Pony Party: Daylight Saving No More!

Light Emitting Pickle here to bring you the most recent open thread. First, a few words about Pickle Pony Parties:

Please do not recommend a Pony Party when you see one.  There will be another along in a few hours.

Yesterday, my hubby and I decided to take a long trek around the city. We embarked at 10:15 (or so we thought), stopping for a quick breakfast. After what felt like several hours of walking, realized that we were both hungry and that that we should stop for lunch. After lunch, I noticed a clock that read 11:55. “That’s funny,” I thought, “It feels at least an hour later. Maybe that clock is wrong.” Befuddled, we continued on our walk. Within an hour, I saw another clock that read 12:45. Clearly, the first clock was correct.

Later on, we ended up at the public market to buy veggies and pasta for dinner. My husband noted that it was probably close to 4 pm already; I said, “No way – it can’t be later than 2:30.” He replied that he’d seen a clock in the lunch restaurant that indicated it was almost 1 pm. Recall that around the same time I had seen a clock that indicated it was about 12 pm. Fortunately, it only took us a few moments to realize that daylight savings had ended. So, somehow, despite knowing about the end of DST, we still managed to forget.

Anyone else as dilly silly as we were?

What Would The Child You Once Were Think Of The Adult You Have Become?

I was sent this article by a commenter on October 29, 2007 and re-published it on my own blog.

After reading some of the comments in the past day or so to Armando’s post at Talkleft CNN: Torture As The Punchline, I am re-posting the article here because I think it is an important enough subject, and I think that the experiences of Rev. Fred Morris are things that need to be known, and the responsive actions of Foreign Service officer Richard Brown are valuable educationally.

My own opinion of torture is that it is an utterly indefensible and unquestionable evil, and my own opinion of people who excuse or support or condone torture or attempt to obfuscate and confuse definitions of torture is that they are beyond debating with. Torture is morally, ethically, and legally wrong, and it is a travesty that it is now being “debated” in mainstream media as if to condone it is “just another opinion as valid as any other”.

To those people I ask “What would the child you once were think of the adult you have become?”. Perhaps they should ask themselves that question.

Please read Rev. Fred Morris’ article.

………………………………………………………………….

“As we are now facing the horrifying spectacle of our president, vice president, Secretaries of State and Defense and Attorney General all making torture a “legitimate” weapon in our arsenal against international terrorism, I ask, Where is Richard Brown when we really need him?”

In 1963, Fred Morris became a missionary of the United Methodist Church to Brazil, where he spent eleven years. As the result of his journalistic activities and his close association with Archbishop Câmara, who was the leading opponent of the Brazilian military, who had overthrown the democratically-elected government in 1964, he was kidnapped by the Brazilian army in 1974 and spent 17 days in their torture chambers in Recife before being expelled by presidential decree as a person “prejudicial to national interests.” On his return to the United States, Time published a two-page first-person account of his experiences entitled     Torture, Brazilian Style (Nov. 18, 1974). He subsequently appeared on the  Today Show  and more than 25 other TV talk shows in the U.S. and Canada. He testified before the U.S. Congress and lobbied for human rights in Latin America in Washington for nearly two years, and published another story in  Harper’s  (October, 1975  ‘In the presence of mine enemies’)


“Where is Richard Brown when we really need him?”
By Rev. Fred Morris

10/26/07 “ICH” — — The story of a young Foreign Service officer who risked his budding career to defend a principle and the honor of the United States

Intro: In the fall of 1974, I was being tortured by members of the Brazilian army in Recife, Brazil, led by officers who bragged about having been trained at the School of the Americas (then in Panama). When I was kidnapped from my home in Recife, (Time, November 18, 1974 and Harpers’s, October, 1975) on September 30, 1974, I did not expect to survive. Since the CIA-sponsored overthrow of the democratically elected president of Brazil, João Goulart, in April of 1964, hundreds of Brazilians had been “disappeared” by the military security forces in their ongoing war against “international Communism” and its alleged collaborators within Brazil.

I was not charged with any crimes, nor given access to an attorney, nor any form of “due process.” I was simply kidnapped and taken to a military installation where I was subjected to the same torture procedures we have recently seen illustrated from the Abu Grahib prison in Iraq, which should not surprise us, as those torturing me were trained by the US army. The reason for my abduction and torture was nothing more or less than my association with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Recife, Dom Helder Câmara, one of the architects of the Second Vatican Council under Pope John XXIII that led to the people-oriented revolution within the Catholic Church. Dom Helder, then a world-renowned figure, thrice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and major figure in the Third World, was widely admired for his pursuit of non-violent solutions to economic and political injustice. I had been working with him in Recife as a United Methodist missionary for four years, seeking to improve relations between Protestants and Catholics in the Northeast of Brazil, even as I helped found and then directed a social service center in the extremely impoverished community of Caixa D’Agua.

What surprised me, and clearly saved my life, was that the newly appointed US Consul in Recife, a young career Foreign Service officer named Richard Brown, whom I did not know personally, intervened on my behalf and, with the support of the US Ambassador in Brasília, John Crimmins, then the senior career diplomat in the State Department, was able, after four long and desperate days and nights, to get the Brazilian government to honor the Vienna Convention, which required that any signatory country permit consular access to any foreign national arrested and/or imprisoned for whatever reason.

To understand the import of this action by Richard Brown, we need to recall that this was less than a year after the CIA-sponsored overthrow and assassination of Chilean president Salvador Allende (9/11/73) during which two young Americans were murdered by the Chilean security forces without any protest at all from the US government, along with perhaps as many as 20,000 Chileans. The Kissinger administration, which spanned the presidencies of Richard Nixon (who resigned in August of 1974) and Gerald Ford, was a strong supporter of the Brazilian military, as it was providing a favorable climate for US-based multi-national corporation investments. Outcries from human rights organizations were ignored normally by Kissinger, certainly one of the major war criminals of history, responsible for the genocidal bombings of the civilian population in Cambodia that killed more than a million people, not to mention the horrors of Vietnam.

In this context, for a junior officer of the State Department to raise a stink because one insignificant US citizen in Recife because of his concern for human rights and the good name of the United States was more than remarkable. It was heroic.

Because of his efforts, and the support he got from Ambassador Crimmins, late in the afternoon of October 3, 1974, the fourth day of my imprisonment, Richard Brown was allowed to see me.

A couple of hours earlier, my torturers took me to my cell–from the torture chamber–and had me take a bath and put my clothes on. (I had been allowed only my shorts since my kidnapping four days earlier). I was then taken across town to another military installation in Jaboatão, after being threatened that I should not relate to Mr. Brown any of the horrors I had been subjected to during those four days, as I would be returning to their tender care after meeting with him.

On arriving at my new “quarters”, I was placed in what I later discovered was a guest room for officers. After the previous four days, when I was either being tortured by beatings or electric shock (recall the photos of Iraqi prisoners with cables attached to various parts of their bodies, including their genitals), being allowed to sleep only for short periods of time on a concrete floor, when my torturers got tired and needed to rest, I was nearly overcome with the accommodations of the room: a real bed, real chairs, a pitcher of ice water and glasses. (My cell had only a concrete floor.)

After about an hour of waiting, during which I imagined all sorts of things, fearing that they had made up the story about my meeting with the Consul just to get me to dress myself in my own clothes and that they were going to kill me–as I knew they had other prisoners–the door opened and a Brazilian colonel entered with Mr. Richard Brown. I can still recall the tremendous thrill I felt on seeing him enter, as it was a clear reminder of the existence of a civilized world “out there.”

Richard Brown began the conversation by asking me if I was being well treated. Recalling the threats they had made before my coming to this place, I said that all was well, while giving him a quick wink with my left eye (the colonel was seated on my right.) Mr. Brown immediately said in a very precise and official voice, “Mr. Morris, I am here representing the government of the United States of America and I want you to know that if you have been mistreated in any way heads will roll. And if you are mistreated after this meeting, more heads will roll.” He was clearly speaking for the tape recorders we both knew would be making a record of our meeting.

