexist and misogynistic rap lyrics.
During the furor that led to Imus' fall last week from his talk-radio perch, many of his critics carped as well about offensive language in rap music.
The meeting, called by hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, was held at the New York home of Lyor Cohen, chairman, and chief executive of U.S. music at Warner Music Group. The summit, which lasted several hours, did not result in any specific initiative.
Organizers billed the gathering as a forum to "discuss issues challenging the industry in the wake of controversy surrounding hip-hop and the First Amendment." Afterward, they planned to hold a news conference at a Manhattan hotel to discuss "initiatives agreed upon at the meeting." But by early afternoon, the news conference was postponed, because the meeting was still going on.
After the meeting ended, it was unclear whether there would be another one. Simmons' publicist released a short statement that described the topic as a "complex issue that involves gender, race, culture and artistic expression. Everyone assembled today takes this issue very seriously."
Although no recommendations emerged, the gathering was significant for its who's-who list of powerful music executives.
Rappers know this as do bloggers. Suffering students are realizing that words, written or spoken cannot be ignored. The common folk and tycoons agree; yet, they disagree. This is evident when we listen to recent Oprah Winfrey town-hall meeting. Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons of Hip-Hop Summit Action Network stated his beliefs . . .
"We're talking about a lot of these artists who come from the most extreme cases of poverty and ignorance ... And when they write a song, and they write it from their heart, and they're not educated, and they don't believe there's opportunity, they have a right, they have a right to say what's on their mind," he said.I wonder; might our number one concern be the hearts and minds of all humans, men, women, Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red, and Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians too. Whether we are born in poverty or into wealth, we are human. We hurt; we bleed. We can love; however, as long as our language degrades another, love will not survive. Perhaps, neither will we. I am reminded of the phrase, "race riots," or "the war against women." I fear the folly of expressing emotions in a manner that kills heart, mind, body, or soul. I prefer the words, "May peace be with you my brother and my sister.""Whether it's our sexism, our racism, our homophobia or our violence, the hip-hop community sometimes can be a good mirror of our dirt and sometimes the dirt that we try to cover up," Simmons said. "Pointing at the conditions that create these words from the rappers ... should be our No. 1 concern."
For me, a code of ethics need not be written or etched in stone; it must be lived because we believe in love, peace, and tranquility.
The Rap and Resources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 19, 2007 at 12:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Abuse, Advertising, Aggression, Americana, Black Men, Bloggers Unite, Business, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Communities, Communities and Communication , Consumption and Content, Corporate Profits, Current Affairs, Daily Kos, Discussion, Economics, Emotional Intelligence, Ethics, Ethics and Profits, Manipulated Media, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga , Philosophy, Racial Discrimination, Social Order Teaches , Standards in Society, Violence, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq Dissenters Peacefully March. Request 'Power to the People'
In 2003, American occupiers marched into Baghdad, and forcefully changed the Iraqi regime. United States officials proclaimed they took this action in the name of democracy. When, on April 9, the statue of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein fell, American President George W. Bush [or the Navy] announced, "Mission Accomplished." The war was a success. At present, we cannot be certain who postulated the theory. The Administration tells us the Navy was responsible for this assertion. The maritime services say the White House made the banner famously seen in the background while President acknowledged a United States victory. Although, we do not know who avowed our triumph, we recall who contended the Iraq war was in its last throes.
Nevertheless, Mister Bush, and his Cabinet decisively declared, Iraqis hold dear the principles that serve Americans well. With the fall of the dictatorial leader, freedom is theirs. The American public was told, from that day forward, Iraqi individuals, would have the right to participate in their government. All the citizens of Iraq could, would, and do vote for their representatives. Indeed, the Iraq government is now of, by, and for the people, the American people.
With thanks to citizens of the United States social equality exists throughout this Middle Eastern country, even if it was imposed irreverently and ineffectually.
In 2007, on this the anniversary of the fall, in a country deeply divided, tens of thousands of people joined together. Iraqis' stepped on the national pennant of their oppressors. These religious and secular factions correctly believe Americans and allied forces marched on their national banner. Thus, the Iraqi's show their distain, reciting, 'One "good" turn deserves another.'
The demonstration, which has remained peaceful, was being held at the urging of militant Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. He exhorted Iraqi security forces on Sunday to unite with his militiamen against the American military in Diwaniya, an embattled southern city in Iraq where fighting has raged for four days.While the American Mainstream Media criticizes the intent of Mister Sadr, and negates his credibility, it is interesting to observe the power of this man or this mission. The people of Iraq are truly speaking for themselves. They want the oppressors out! This ever-growing group of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, formerly fighting amongst themselves and with each other, is united in one cause, a “call for liberation.” These tired men and women, children too, wear tattered clothing. Their spirits are torn. Yet, they have the strength and the will to protest, peacefully.Mr. Sadr’s statement did not explicitly call for armed struggle against the Americans, but it still represented his most forceful condemnation of the American-led occupation since he went underground after the start of an intensified Baghdad security crackdown nearly two months ago.
The demonstrators marched to Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, from neighboring Kufa, with two cordons of Iraqi police lining the route. Some at the rally waved small Iraqi flags; others hoisted a giant flag 10 yards long, the Associated Press reported. Leaflets fluttered through the breeze reading: “Yes, Yes to Iraq” and “Yes, Yes to Moktada. Occupiers should leave Iraq.”Ironically, that is what President Bush and Vice President Cheney said to the American public; they wanted to provide freedom for the people of Iraq. However, they are as they were, unwilling to do this. Their words did not reveal the truer plan. This war would be protracted. We intend to stay, to protect our oil interests, and to maintain bases in the Middle East.“The enemy that is occupying our country is now targeting the dignity of the Iraqi people,” said lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, head of Mr. Sadr’s bloc in parliament, as he marched, according to the A.P. “After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded.”
A senior official in Mr. Sadr’s organization in Najaf, Salah al-Obaydi, called the rally a “call for liberation,” the A.P. reported. “We’re hoping that by next year’s anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty.”
Upon reflection, this was and is obvious. When one country, or its Commander-In-Chief, in this case America and the Bush-Cheney Cabinet, concludes that they are privileged merely because they have military and monetary power, they often act as emperors. Pompous leaders propagate evil, while seeing it elsewhere. A superpower frequently exerts force against all that they declare an enemy. Much ill is wrought in the name of "justice." Sadly, wars are fought in a futile attempt to promote peace.
Americans, or their influential Administrators, with little information, believing they are right, fight for the freedom of those that they know nothing about. Lies are promoted facilitating the conquest. Thus, we have the Iraq conflict.
Certainly, it is a challenge to watch a dictator execute thousands of his own people. However, to enter a country and slay thousands more in defense of your belief is not a solution. To claim that "you," the United States of America have the right to dictate policy, or to chose governance, simply because you are saintly or sanctimonious, does not honor peace for all people. A punitive practice such as that Americans allowed is counter productive.
Mister Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, Missus Rice, please understand to justify "your" own reactive behavior, asserting that the other is evil or has done wrong, is infantile. I was a toddler when I learned "Two wrongs do not make a right." When will you ever learn? When will you give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. They are begging, pleading, for the right to be free.
The Iraqi dissenters are demonstrating as Americans might if our territory was taken over. They are assembling and speaking out against an autocrat who assumes authority against the wishes of the people.
“This is the right to assemble, the right to free speech — they didn’t have that under the former regime,” [Colonel Steven Boylan, an American military spokesman and aide to the commander of all American forces in Iraq] said. “This is progress, there’s no two ways about it.”After four plus years of violence, the citizens of Iraq feel they can take no more. There is aggression on the fields, in the streets, and in people's homes. Hearts are hurt. Individuals are lashing out. Hostility is everywhere; it is worsening. Forlornly, Iraqis are fighting their brethren. Thus, a call for change.
Mr. Sadr’s call for resistance came as the American military announced the deaths of 10 soldiers in five attacks over the weekend, the highest two-day total for American fatalities since the new security plan began Feb. 14. Five soldiers were wounded. Violence against Iraqis continued unabated on Sunday, with at least 43 people killed or found dead. Seventeen were killed and 26 wounded in a car bombing near a hospital and mosque in the insurgent enclave of Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad.Moktada al-Sadr realizes "United we stand; divided we fall." This organizer knowingly offers insight, stating the invaders that reside in our region under the guise of "liberator" are the terrorists. Mister Sadr may be helping the Iraq people find the will and the way to settle the sectarian disagreements among the people of Iraq. Moktada al-Sadr says 'We need to take our country back." In other words, Moktada al-Sadr offers the oft-heard expression, 'Power to the People.' I, for one, wish him, more precisely, the people of Iraq success. My hope is that citizens in every nation will take the power back peacefully.Mr. Sadr’s statement on Sunday indicated he might be ready to resume steering his militia, the Mahdi Army, toward more open confrontation with the American military.