With that prompting, I related everything that had happened to me since my kidnapping, starting with my clothes being taken from me, the initial beatings and subsequent electric shocks, sleep deprivation and psychological threats to me and other threats aimed at my Brazilian fiancé. He took out a notebook and for an hour and a half made copious notes of everything I said. Then the door opened and we were informed that our interview was over and Mr. Brown would have to leave. Before leaving, however, he asked me if I had any marks on my body and I quickly removed my shirt to show the bruises and scratches on my arms and back from the many falls I had taken and pushed down my shorts so he could see the purple bruises on my buttocks from the pratfalls caused by the shock-induced contractions of my muscles as the current was increased. Both wrists had scabs from the handcuffs that held me in a standing position during the nights while my torturers were resting.

Mr. Brown again stated for the tape recorders that if I experienced further mistreatment, “heads would roll.” He assured me that he would be back to see me the next day as he was being ushered out.

He was not back the next day, but on Saturday we had another meeting, at which he asked me to relate everything that had happened to me since he had seen me. I told him that I had not been mistreated any more, except for being kept up for several hours after our initial meeting to give a deposition to my chief torturer about “everything I had done in Brazil” since my arrival in 1964. Then he returned every day until on October 16, when I was taken to another military installation in the neighboring city of Olinda and then, accompanied by Mr. Brown, I was taken to my apartment to pack a suitcase of clothing before being expelled. While in my apartment, Mr. Brown talked with me quietly, in pig-Latin of all things, to confuse Major Maia, the chief of the torture apparatus (and self-proclaimed graduate of the School of the Americas) who was with us and who didn’t understand that language. Brown asked me to go to Washington as soon as I could and visit the members of Congress who had been active in my case and ask them to write letters of commendation to the State Department for the actions of Brown and Crimmins, and ask that those letters be placed in their personnel files, because, as he explained, Kissinger was very unhappy with the way this event had upset the Brazilian generals and was putting pressure on the Department to sanction Crimmins and Brown.

After spending the night sleeping on the floor of the Federal Police offices in Recife, I was taken to the airport and put on a plane to Rio, accompanied by an armed guard, where I was kept in a cell at Federal Police headquarters for the rest of the day and evening, until I was placed on the 11:00 p.m. flight to New York, together with a letter from then-President General Ernesto Geisel saying that I was being expelled from Brazil as a “person prejudicial to national interests” and that if I ever returned to Brazil I would be imprisoned for four years for violating the terms of my expulsion. No formal charges were ever made against me and I was never given any opportunity to present a defense. As my oldest son was born in Brazil, it was a clear violation of the Brazilian Constitution to expel me, as Article 100 says that a foreigner who had a Brazilian child could not be expelled for any reason.

On arriving in New York the next morning, I was met by my brother, the Rev. Hughes B. Morris, Jr., a United Methodist pastor from Nebraska, and the Revs. Paul McCleary and Lewistine McCoy of the Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, who promptly took us to 475 Riverside Drive, the headquarters of the Methodist mission enterprise, for which I had been working the past 11 years. After about an hour of conversation, they informed me that I had “resigned” from the Board. I reminded them that on January 1, 1974, I had taken a leave of absence from the Board. My first wife and I were in the process of a divorce and as no missionary in Brazil had ever been divorced before I did not want to embarrass the Brazilian church, so requested a leave of absence, which was permitted for up to two years for “personal reasons.” According to the rules and regulations of the Board, I could “reactivate” at any time within a two-year period simply by requesting that status, which I did. They insisted that I had resigned, even though there was no documentation and then, after a bit of embarrassed conversation among themselves, without any further explanation they gave me $1,000 in traveler’s cheques as a “hardship payment” and ushered us out of their offices.

They had made arrangements for us to stay at a hotel for two nights and that was the end of that. I was amazed that people for whom I had worked for 11 years would sever our relationship in such a cold way without any explanation, and equally amazed that they did not even bother to have a doctor give me a physical examination to see if I had any serious ailments or injuries as a result of the torture. (In the 31 years since then I have never been given any explanation for my being terminated by the Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church after my nearly 11 years of service and 17 days of imprisonment.)

Since 1970 I had been a stringer for Time in Recife and they had asked me to visit their offices in New York, which we did as soon as the Methodists ushered us out. On my way back to Brazil in 1970 I had had a chance encounter with a Time correspondent who was on vacation and he suggested that I contact their correspondent in Rio, Kay Huff. Kay was delighted to know of someone in Recife who could speak and write fluent English and asked me to be his stringer. This was not a significant “employment opportunity” as they only paid $5.00 an hour when I did any “fetching and carrying” for them, which didn’t happen very often in those days as the magazine didn’t regard northeast Brazil as a very important area for news. I had asked Dr. McCoy of the Board of Global Ministries about the offer and we agreed that it would be good to have this contact with the international press, as Dom Helder, the archbishop I was to be working with, was under a great deal of pressure from the Brazilian army and his life had been threatened on numerous occasions. We felt that this connection with the press could provide some “life insurance” for him in case the army made any more direct moves toward him.

The Time people in New York apologized for not meeting me at the airport but said the Methodists had assured them that they would be taking care of me. They wanted me to write the story of my experiences for publication in the magazine, but I told them that Major Maia had threatened me that they would torture my Brazilian fiancé, Tereza, if I made any “unfortunate reports” about my experiences in their custody and that I needed to await assurances from Mr. Brown that she would not be harmed if I told my story. They said OK, that I should go visit my family in Nebraska, write up the story and as soon as I got the green light from Richard Brown, return to New York and they would publish it.

The next day my brother returned to Nebraska, as he had to preach on Sunday, and I took the train to DC, where I stayed with Carol and Kim Flower, friends from Recife where Kim had been stationed with the State Department a couple of years before. On Monday I went to the State Department, accompanied by the Rev. Joe Eldridge, a United Methodist pastor who had been in Chile from 1970-73, and who was organizing the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights organization sponsored by a coalition of church groups concerned about the human rights situation in the hemisphere. I had known Joe since we had been together at a missionary conference in 1970 just before he went to Chile and I returned to Brazil for my second term as a missionary.

We went to the Brazil Desk of the State Department where we were received by a young officer named Alex Watson, who years later in the 1990s would become the Under-Secretary for Inter-American Affairs. I asked him for the names of the members of Congress who had been involved in my case as I wanted to express my thanks to them. He opened up the file and looked at me as said, “Who are you?” I said, surprised, “What do you mean?” He replied, “These people have never been on the same list before except at roll call.” He then produced a list of nine members of the House and ten Senators who had been active during my imprisonment. They ranged from Senators Kennedy and McGovern to Senators Carl Curtis (R-NE) and Roman Hruska (R-NE); Henry Belmon (R-OK); Sam Nunn (D-GA); Adlai Stevenson III (D-IL); Charles Percy (R-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and others. These and a similar mixture of House members had come together because of pressure from members of my family in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Georgia and the United Methodist Church in a variety of places. (Methodists everywhere were upset at hearing that one of their missionaries was being tortured by the Brazilian army).

Joe and I set out to visit as many of these persons as we could find to thank them for what they had done for me and to encourage them to continue to support human rights in Latin America. We discovered that most of them did not know much about the horrendous situation in Latin America, but having been drawn into this reality by their support for me, they were interested and many became supporters of this cause to greater or lesser degrees. But all those we were able to meet with wrote letters at my request to the State Department commending Richard Brown and John Crimmins for their excellent work on my behalf and in supporting the traditional American values of human dignity and rights.

After three days in Washington, I flew to Chicago, where the Rev. Martin Deppe, a classmate from seminary days, received me at the airport and took me to Evanston, where, on Sunday I preached at the First United Methodist Church in that city. Its senior pastor, the Rev. Dr. Dow Kirkpatrick, had been a friend for many years and had visited me in Brazil. He was recovering from surgery at the time and had invited me to fill in for him on Sunday.

Then I flew to North Platte, Nebraska, where my father, the Rev. Dr. Hughes B. Morris, Sr., was pastor of the First United Methodist Church. He, too, asked me to preach on Sunday. On both of these occasions I discovered that simply sharing my experiences under torture and how my faith enabled me to survive was a powerful message that had a significant impact on the hearers. There was a universal outrage to hear that I had actually been tortured by the Brazilian military and even more when I shared the news that the Brazilian torturers had told me that they had been trained by the School of the Americas.