The Mahdi Army has generally been lying low during the Baghdad security plan, but intense fighting broke out in Diwaniya on Friday between militiamen and American-led forces. The battles erupted when American and Iraqi soldiers isolated neighborhoods in Diwaniya to search for militiamen. Fighter jets hit militia positions on Saturday, and one police official said at least seven Iraqis had been killed and 15 wounded in the fighting. Residents reported American soldiers scampering across rooftops on Saturday evening.
The battles in Diwaniya have been the most violent in months between the Mahdi Army and the Americans, and could portend violence in other strongholds of the Sadr militia. Mahdi Army fighters began moving to Diwaniya and other southern cities when the Baghdad crackdown began.
“The strife that is taking place in Diwaniya was planned by the occupier to drag down the brothers and make them quarrel, fight and even kill each other,” Mr. Sadr said in a written statement. “Oh my brothers in the Mahdi Army and my brothers in the security forces, stop fighting and killing because that is what our enemy and your enemy and even God’s enemy hope for.”
Mr. Sadr added: “God ordered you to be patient and to unite your efforts against the enemy and not against the sons of Iraq. They want to drag you into a war that ends Shiitism and Islam, but they cannot.”
4 Years OF War...A Look Back..Metal Mashup..Blackened Waters
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 9, 2007 at 11:58 AM in 'Regime Change' , Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Civil Disobedience, Exit Iraq Now, Iraq War, Spread Democracy, War and Peace, Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Million Man and Woman March Against Iraq War
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
In order to attend the January 27, 2007 rally, a family from Florida, not mine, though I wish it were, drove up to Washington District of Columbia. They wanted to be part of the newer "Half Million Man and Woman March." This protest did not focus solely on civil rights at home. It addressed sacrifices and privileges of the people worldwide. Foreign and domestic policy was in question. The American public was requesting a return of the troops. People, individuals, and groups were saying, "Give Peace a Chance!"
I wish I had been there. If the war continues for a few months more, I will be able to speak for myself. I hope to discuss this matter with Representatives in Washington District of Columbia. I am planning a short visit. I hear myself say, "if," and I wonder. Were it to be so, that this war would end, before Bush leaves office. It seems but a dream that the war in Iraq will conclude before Spring.
Since I was not at the scene, I can only look on. For now, the written word will have to suffice.
Protest Focuses on Iraq Troop Increase,Visions are available on video. YouTube offers many firsthand presentations, firsthand films published by protestors themselves.
By Ian Urbina.
The New York Times.
January 28, 2007Washington, Jan. 27 — Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation’s capital since the war began.
The event drew demonstrators from across the country, and many said that in addition to taking their discontent to the streets they planned to press members of Congress to oppose the war.
“When we voted it was a directive to bring our troops home now,” said the Rev. Graylan S. Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, referring to the November elections when Democrats won control of Congress.Demonstrators listened to speeches from a roster of politicians and entertainment figures including the Rev. Jesse Jackson; Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio and a candidate for the presidency in 2008; and Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California. The actors Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins also addressed the crowd.
“We need to be talking not just about defunding the war but also about funding the vets,” Ms. Sarandon said, adding that more than 50,000 had sought treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs while benefits for them continue to be cut.
With Mr. Bush facing low approval ratings and Congress continuing to debate the terms of a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase, elderly people in wheelchairs, housewives pushing strollers, seasoned dissenters in tie-dye and veterans in uniform turned out to protest.
“I grew up during the Vietnam War, but I never protested it and never had my lottery number called to go fight,” said David Quinly, a 54-year-old carpenter from Prairie Village, Kan., who arrived here Friday night with about 50 others after a 23-hour bus ride.
“In my view, this one is a war of choice and a war for profit against a culture and people we don’t understand,” Mr. Quinly said. “I knew I had to speak up this time.”
Along the north side of the Mall, teenagers in T-shirts featuring sinister depictions of Mr. Bush chanted, “End the lunacy; end it now.” A man wearing prison stripes carried a sign with the likeness of Vice President Dick Cheney. A man on 30-inch stilts, dressed as Abraham Lincoln, carried a sign quoting him: “But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” A tall, clear plastic column stood overflowing with thousands of shoes symbolizing the civilians killed in the war.
“I’ve got a son who just got out of the military and another still in,” said Jackie Smith, 65, from Sunapee, N.H., whose sign read “Bush Bin Lyin.” “And I’m here because this is all I can do to try to help them.”