After about three weeks, during which I wrote down in great detail all that had happened to me while in prison, I received a phone call from Mr. Brown in Recife assuring me that he had received word that Tereza would not be harmed if I spoke out, as her father was a retired officer of the Brazilian army and it was unthinkable to the Brazilian military that they harm his daughter, no matter how crazy she was to want to marry an American “subversive.” I immediately called Time and they urged me to fly to New York with my story. So, on November 6 I flew from North Platte to New York City.

On arrival, I want to the offices of Time in Rockefeller Center, where I was received with a great deal of warmth and given a desk with a typewriter and instructions to write up my story in 250 words or less. As I had a manuscript of more than 10 pages I found that to be a bit overwhelming. Everything I had written seemed so important to me that I didn’t want to cut out anything. 250 words! What could I say?

After working for two days and getting a basic story down to about three pages, the editor who was working with me began making some suggestions. As we were talking about various aspects of my experience, I mentioned to him that I had recited the 23rd Psalm to myself each time they were dragging me from my cell to the torture chamber and that this had been a significant source of strength for me. To my surprise, he literally broke out with goose bumps, got up and excused himself and went out to talk with one of his colleagues. He returned in a few minutes to say that he had gotten us another thousand words. Then he worked with me for the next couple of hours to “tailor” the story into the form that finally fit into the magazine in the two-page article that appeared in the magazine the following Monday (November 11, 1974, with the dateline of November 18. I have never understood why Time always comes out a week before the dateline, but it does.)

As the final deadline was at noon on Friday, November 8, I was pretty much done and had a weekend in New York to spend by myself. This was not a good time, however, as I was feeling the backlash of my recent dislocation from Brazil. Before all of this happened I had made a decision to spend the rest of my life in that country and was really feeling exiled. Now I was alone and unemployed with no idea of what the future held for me. And at that time, I knew absolutely no one in New York.

As I had been doing some fairly serious photography during my time in Brazil, I took part of the $1,000 I had received from the Board of Global Ministries and bought myself a 35mm Pentax and a dozen rolls of film. So on Saturday morning, which was a beautiful fall day with the sky a sparkling blue, I decided to wander around and take some picture. After graduating from Seminary at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey in 1959, I had done some further graduate work at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, so I was familiar with the city and the subways, etc. So I took a train down to the Battery and entertained myself taking pictures of that area. Then I walked up to the World Trade Center, which was in the process of being completed, but which was not yet open. I walked into one of the towers, which looked like it was ready, but was told politely that the building was not open and that I could not stay. As I walked out, I saw a group of about 20 women, mostly African American and Hispanic, going into the other tower. Without thinking much, I simply joined them and followed them into the lobby, where they went straight to the elevators and boarded. I stayed with them up to the 70th floor, as I recall. They were going to the personnel office, apparently seeking employment in the new buildings. As they turned left to go to the office, I turned right and went to the other bank of elevators and entered one and punched 110 and proceeded to the top floor of the WTC. When the elevator doors opened, I encountered the area completely open but filled with paint cans and other construction materials and equipment. So I spent the next 90 minutes enjoying being the first tourist to visit the building and taking three or four rolls of pictures of the area from the tower. Then I retraced my steps to the ground and continued my personal tour of Manhattan.

On Monday morning I was at the hotel newsstand when it opened to buy my copy of Time to see how the story came out. Then I went to the offices of Time as they had requested, as they wanted to plan some promotional activities around the story. This began a whirlwind tour, starting with a 10-minute appearance on the Today Show the next day, radio interviews and another TV interview with public television. Then Time escorted me around the US, to Chicago, Atlanta and other places, where I was interviewed on talk shows, always presented as “former Time correspondent”, which was an interesting promotion from being a stringer in Recife. But I was never presented as “former United Methodist missionary,” which was amusing and ironic in the light of my recent termination from ten years of service with them.

All in all, I was interviewed on 27 TV programs around the US and one trip to Toronto where I was featured in an hour-long program in prime time called Man Alive on the Canadian Broadcasting Network. I definitely got my “15 minutes.”

In December, Tereza came to the States and we were married in North Platte, Nebraska by my father and then returned to Washington where I began a contract job with the Library of Congress to write a book for Senator George McGovern about the first ten years of the Food for Peace Program (of which he had been the first Director). I had been contracted for this project because it called for using the Northeast of Brazil as a case study to evaluate the efficacy of the program. I spent the next five months working on this project which was then presented to Senator McGovern. As far as I know it was never read by anyone outside of the Congressional Research Service and its conclusions certainly were never considered in future policies of US aid to developing countries.

As I knew my work with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress was a limited contract, I had begun looking for work even before that contract was finalized. However, everywhere I turned I discovered that the doors were closed. The United Methodist Church had put me on some sort of “list” that meant that other religious groups were not interested in me. The U.S. government had me on another list that made me pretty much unemployable by any government agencies apart from the Library. Foundations and think-tanks were reluctant to add an infamous “subversive” to their payrolls. And in the secular world, my resume after twenty-some years in the church did not thrill most employers and, beside that, the recession of 1974-75 was pretty deep and people with my kind of resumes were be let go in droves to make room for recent college graduates who would work for practically nothing. (I would have, too, if anyone had offered me a job.)

After some 20 months of fruitless job-hunting, which did not result in a single job interview (“you’re overqualified for anything we might have”) and having “nickel-and-dimed” it for all that time with speaking engagements in churches and universities, where my human rights had some appeal, I grew pretty desperate. I had been supporting myself and my new wife, and making my child support payments to my former wife, by putting together as many speaking engagements as I could. All in all I spoke to more than 150 churches and universities during this period, usually for expenses and an honorarium that rarely exceeded $100, and I wrote a longer version of the Time story for Harper’s, (October, 1975) which netted me the sum of $1,500, which was an unbelievable amount to me at the time. But as time moved on, interest in my experiences in 1974 waned and invitations grew fewer and fewer.

Finally, SWEPCO, the Southwestern Petroleum Company, which manufactures water-proofing materials and systems, with which I had started an association in Recife just before I was expelled from Brazil while on my “leave of absence” from the Board of Global Ministries, offered me a job opportunity. Buddy Thomas, their Vice President for international business, who had called me in New York at the Time offices the day after my appearance on the Today Show to see how I was doing, and who called me from time to time to express concern for me, offered me the chance to be their distributor in Costa Rica. He explained that they had appreciated our relationship in Brazil and were looking for someone to sell their wares in Costa Rica without much success and said that if I wanted it he would name me as their distributor in Costa Rica.

At that time the only thing I knew about Costa Rica was that it did not have an army, which was a great attraction for both Tereza and me. We were both homesick for Latin America and frustrated and somewhat frightened over my inability to find gainful employment in the United States, so we agreed to go to San José and give it a whirl. Three wonderful friends loaned me a total of $7,500 to enable us to get to Costa Rica and set up a new business, so we loaded all our worldly goods, except for my books, which we sent by mail, in our car, and set out to drive to Costa Rica.

Our first stop was in Atlanta where we spent a few days camping at Stone Mountain with my two children from my first marriage, Jeny and Jonathan. While there I received a phone call from Richard Brown–through the park ranger. He had called my former wife, Carol, in Atlanta, and discovered that we were at the campground and then he called the ranger station and they hunted me down. When we finally connected, he began talking in a sort of coded way, referring to the “big bull” (re: Kissinger), and the little bulls (re: he and Crimmins); the market (State Department), etc. In this round-about way he communicated that Kissinger, who I knew from the press had been in Chile at a meeting of Latin American military, was being pressured by the Brazilian military to punish Crimmins and Brown for their temerity in defending a “subversive” American in Recife. Brown made it clear that he feared that the two “small bulls” might well be headed for the “slaughter house.”

During my 22 months in Washington, I had established a warm relationship with Les Whitten, who was the co-author of the Jack Anderson column. I had at one point shared with him my concern that Kissinger would “get” Brown and Crimmins for having jeopardized his good relationship with the Brazilian military and he had said that if that ever happened they would love to “get” Kissinger. He implied that they had a lot of other “stuff” on Kissinger and that this would be a good “peg” to hang it all on. I had communicated this to Richard Brown and he was now asking me to be prepared to contact Whitten if Kissinger made his move. We agreed, all through our unsophisticated coded language, that I would call him from wherever I was on the trip to San José every third day (collect) to see what was happening.