Tassi McKee, from Bastrop, La., who said she was a staff sergeant in the Air Force, was among a small contingent of about 20 active-duty service members who turned out. “I believe this has become a civil war, and we are being hurt and making matters worse by staying in the middle of it,” Sergeant McKee said.
She said that it was not illegal for active-duty members to attend protests but that it was strongly discouraged.
Veterans were more numerous among the crowd.
Dressed in the olive green, military-issued flight jacket that he said he wore during the invasion of Iraq while serving as a Marine sergeant, Jack Teller, 26, said he joined a caravan from Greenville, N.C., because he felt that it was his duty.
“I don’t like wearing the jacket because it reminds me that I participated in an immoral and illegal war,” said Mr. Teller, who had “Iraq Veterans Against the War” stenciled on the back of his jacket. “But it’s important to make a political statement.”
If you dear reader might share an anecdote, I would be pleased as punch. Oral history is far more real and revealing. Please tell us your tales. If you would answer our questions. What was it like? What did you say, do, feel, and experience. We embrace you and the cause.
Today Was One Of The Best Days of My LifePeace! What is it good for? Absolutely everything. The prospect of peace brings people together. Please, let us unite. Share the sensitivity. Soldiers and civilians are counting on us. A half million is an excellent beginning!
posted by deb kory (Saturday, January 27 2007)Our March on Washington exceeded my wildest dreams—as well as the media's lame, subdued coverage.
"Tens of thousands" protested in Washington, they are saying. The news media got this number from an unofficial, un-named police source, while the organizers of the event themselves were seemingly not consulted. I walked right up to Leslie Kaufman (President of United for Peace and Justice and chief organizer of today's protest) after the event was over and asked her how many people she thought attended today. She said 500,000 was their estimate, but she expected the media would report only half that number. But "tens of thousands"? Come on, news!There were masses of people from forty states, three hundred busloads, over 1000 organizations, not to mention all the people who just showed up because they had to. The media does a grave injustice in under-reporting our collective force. We came from all parts of the country to represent the majority of Americans in our call to end the war in Iraq and withdraw our troops. This was not some fringey little gathering—we had Congresspeople, grandmothers, Democrats and Republicans, veterans of the Iraq War, men still serving in the army, celebrities, children, people of all faiths, ethnicities, color. It was the most enormous gathering of people I've ever seen, and most certainly, the biggest and most diverse protest held in Washington, D.C. since the Vietnam Era.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 29, 2007 at 11:00 AM in Civil Disobedience, Exit Iraq Now, Iraq War, Military Missions, Peace Movement, Peaceful Protests, War and Peace, War, The Last Option, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Political Extremism. When Will It End? ©
Today I received an electronic communiqué that stimulated great thought. Specifically the correspondence addresses the Holocaust. The author asks us to remember what was, what is, and will be, as the result of political extremism.
Personally, I cannot forget. I believe we are mired in government-imposed radicalism today. Neoconservatives believe that democracy can be spread in a brutal fashion. Dictatorial acts pass for nationalism. Consider the Patriot Act circa 2001.
We might look to foreign lands and question the sanity of their leaders. President George W. Bush does. He postulates there is an "axis of evil." Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are in his sight. I inquire; might Mister Bush look in the mirror. Which country has the greatest arsenal? Who is prepared to use Weapons of Mass Destruction. What nation state does colossal damage daily then terms it "collateral"?
I sigh and state . . .
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
~ George Santayana [The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905]
May we recall what was and not engage as we have for centuries. I ask each if us to work against all wars, to thwart any, and all exploitations. May we strive for equity among all people, in every nation.
When we witness wrongdoing, we must speak . . .
"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." . . . "...to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all..."
~ Elie Wiesel [Author of Nights, record of Jewish Holocaust experience]
I offer the cartoon and accompanying text found in my electronic mail. Perchance this sharing will have a profound effect on you or others that see it. I can only hope that atrocities such as these will not stand in the present. If we revisit these, it will be in reflection.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.
This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian people looking the other way!
Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
War, Political Extremism Is Not An Option . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Aggression, American Patriotism, Civil Disobedience, Iran, Iraq War, Politics, Spread Democracy, The Patriot Act , Who Writes Our History? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Civil Disobedience, Thoreau, Anti-Iraq War Tax Resisters, Mary McCarthy ©
The topic was, “Refusing to Pay Taxes: Civil Disobedience and the Iraq war.” I read. Then I began pondering the actions of these “defiant” peace protesters. Many of the persons discussed in this essay were not willing to contribute their tax obligation to a country engaged in war; yet, they were willing to give their funds to charities. These individuals consciously choose to donate their tax duties to organizations that embody a civic-minded philosophy. However, society labels them civilly disobedient. I wonder.
Since that day, my mind has been absorbed in the idea of Civil Disobedience. Today, I think of the dismissed Central Intelligence agent, Mary McCarthy. I read the papers, listen to the news, and I ponder. Is the phrase a misnomer? When we peacefully act in accordance with the founding principles of our forefathers, are we civilly disobedient or caring and concerned citizens? I believe we are the latter.
Currently Mary McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer once assigned to the White House, is in the battle of a lifetime.
This Central Intelligence agent, and analyst, was recently released from her post and accused of leaking classified information on the rumored CIA prisons. Mrs. McCarthy was given a lie detector test, failed, and then confessed. On Thursday, April 21, 2006, McCarthy was escorted by agents from her CIA offices, This woman was publicly humiliated, while only a week earlier, Washington Post reporter, Dana Priest was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her reports on the prisons.
The dichotomy is fascinating. Mrs. Mary McCarthy is also accused of civil disobedience. Dana Priest is praised for disclosing the same information. Some think McCarthy and her disclosures are treasonous. Yet, they think the public has a right to know and they applaud Ms. Priest. I question these cross-judgments. Why would one woman be scorned as “civilly disobedient,” and the other praised as socially dutiful? How do we define the term “civil disobedience?”
I feel certain some would consider both women wrong; others might think them each saintly. Even the phrase civil disobedience can be defined as a good or bad. I think this needs to be discussed. I am asking for discourse. I pose my belief. When acted upon peacefully, with intentions to better the system, not abolish it, I consider the phrase my definition of “principled lessons in civics.” I think the apathetic disobedient
I believe if we truly care about our country, we participate, peacefully. We communicate and ask for a dialogue, or present circumstances that create one. I think citizens have a right and duty to improve our nation. We must commit to excellence. We must work towards a peaceful union. I think if we follow our “leaders” blindly, then we are not acting as responsible, concerned citizens. We are merely compliant and not publicly minded.
Our government is meant to be a body that represents us, not decides for us. Sadly, in recent decades the “government” is seen as a separate entity. People in today’s world often consider themselves pawns, not powerful or vital. They no longer see themselves as the solution; they think of themselves as helpless. I struggle with this reality.
I believe that as individuals, and as part of a greater group we need to reflect, to act with intent, so that we might grow greater. To this vision, I am inviting you dear reader to join me in a discussion of Civil disobedience. To facilitate this dialogue, I am offering some thoughts of my own. Please feel free to comment.
In reference to Central Intelligence agent Mary McCarthy, what were her motivations and might they possibly have been more honorable than those of the President? Does this woman not have a history of caring? Does she contemplate the causes and effects of American actions, specifically aggressive assaults? It seems from her co-workers, she does.
In a New York Times article, “Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by the Rules,” By David S. Cloud, Mrs. McCarthy is said to be quite a cordial worker. She is comprehensive in her investigations and states her concerns openly. She is known to be thorough and appreciates the same. Her posture favors humanitarian efforts and not those that are hasty, unthinking, or knee-jerk.
"We're talking about a person with great integrity, who played by the book and, as far as I know, never deviated from the rules," said Steven Simon. Mr. Simon was a Security Council aide in the Clinton administration. He worked closely with Mary McCarthy while serving the former President and he trusts that Mrs. McCarthy is honorable.
According to former government officials, in 1998, Mrs. McCarhty warned former President Bill Clinton that the plan to militarily strike a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan relied on inconclusive intelligence. Mary O. McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer has long stood for informed decisions. She frowned upon aggressive attacks that she believed did not promote a civil stance. One former co-worker attributes this to her disdain for clandestine agenda.
"She was always of the view that she would rather not get her hands dirty with covert action” says Michael Scheuer, a former C.I.A. official. Scheuer also served during the Clinton years. He claims to have been in meetings with Ms. McCarthy when she voiced her misgivings. Mr. Scheuer recalls that McCarthy had strong suspicions about the intelligence on Al Qaeda. She expressed her doubts to Mr. Clinton; she wondered whether chemical weapons were being produced in these Sudanese factories and thought it better to be certain before attacking.