As we drove to New Orleans, then Houston, then to the border of Mexico and on down through Central America, I called him in Recife every three days to see what was happening. Finally he informed me somewhere in between El Salvador and Nicaragua that the crisis seemed to have passed as Ambassador Crimmins being the senior career diplomat in the State Department with many, many supporters from his work and contacts over more than 25 years had turned out to be too big a fish (bull?) for even a Henry Kissinger to fry.

I spent the next 12 years in Costa Rica working with SWEPCO as a roofing contractor. My friend worked for a few austin roofing companies and we both loved our jobs. Being a roofing contractor was a good career! In 1981, horrified by the “misinformation campaign of the Reagan administration regarding Central America, I founded the Institute for Central American Studies and began publishing an alternative newsletter, Mesoamerica, which became the premier publication for church and student groups in the US that were opposing the Reagan policies in Central America. That led to a number of speaking tours throughout the US in the 1980s, as persons who had heard me about Brazil were interested in what I had to say about Central America. Needless to say the Reagan administration was not pleased and our telephones in Costa Rica were intercepted for years and I was regularly harassed as I traveled. But Costa Rica is a democracy and there was room to operate in opposing the policies of my country.

I didn’t see Richard Brown again for several years until once while in Washington while on a speaking tour in the US talking about the events in Central America, sometime around 1983 or 1984 I discovered that he was there and invited him to have dinner with me, at which time I thanked him most profusely for his intervention on my behalf.

He told me then that there had been a cost. The Brazilian military made his life as miserable as possible for the remainder of his two-year tour of duty in Recife and his next assignment was not quite as much of a promotion as he might normally have expected. However I observed later that he spent several years as US ambassador in Uruguay before his final post in Washington as a sort of roving expert on Latin America much involved in seeking to expand commercial relations in the hemisphere.

The last time I saw Richard Brown was in early 2004, when a mutual friend, Donald Ranck, who had been a Mennonite missionary in Recife when I was there and who had become a very close friend of Richard Brown as a consequence of the events surrounding my imprisonment and expulsion, sent me an email informing me that the Richard had retired from the Foreign Service and was living in Casselberry, Florida, which was just about three miles from my home in Winter Springs.

I immediately called him and invited him and his wife to come to our home on a Sunday afternoon in February for a Brazilian churrasco (barbecue). They came and we had a wonderful day together, during which I took the opportunity to express to him again how much I appreciated what he had done for me. I spoke this mainly for his wife, whom I had never met before, as I had already expressed my gratitude to him in our earlier encounter, but I wanted her to know how much I appreciated what her husband had done and how much I admired him for having done it.

Three of my children were present and they were duly impressed at having Ambassador Brown actually there in our home, as they had known of him from my conversations before.

He reiterated to us how his career had suffered because of his actions and of the pressures he and Ambassador Crimmins had received from Kissinger. However, this was overcome when new people took charge of the State Department and he ended his career on a high note and was not at all sorry for what he had done, even though it had cost him. He said that he had felt that the honor of the United States was at stake and that he could do nothing other than protest the violation of my human rights and work for my release.

It was a wonderful day and we celebrated with pictures and ended with Brazilian abracos. Three weeks later I received word that Richard Brown had had a massive heart attack in his sleep and had died.

As we are now facing the horrifying spectacle of our president, vice president, Secretaries of State and Defense and Attorney General all making torture a “legitimate” weapon in our arsenal against international terrorism, I ask, Where is Richard Brown when we really need him?

Ambassador Joseph Wilson took a stand on the lies told to get us into the war–and paid an incredible price for it. A few other “whistle blowers” have appeared from the Pentagon and a few other places. And most of them have been punished by a ruthless administration that allows no dissent from within and little from without. But we desperately need more Richard Browns from within the establishment to stand up and say “no” to a passing government that is sullying the name of the United States around the world by making torture a policy of state.

My case, along with many others, is clear proof that our military and intelligence forces have been engaged in nefarious activities for many years. But never before have we had a President who so cynically defends such policies. Earlier presidents at least had the decency to lie about it. And never was it defended by specious legal memos that effectively remove the United States from the international community and make us a rogue state.

On December 11, 1974 I was invited to testify before a Congressional committee (Congressman Don Fraser’s Committee on International Organizations and Movements of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs) about my experiences in Brazil. In that testimony I said the following:

Torture brutalizes and dehumanizes not only those who are tortured but those who torture, those who are intimidated by the torture of others, and those who try to ignore the fact that torture exists.

It dehumanizes those who are tortured by treating them as less than human and, in many cases, by forcing them into less-than-human feelings and often into less-than-human acts. If one is forced to betray friends, companions and family through torture, as many are, the psychological and spiritual damage may be irreparable, quite apart from the permanent physical damage that often results.

It dehumanizes those who torture. In addition to the psychopathology induced and encouraged in those who practice torture, persons and governments who resort to torture, for whatever motives, betray their social contract with their fellow humans and effectively secede from the human community.

It dehumanizes those who are intimidated. Churchmen who cease to proclaim the gospel in its fullness out of fear; students who cease to make the search for truth their vocation out of fear; journalists who give the public less than the truth for fear of reprisal; workers who, through fear of repression, are not allowed to organize to defend their interests; politicians who can only rubber-stamp authoritarian proposals from dictatorial regimes, for fear of the consequences of more independent, conscience-led actions–all these and in fact the whole community of man share in the dehumanization caused by torture.

Torture dehumanizes those who try to ignore it, saying it is an “internal affair” or a passing phase. Such indifference dries up the wellsprings of human sympathy and compassion and breaks the social contract of the world community to be concerned for the whole family of man. Civilization and freedom are not built, and cannot be maintained, by those who assume the posture of indifference.”

I continue to be involved in Latin America. From 2002 to 2004 I was the Director for Latin American and Caribbean Relations of the National Council of Churches of Christ of the USA. Today I am the President of Faith Partners of the Americas, a non-profit organization dedicated to deepening relations of solidarity between churches in the US and faith communities throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. As I travel in the region there is no place in the hemisphere where the US is not feared and hated because of our war policies and actions and for our blatant use of torture and kidnapping to carry out our policies. The peoples of the region suffered the same for years from the military dictators that ruled them. But throughout that dark period the US was, for them, a beacon of hope because of our public and international defense of human rights. No more. We are clearly seen as the enemy. And they are painfully puzzled that the American people don’t do something to stop this.

It is past time for the American people to stand up and say “no more. These policies do not represent us–this is totally un-American and we will have no more of it in our name.”

Why I Concentrate My Critiques On The Non-Clinton Candidates

Over at the Big Orange Satan, our good friend ClammyC writes one of those “why do you want to be President” things. As a general rule, I dislike those types of diaries, as it buys into the whole idea of pols as something more than they are. Why does anyone run for President or for elected office period? To get elected. What values will they stand for? The ones that get them elected. Folks, that is what pols are. They are vessels for the political views that prevail in elections.

I have no doubt that each of the persons running believe they will do what is best for the country and be the best President ever. But they run to win. Asking them why they are running is silly in my opinion.

It’s funny that the most famous and damaging moment the “why do you want to be President?” question was asked was to Ted Kennedy by Roger Mudd in 1980. Kennedy fumbled the question and did great damage to his candidacy. But I ask you, did anyone have any doubt what Ted Kennedy would have tried to do as President? Ted Kennedy of all people?

I think Ted Kennedy is now the most honest, committed and, dare I say it, best representative of HIS OWN VIEWS in Congress. Heck, in politics. Why? Because Ted Kennedy will NEVER run for President and Ted Kennedy will never be beaten in an election. He is free. Of accountability with the voters. And of personal political ambition.

Every other politician, Russ Feingold not excluded, still feels the sway of the voters and personal political ambition. Pols are vessels of the politics of our country. They are the vehicles for the voices of the powers that decide elections. They do what they can and must to win elections.