However, the strike took place just as they were planned. Ms. McCarthy's qualms did not stop the retaliatory aggression against Al Qaeda. After all, Americans want revenge and two American embassies were bombed in East Africa. Nevertheless, this earlier incident, and the current discussion of McCarthy leaks as they pertain to what some consider American abuse, do demonstrate that this woman is willing to dispute intelligence data and the methods sanctioned by her “superiors.” She can and does question authority. Is this wrong?
Is it not the manner in which we, as a people, as part of a republic choose to defy, challenge, or confront the circumstances that matters. Can we register our complaints with compassion? Can we communicate carefully in our attempt to reconcile our conscious and still be civilly obedient? I think so. I offer this component to the dialogue.
In the Christian Science Monitor article, "When the Tax Man cometh, they don't answer the bell," many tax resisters were interviewed. Some, I think were merely manipulating a system that they disdained. Others, such as Mrs. Ruth Benn of Brooklyn, New York are my heroes. Mrs. Benn did not hide her actions or beliefs; she stated these proudly. In a letter to the Internal Revenue Services, submitted with her 1040 form, she explained why she was not enclosing a check and where her funds were sent.
This lovely and thoughtful woman filed her 1040 on time. She communicated her concerns stating, “I do not want my tax dollars to be used for killing and war." That sentiment for me is truly civil. Apparently, an approximate 10,000 other Americans did the same; they too withheld their tax payments. They also object to this less than sanctioned war.
There were those persons that did not pay their taxes for religious reasons, others because they conscientiously object to war. Numerous individual were motivated by “personal politics.” However, these individuals chose, in good conscious to donate the duty-bound capital to charities. They wished to commit to causes that were indeed working towards a greater good.
Philosophically, this practice works well for me. I do not understand those that think killing, maiming, and aggressively attacking those that disagree with them promotes a sense of community. Nor do I comprehend how reactive behaviors such as these can be considered egalitarian or democratic. For me, when the government dictates deeds that are counter to the common good, then it is not being civil, polite, or acting for the common good.
I do struggle however, with the reactive stance of those that hide and purposely avoid paying their taxes. Those that do not communicate their reasoning and rationalize that they need not, I consider less than ethical and aware. I believe, as John Donne did, that “No man [woman, child, or being] is an island.” if we are to exist well together, we must work collectively and support each other.
When our countrymen in Congress do not represent us, we must stand and be counted. After all, this government was founded on the principles of civil consciousness. We are a government “of, by, and for” the people. If we are to truly be the United States of America, we must work as “us.”
Is a signature on a social security card similar to that on a professional contract? When we sign either, do we lose our right to question indignities imposed by a warring government?
When we know of activities that go against the grain of what is commonly considered for the common good and civilized, then, I believe we must speak. We need to take a stand respectfully. Participating in practices that promote man’s inhumanity to man for me is not glorious; speaking against them is. If questioning behaviors that glorify killing and maiming is considered legally disobedient, then I am willing to advocate defiance.
I strongly suspect Mary McCarthy and Ruth Benn felt they were obeying a higher authority than that of the Bush Band, one that is benevolent and not hiding behind the phrase “compassionate conservative.” They did not think themselves disobedient. I believe they thought they had an obligation to goodness, grace, and to their community. If this is true, then I support them. I even think them courageous. And you, what do you think?
The following references may help you to decide . . .
• Troubled Times: An online journal of policy and politics
• When the Tax Man cometh, they don't answer the bell By Chris Gaylord. The Christian Science Monitor. April 14, 2006
• Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience
• C.I.A. Employee Fired for Alleged Leak, By David Johnston and Scott Shane, New York Times. April 21, 2006
• CIA Fires Employee for Alleged Leak By Katherine Shrader, Associated Press
• Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by the Rules By David S. Cloud. New York Times. April 23, 2006
• CIA Officer Is Fired for Media Leaks By Dafna Linzer. Washington Post Saturday, April 22, 2006
• CIA Leaker Shown Door
• NBC: CIA officer fired after admitting leak By Robert Windrem and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News. April 21, 2006
• Dana Priest: 2006 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Category of Beat Reporting
• Peace.protest.net: An eye for an eye will only leave the world blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
Please listen to this eloquent link . . . Altruism may be alive and well, even within the CIA.
All Things Considered, April 24, 2006 · NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that most government officials who leak confidential information think of themselves as true whistle-blowers. They are motivated by a desire to serve the public interest.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 23, 2006 at 08:39 PM in American Patriotism, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA Prisons, Civil Disobedience, Ethics, Iraq War, Peaceful Protests, Philosophy, Refusing to Pay Taxes, Ruth Benn, Anti-Iraq War Tax Resisters | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