Some call this pandering. Pandering, to me, is good. The question is who do you pander to. And why. Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner in the Presidential race. She is behaving in ways that she believes will enable her to win. To be frank, Hillary will not be the primary vehicle for making our voices heard on the issues. She must feel pressure from her rivals.

That is why I focus my attention on her rivals. That is why I support Chris Dodd. He has paid attention to the issues that matter to me. He has brought them to the fore. He has made his rivals move on those issues. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has moved NO ONE on any issue since he became a Senator. From my perspective, his candidacy has been an utter failure. I think from his perspective, he wants to win, it has been as well.

I deplore this focus on “doubletalk” (as if all them do not engage in it.) Press Clinton on the issues. Indeed, press Clinton’s RIVALS on the issues. Asking them why they want to be President is not only a waste of time, it distracts from what I think most of us want – attention to the issues we care about.

I know this admonition will fall on deaf ears when it comes to the rabid supporters of particular politicians. It seems clear to me that they have decided to put issues on the backburner. But for the rest of us, I hope we can focus in on what matters and pressure those who can put the issues on the front burner.

The Day After Tomorrow Reality Show

Crossposted from My Left Wing

I don’t know if you will be able to receive this message, this Blackberry I found when the State Police building blew up is about the only electronic device that still works.

It probably has GPS, so, be warned it will be far away from me once I destroy it after hitting send.

This November Surprise didn’t surprise me, nor did my subsequent arrest.

When the Terror Alert went ballistic and Bush had to jam all the cable channels for our safety, and we heard many places were being attacked, I of course went for my internet.

The thing is, as I wrote on the net, no other news source in the World substantiated it.  In fact, they said there was no attacks, and that our own Military was attempting a Coup on Mr. Bush, who had ordered a nuclear attack on both Iran and Iraq. I guess writing that made me a terrorist too.  Housewife type.

But all the intelligence agencies are still under Bush’s control, and he cut the Military off from any intelligence.  They are on dead silence, and all support at every base has been cut off.

Blackwater has been declared the only non-treasonous army and surrounds DC, with full intelligencia support. CIA & FBI I imagine. The clashes between them and our troops have been brutal.

The military has surrounded all the arsenals, but I don’t know how long they can withstand the seige.  They have no food coming in, and the electric, gas and water supply have been cut off from them.

Anyway, thats the last I heard before the internet was jammed.  The phone system has been out for days, so the only information we get is the periodic announcements through the Air Raid speakers.  People are really flipping out around here.  There have been gunfights in my neighborhood, and my husband has managed to keep my son safe so far. I busted both our phones with a hammer and through them in the Huron River, GPS you know.  Hopefully they are in Ann Arbor by now.

They held me less than 24 hours before someone grenaded the State Police post.  I figure it was either some whack-job militia types out of Howell, or perhaps some real soldiers from Selfridge out of Harrison.  I don’t much care, but anywhere flying that creepy Blackwater flag here in the heartland is a target, and I applaud anyone who kills them.


Its just too big an area to secure yet, but the Detroit/Windsor border isn’t even an option.  They have it nailed up tight.  Those helicopters sink any boats trying to cross the river without warning, too.  Quite a few are trying to make it up north to cross via the UP, but I imagine they will lock up Mackinac too.

I always figured being in the middle of the Great Lakes was a good thing, but it is making fleeing way harder.  My friend John got out, with his friend from the Detroit Yacht Club early, tree-top flying his Lear… but there wasn’t room for all three of us, and I wouldn’t leave my men behind, nor would they two go without me.

The TV comes on once a day around noon, with Bush and Cheney telling us they are on top of it, keeping us safe; that we are almost in the clear again.  They say they have imprisoned the Activist judges and Congressional and Senate co-conspirators that allowed this attack on us,  They say not to fear, they will keep us safe.  We are all supposed to report to local “ID Stations” to be chipped, so they can weed out the terrorists.

I have to wonder how many without internet still really believe we were attacked. I mean no other information is available to them, but the noon reports.

They control all the utilities, the gas, and with Blackwater patrolling the streets, its hard to even hunt, but we got 2 deer so far.  I sneak down to the Lake for water, but its a bitch trying to boil it in our small fireplace.

I have to wonder if he’s dropped the bombs yet.

I have to wonder if the Military,since they outnumber Blackwater can win, without being able to communicate with eachother.  I have seen a few fighter jets chasing BW ‘copters, but am afraid they will be out of jet fuel soon.

Both sides are supposedly trying to conscript men to fight with them, but no one has been here yet.  my husband’s too old, and my son’s too young, I guess.

I’d fight the bastards, in fact we have been keeping watches, and have all our guns loaded and ready.

Anyway, if anyone is reading this:  There was no attack.  Bush has just declared himself dictator.

Good luck getting out, and may God, (if there was one why does he let this happen) help our soldiers.

We’re still alive, and may try heading south.

Peace out, another freedom fighter.

 

Senator Clinton, why do you want to be our President?

I mean that as a sincere question.  And I know that there are those who will view this as a “hit piece”, but so be it.  She is the frontrunner, yet she has offered few details of her vision for this country.  Or to that, even an overarching theme for her campaign as to why she wants to be President of the United States.  I said many months ago that we need someone that not only wants to be the President but also has a campaign whose purpose and direction can be easily understood, discussed and supported.  We do not need, nor can we afford a candidate that wants to be called the President more than they want to BE the President


So far, she has largely skated by without really saying or doing much – not even as much as she can in her current role as United States Senator.  Sure, she has been a more than capable Senator and has done some pretty damn good things for NY.  And yes, her voting record is largely progressive-ish, at least not much different from the other candidates when you take those “which candidate do I agree with most” tests.

But what does that all mean?  Why exactly does Clinton want to be President?  What is her overarching theme of the candidacy?  And for those of us here in the netroots, why has she made such a conscious decision to not only not reach out to us – a very large and vocal and motivated (and smart) constituency – but to go out of her way to basically shun us.  For that matter, what does that say about the influence we will have, or where we will fit in as far as our ideas, ideals and organizing power if and when she is elected President?


Tonight at 8PM Eastern, thereisnospoon and I will talk about this issue on a larger scale on our BlogTalkRadio show.  When we started talking about this topic and issue, we ran down a number of campaigns on both the Democratic and republican side, including Dodd (restoring the Constitution), Romney (“moderate and pragmatic” who can get stuff done), Rudy (strength on national security, even if that is a farce), Edwards (middle class and other class issues), Huckabee (the “true conservative”), to name a few.


Yet when we came to Clinton – the presumed frontrunner and “inevitable” candidate, we were both at a loss.  What is her campaign theme?  Why is she running?  What does she have to offer that other candidates don’t? 


She talks about her experience, yet questions about her past experience are off limits.  She talks about foreign policy issues, yet her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, her lack of leadership on Iraq and desire to not answer any questions or explain her vote on Iran based on “it being a hypothetical” run contrary to that as well.  She has a keen interest in reforming the healthcare system, as evidence by her attempts during her husband’s administration, yet her plan is neither a radical change or all that different from other candidates’ plans.  Not that it makes her plan bad by any stretch, it just isn’t all that different.


When the other candidates finally attack her positions, or lack thereof, she appears to get defensive about being ganged up on by a bunch of men as opposed to actually clarifying her positions.  She is doing very well in head to head matchups with the republican counterparts, yet both Obama and Edwards are as well, so “being more electable” isn’t the issue – not to mention that it isn’t really a reason to run either.


Obviously, she is a much better candidate or option than any of the republican counterparts as well, but then again, even the worst Democratic candidate is better than the best republican candidate.  But a campaign has to be much more than that.  You need to have that “2 minute elevator speech”, as it is called in my business.  What does she stand for that the others don’t?  How is she a leader or how is she leading in areas that the other candidates aren’t?


How does she stand out from the other candidates?  On what positions?  And if it is based on her experience, then why is all talk, challenges and questions about that experience off limits?


I know why she wants to be called the President.  But I don’t know why she actually wants to be President.  And at this particular time in history, with all that is wrong in the United States, as well as around the world (much of which is directly related to our actions and need strong leadership to fix or change course), this is something that we deserve to know from our candidates, let alone the frontrunner.

Action Call – Columnist Endorsing Torture

I’ve posted this over at dkos, and I call upon all ‘Dharmites who oppose torture to assist me with this please…just even copying and pasting my letter and sending it on…I’m beyond words…

—–

I need any Kossacks opposing torture to contact the editor of the Toronto Sun immediately demanding an explanation for this garbage I just read, enttitled:

“Torture? Sounds like a swimmingly good idea”

The contact information is as follows:

[email protected]

The editorial page editor is here:

[email protected]

I’ve posted a copy of my Letter to the Editor below the fold:

Here’s a disgusting taste of the article:

So now that we’ve established that the detainees in question aren’t even protected by the Geneva convention, and that they often have crucial information that can save lives, what about the idea of waterboarding as “torture”?

When asked about it during a recent CNN appearance, I suggested that “one man’s torture is another’s CIA-sponsored swim lesson.” In case anyone thought I was being facetious — I wasn’t.

The copy of my letter:

I would just like to confirm that the Toronto Sun has indeed published this article by Rachel Marsden endorsing the use of torture on “terrorist suspects, entitled Torture? Sounds Like a Swimmingly Good Idea

In the wake of the Mahar Arar affair, I felt the need to give the Sun a chance to explain its rationale for publishing such a toxic and shameful opinion article endorsing the torture of human beings.

At the end of the day, I shall be forwarding this article and your response or lack thereof to international blogs and bloggers, and will also be looking into violations of Canadian broadcasting standards.

This is a shameful thing to come across in a Canadian publication.  I am beyond words to describe further my outrage over this article.

I assure you that this matter shall not be dropped, smug reply notwithstanding.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

A shocked and dismayed Canadian

—–

I would respectfully request any Kossack who opposes torture to send a copy or their own wording, echoing the sentiments of my letter to the editor.

I would also request any Kossack reading this to send a link for this Diary to anyone they know opposes torture.

I though we got rid of this psychopath when she moved to New York, but even Foxnews doesn’t want this idiot in their studios.

Please, I beg you, Kossacks.  I need help with this.

Sincerely,

TMWNP
—–

I’ll repeat, my ‘Dhamite friends…any help would be most appreciated…

TMWNP

Remember, Remember the 5th of November

Today marks the 402 anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot that was the inspiration for the movie (and earlier graphic novel) “V for Vendetta.” I found this to be one of the most powerful movies I’ve seen in a long time because it speaks to the heart of what I think is going wrong in our culture today…the ascendency of fear as a driving force.

So today, lets remember the words of the character “V” in the movie that are so poignant for our times today:

How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you’ve seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

h/t to James at Mahatma X Files for the reminder.

Pony Party, NFL Roundup


For more widgets please visit www.yourminis.com

I’d say the ‘battle of the undefeateds’ lived up to its billing.  I’m not happy with the outcome 🙁 but enjoyed what I was able to see of the game…

No recs for the ponies, though the colts could probably use some today….

~73v

Expiry Date

Offer expires…Offer good until…Product Sell-By…Born Date…

Timelines.

Markers denoting the beginning, ending (or ongoing) and significant dates pertaining to a series of events denoting a particular topic. Topics covered by timelines could be lives, political movements, catastrophes, the rise and fall of nations, evolutionary periods of biological or geological import, or — in the case of the George W. Bush Administration — any and all of the above.

Millions of lives, both human and animal, have been adversely affected since the Bush regime took office under the auspices of Republican control. Millions of species, both plant and animal, suffer from an increased rate of extinction. Through the direct interference with scientific studies and the hefty promulgation of propaganda to deny and alter factual relevance, pollution and the destruction of natural systems have increased. Human-induced global warming factors have been protected and efforts to recognize, accept responsibility for and attempt to mitigate the impact upon the process have been intentionally hampered.

Response to natural disasters is sadly inept.

Resources necessary to the continued health of this nation and her people have been squandered.

The rule of law has been subverted to serve a narrowly-defined, self-agrandizing political agenda while the underlying Constitutional foundations of the nation have been deconstructed by fiat through the intentional misuse of Presidential powers and authority.

Congressional oversight continues to be fought, ignored and mired in political gameplay by complicit Republicans — and some trepidatious Democrats.

The people, the nation and our future hang in the balance.

Time is running out, but which expiry date are people looking at, and which date is Congress? Moreover, what dates does Congress recognize, and what dates are deemed significant by the politicians who comprise that once-august body? And do those dates match the dates that the people of this nation and the world hold as truly significant?

The projected end of the Bush Regime is January of 2009. That’s a date that some Democrats in Congress appear to believe is significant, but — is it? There is over a year to go to get there, and the machinery is still in place to continue destroying our nation from within and without. Can we afford to wait?

What about the abuses that have made it into law already, at the federal and state levels? What assurance, if any, do we have that those will be rejected and repealed? The laws don’t expire with the term of this buffoon and his cretinous crew of cronies: will we have to engage in the tedious practice of challenging each and every misbegotten piece of legislation in court?

The unconscionable over-reach and narrowly-defined justifications to enable unimaginable extension and overreach of Presidential authority has gone virtually unchallenged for seven long years. What of that? How will that be properly restored? Must we wait until this parody of excellence and leadership acquieces to the law and steps down from virtually unlimited power, or can we expect to see our Congress finally step up and actively assume its investigative and oversight roles?

We have seen multiple instances where the Executive Branch lied and intentionally misrepresented its actions (a.k.a. lied even more). We’ve seen multiple instances that strongly suggest intent to deceive and clearly broadcast clearcut intent to break — and continue to break — the law; we’ve even seen blatant admission that the Executive Branch expects to have authority to act outside of the Constitution when it feels that such action is necessary, and we’ve seen how much abuse that gratuitous and self-indulgent justification has resulted in.

Congress has not been up to the task apportioned to it.

Not all failures can be laid at the feet of the complicit Republican members who are seeking solely to prevent their involvement in such criminal activity from destroying their party. Many can, but not all.

Not all failures can be laid at the feet of false Democrats like Joe Lieberman, who has thwarted any efforts to responsibly uphold his office and committee chairmanship responsiblities by grinning like an idiot and knowingly denying to investigate items that would result in the impeachment, conviction and removal of many Republican leaders — starting with the Chief Executive and his Veep. A few items can be laid at Lieberman’s feet, but not all.

No, the failures that remain — where failure to engage in steadfast adherance to rules and procedure, and blatant callouts of “bullshit!” to those who obfuscate and dissemble in order to derail accountability would matter most — those failures must be laid squarely upon the shoulders of the leaders in the House and Senate. They are the ones who should be marshalling their forces to stand against the breaking waves of shinola cast repeatedly upon our shores by this Administration and their supporting casts.

The timelines and dates of significance here are not, in this case, dates denoting the ending of one type of lawless corruption. No, the dates of import here are the dates denoting duration — the length of time that it takes for the current leadership to act decisively and hold accountable all those enabling the ongoing corruptions within our capitol.

Those dates not only provide us with a measure as to their effectiveness; those dates also come with a “best used by” date of their own, after which any efforts will be perceived as “too little” and “too late” to make any signficant difference. Indeed, as we rapidly approach such dates (and in some cases shoot far beyond them), the light of hope in the hearts and minds of millions slowly diminishes.

The time to put up or shut up has come; for many, it has long since passed. The time of action is now; it’s been NOW for several years. The sense of urgency is increasing with every passing moment, every life lost, every inexorable step where destruction of life, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness and the joy of living continues unabated and unchallenged. The sense of futility grows with every continued capitulation, with every idiotic acquiescence to the petulant, petty, parsimonious and pinheaded whining of the most diseased and criminally-minded individual ever to taint the role of President.

To give in without a fight, to allow the light of freedom and justice to be quelched beneath the heavy hood of terror and warmongering, to lose the Constitutionally defined liberty that so many have fought for, have died for or been wounded or maimed for over the past two hundred-plus years — that would be the greatest crime of this generation, a crowning achievement upon the mountain of crimes accumulated by this most corrupt and inept government.

Do not go gentle into the night, my fellow Americans — whether US citizen or not, whether Democratic or Republican or Green or Independent or Libertarian, whether Christian or Buddist or Agnostic or Pagan, the time is now, and never has it been so precious.

Pick up a phone. Call your Congressional representatives. Tell them to stop the madness.

Email them. Fax them. Picket their offices if you are able.

Do not stop.

Do not let up.

Never give in. Never surrender.

Fight them here, fight them there, fight them wherever they show their heads in any capacity. Do not let them have any peace of mind until they fight to bring peace and sanity back to this nation.

I will complete this fervent plea by referring to an event on another timeline, in another time of war, when a man leading a small nation gave voice to words that we ourselves must now adopt, adapt and employ.  Over sixty years ago, on June 4 in the year 1940, Sir Winston Churchill gave what is often referred to as his Fight Them on the Beaches speech:

“I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Churchill spoke of fighting against a foreign enemy, an enemy who had risen up and threatened to overtake the world.

I speak of fighting against a domestic one, an enemy so insidiously deceptive that it has taken hold of our nation by the throat. An enemy of the people, an enemy of the state, and an enemy that has become the state. An enemy that threatens to cast the world into endless warfare.

We must act, now, to rouse our nation to act and push our remaining leadership to responsibly move to eradicate this threat, so that we may preserve what is left of this great country for our progeny, in the name of humanity.

We must act now, before the expiry date for freedom is reached, and before democracy breathes its last. Failure means that the dates cannot be extended, but must instead be hard-won once again by future generations — generations that will wonder just how long it took before sense and sensibility in their forefathers passed the point of freshness and was discarded.

_________________________________________

Crossposted at ePluribus Media, DailyKos and DocuDharma.

Docudharma Times Monday Nov.5

This is an Open Thread: No speaking in tongues or Parseltongue either.



USA

Plan for Nuclear Storage Is Slow to Form

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 – The Energy Department has not finished plans to consolidate storage of nuclear bomb fuel and other high-risk materials now spread among numerous sites, even though the department said in 2005 that it would do so within about a year, according to a Government Accountability Office report to be released Monday.


As a result, the department is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defend additional sites.


The G.A.O. had reported that the Energy Department was putting off making security improvements at some of the storage sites because the sites were due to be phased out. But the new report makes clear that the goal of shutting down some obsolete weapons and research centers, and simplifying the security job by centralizing “special nuclear material,” as bomb fuel is called, has yet to advance from concept to plan, let alone to finished project.

Top US legal adviser refuses to rule out ‘torture’ technique

The top legal adviser within the US state department, who counsels the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on international law, has declined to rule out the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding even if it were applied by foreign intelligence services on US citizens. John Bellinger refused to denounce the technique, which has been condemned by human rights groups as a form of torture, during a debate on the Bush administration’s stance on international law held by Guardian America, the Guardian’s US website. He said he would not include or exclude any technique without first considering whether it violated the convention on torture.

Oil’s Recent Rise Not as Familiar as It Looks

Traders, Not Political or Supply Concerns, May Be Pushing Fuel Toward $100


By Steven Mufson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, November 5, 2007; Page A01


After a week of new records for crude oil prices, the question is: How high can they go?


In the past 10 weeks, the price of crude oil has shot up $25 a barrel, closing at $95.93 in New York on Friday, near an all-time inflation-adjusted peak. Unlike earlier spikes in oil prices, which came on the heels of war in the Middle East, this latest ascent does not appear to be linked to any one conflict or to any physical shortage.

Evangelical Democrat Stirs the Pot in Miss.


By Peter Whoriskey

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, November 5, 2007; Page A03


JACKSON, Miss. — A wealthy evangelical Christian, John Arthur Eaves Jr., is running a campaign for governor that is rife with what Jesus might do.


He talks about banishing “the money changers” from state politics and about a health-care proposal focusing on the “least among us” — just as Jesus would — and the cornerstone of his stump speech is familiar to anyone who knows the bit in Matthew 6:24 about “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.”

“The most important question in this campaign,” he said at a typical campaign stop here last week, “is ‘Who do you serve?’ “

Plan 9 from outer space


November 3, 2007

Page 1 of 5 | Single page


Fears of an alien invasion created greater alarm in the US than the threat of a Soviet nuclear attack, writes Philippe Mora.

Advertisement


In January 1979, The New York Times reported that despite repeated, feverish denials, the CIA had indeed investigated the UFO phenomenon: “CIA Papers Detail UFO Surveillance” screamed the headline. The report is said to have so upset the then CIA director, Stansfield Turner, that he reportedly asked his staff: “Are we in UFOs?”


The answer was yes – since the late 1940s, apparently. But exactly how, what, when, why and who remained layered in mystery, leaving grist for the conspiracy mill.


Asia

Pakistan police attack protesters

Police have used tear gas and batons to break up demonstrations by Pakistani lawyers against the country’s state of emergency.


Lawyers said many colleagues were arrested as protests were dispersed in Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi.


The Islamic party Jamaat-e-Islami was also targeted, saying hundreds of its members were arrested overnight.

Fiji detains 16 alleged plotters

Police in Fiji have arrested 16 people in the past two days, after uncovering an alleged plot against the country’s military leader, Frank Bainimarama.


Businessmen, politicians and former soldiers were among those detained, and will be charged, police say, on Monday.

Ex-pat English teachers stranded by collapse of Japan’s Nova schools

By David McNeill in Japan

Published: 05 November 2007


In a country teeming with cute cartoon characters, few are cuter or better known than the Nova bunny. The pink mascot stood in the doorways of language schools across Japan, promising a short educational encounter with an exotic foreigner. But now, thousands of teachers and students have found that the bunny bites, hard.


The collapse of Nova, Japan’s biggest employer of foreigners, has left 4,000 teachers – including more than 900 from the UK – stranded without work, money and, in some cases, a place to live. “There are people who don’t know where their next meal is coming from,” said Bob Tench, an official with Nova’s union. “It’s very distressing.”


Middle East

Report: Hezbollah stages maneuvers

BEIRUT, Lebanon – Thousands of Hezbollah guerrillas staged secret military maneuvers without weapons or uniforms near Israel’s border in southern Lebanon, a pro-Hezbollah Lebanese newspaper reported Monday.


If accurate, the development could pose a major challenge to a U.N.-brokered cease-fire that ended last year’s war with the Jewish state.


Al-Akhbar, a pro-Hezbollah newspaper, said Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah personally supervised the maneuvers, which it reported were carried out in the last three days and were the biggest ever staged on Israel’s border by the Shiite Muslim militant group.


Europe

A400M delays to cost 1.2 to 1.4 billion euros: EADS

PARIS (AFP) – European aerospace group EADS said Monday that delays in Airbus’ new A400M military transport plane announced last month will cost between 1.2 and 1.4 billion euros (1.7 to 2.0 billion dollars).


The group said that as a result it would be announcing a new operating profit for 2007 when it presents its quarterly results Thursday, without giving details.


“While the calculations have not been finalised, EADS currently estimates it will have to spend between 1.2 and 1.4 billion euros, of which more than one billion for Airbus” because of the delays, it said in a statement.

Italian right calls for repatriation of Roma

Rightwing leaders in Italy yesterday unleashed a flood of vitriolic anti-immigrant rhetoric and called for mass repatriation and the closing of the country’s frontiers, amid a growing backlash against foreign workers in the country.


Gianfranco Fini, the head of Italy’s “post-fascists”, led the way with an outburst against Gypsies. Speaking three days after the arrest of a Romanian of Roma origin for the savage robbery and murder of an Italian woman, Mr Fini said Gypsies considered “theft to be virtually legitimate and not immoral” and felt the same way about “not working because it has to be the women who do so, often by prostituting themselves”.


Latin America

Food, water scarce in Mexico floods

VILLAHERMOSA, Mexico – Authorities worked early Monday to deliver badly needed food and water to thousands of residents stranded by devastating floods that have damaged the homes of up to 500,000 people.


Since swollen rivers first broke their banks on Oct. 28, flood waters have isolated many Gulf coast communities. Thousands of residents who rescuers haven’t been able to reach have run out of food, water and are living with no electricity and no way to flee.

Centrist claims win in Guatemala

Centre-left candidate Alvaro Colom has declared victory in Guatemala’s presidential election with the count nearly complete.


With results from 95% of polling stations counted, Mr Colom had a lead of 5% over his right-wing rival Otto Perez Molina.


Mr Colom says he will try to tackle the country’s high crime and murder rate by lifting people out of poverty.


Africa

Fears for press freedom as Mbeki allies buy out critical media group

By Ian Evans in Cape Town

Published: 05 November 2007


President Thabo Mbeki’s political adviser, a foreign ministry official, and a businessman have made a bid to take over Johncom, one of South Africa’s most influential media groups, including a newspaper which has frequently been critical of the government.


The move has drawn criticism from Mr Mbeki’s opponents, who accuse him of hurting South Africa’s democracy by purging opponents and stifling dissent. He denies the allegations. It will also spark controversy at a time when the opposition is watching Mr Mbeki’s every move as he competes in the race to lead the ruling African National Congress (ANC), a post which usually brings with it the presidency.

Muse in the Morning

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Muse in the Morning

The muses are ancient.  The inspirations for our stories were said to be born from them.  Muses of song and dance, or poetry and prose, of comedy and tragedy, of the inward and the outward.  In one version they are Calliope, Euterpe and Terpsichore, Erato and Clio, Thalia and Melpomene, Polyhymnia and Urania.

It has also been traditional to name a tenth muse.  Plato declared Sappho to be the tenth muse, the muse of women poets.  Others have been suggested throughout the centuries.  I don’t have a name for one, but I do think there should be a muse for the graphical arts.  And maybe there should be many more.

Please join us inside to celebrate our various muses…

In 1992 I learned to speak my truths.  They were tentative at first, hardly more than notes about the reality of my life.  Later some of them became poems.  Still later, more poems were added to add the view of hindsight.  I’ve tried to arrange them into a cohesive whole.  Maybe it works.  Maybe it has more meaning this way.

Art Link

Tangles and Ripples

Friends

There came a time
when folks had to choose
whether they knew me or not
Most of them fled
unable to cope
or unwilling to try
The few who remained
faced questioning
of their own motives
for standing by me
New friends were made
some would deem
questionable
outsiders
the dregs to some
who recognized me
as one of their own
newly arrived
or maybe just
freshly met

–Robyn Elaine Serven
–January 19, 2006

I know you have talent.  What sometimes is forgotten is that being practical is a talent.  I have a paucity for that sort of talent in many situations, though it turns out that I’m a pretty darn good cook.  🙂 

Let your talent bloom.  You can share it here.  Encourage others to let it bloom inside them as well.

Won’t you share your words or art, your sounds or visions, your thoughts scientific or philosophic, the comedy or tragedy of your days, the stories of doing and making?  And be excellent to one another!

Fragile Coalitions: Lessons from ENDA and McClurkin, part I

(Time we all started talking about this — in our quest for unity. promoted at 10:00 AM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)

The last month has not been a good one for the loose confederacy of interests usually filed under progressive causes.  First, LGBT activists nearly devoured themselves over the proposed changes to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), in a struggle that challenged the commitment of ostensibly queer activists to the T part of the acronym and eventually resulted in public resignations from the nation’s most powerful LGBT lobby.  Second, the Obama campaign’s ill-advised decision to launch a gospel tour with publicly outspoken anti-gay singers led to a series of campaign flubs, bitter exchanges, and an epic flameout on Daily Kos that really has to be read to be believed. 

Though I don’t doubt the general commitment of everyone involved to the same umbrella set of goals, the fissures and lack of well-articulated overlap between interest groups has the potential – especially when lacking a strong central figure to act as leader – to turn nasty.  That’s exactly what happened this past month, and I want to perform a brief autopsy to show where things went wrong, and whether it’s possible to avoid these kinds of explosions in the future.  Spoiler alert: I really don’t think so.

For at least as long as I’ve been following politics, the Republican party has proven much more adept at maintaining the myth of a united front, regardless of how incompatible those interests actually are.  Only in the recent campaign have the fault lines become a major topic of coverage: while it’s certainly nothing new, the incompatibility of libertarian-leaning conservatives and the religious right is finally the centerpiece of debate over the future of the party.

Meanwhile, interest groups on the other side of the aisle are giving case study after case study on how not to build strong, healthy coalitions – although I’d argue that the friction is inevitable, no matter how well-managed.  Let’s start with the ENDA debacle:

For over thirty years, legislators on the left have tried to add sexual orientation to the list of qualities protected by national non-discrimination acts (ENDA itself dates from 1994).  With the growing support for gays and lesbians in politics, the Democratic majority in Congress found themselves in a position to pass this bill for the first time – provided protections for gender identification were dropped.  Rep. Barney Frank, who has been one of the most tireless proponents of ENDA, argued that the best strategy for gaining ground was incremental in nature – refusing to pass protections for gays and lesbians until Congress could be expected to support the transgender community was a deeply flawed strategy:

Enacting legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and getting a year or two’s experience with it, will be very helpful in our ultimately adding to it protection for people who are transgender. That is, if you always insist on doing all the difficult things in one bite, you will probably never be successful. Dismantling the opposition piecemeal has always worked better.

This didn’t go over well.  Almost immediately Frank came under fire from most LGBT organizations, who found this kind of compromise intolerable.  His fellow legislator Tammy Baldwin broke with him to introduce her own amendment to the legislation, re-including gender protections once the bill had gotten out of committee.  Meanwhile, the nation’s most powerful queer lobby, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), kept quiet – neither supporting nor rejecting the proposed exclusions to ENDA.

These tensions among political organizations found a more verbal – and more bitter – expression on the blogs, as they usually do.  Most infamously, Aravosis at Americablog published a partial denouncement of transgender activists, arguing that they had insinuated themselves into gay rights organizations without doing enough political groundwork to make the same demands.  Aravosis was brutally flamed, not the least because his history of the transgender movement was, to put it bluntly, wrong.  (A brief overview of the actual history here, if you’re interested.)

But there’s a much more difficult issue here that’s far more important than whether bloggers are doing their research: when coalitions are faced with an opportunity to support part, but not all, of their members, the results are going to be nasty – especially in the absence of strong leadership.  Gay activists argued that passing a partial ENDA would mean immediate workplace security for thousands (millions?) of gay Americans who live in constant fear of being fired for arbitrary reasons: and they are right.  Trans activists argued that passing a partial ENDA would effectively ruin any chance of gender protections being passed in their lifetime: and they’re right, too. 

Quo vadis?

This it the nature of coalition politics: a constant negotiation between the needs of the whole and the needs of the constituent parts.  Get them moving in the same direction, and you’ll have a powerful political force.  Get them moving in opposite directions, and you’d better be wearing a flame-retardant jacket. 

Personally, I consider the ENDA debate a no-brainer: Frank and Aravosis were wrong, and Baldwin and the trans-inclusive proponents were right.  Elsewhere I argued this:

At what point will the federal government ever be willing to take on, as an independent bill, protections for a small minority of a small minority?  And why should trans activists trust that gay activists – once they’ve achieved their own goals – will come back to fight for other people when they no longer have anything at stake?  I don’t think that’s as much a cynical fear as a realistic one.

Loose coalitions have no chance unless they work together, and the nasty fallout from ENDA has left the transgender community – and their supporters – hesitant to support mainstream LGBT organizations like HRC.  If the coalition cannot be counted on to support all its members, there’s nothing to hold it together: if Frank were to ask for transgender support on a gay cause, he’d be laughed off the stage.  Was it worth it?

True, Frank lent his support the Baldwin amendment and HRC later released a lukewarm press release ‘supporting’ inclusiveness – but both urged support of whatever version of ENDA made it to the floor.  Fortunately for Frank and HRC, the transgender community is small enough that they don’t have to worry about losing elections because of it.  This is the ugly side of coalitions: the smaller the group, the more ‘expendable’ they become. 

This story has two punchlines: first, no version of ENDA has a chance of surviving a presidential veto.  This was an interest group self-disembowelment that never had to happen.  Second, the public blowout was largely limited to political figures, bloggers, and organizations: the actual community doesn’t seem so divided:

Early last week, Jerry Nadler, a West Side Democrat, told Gay City News that he would vote no if the final bill on the floor did not include trans protections.

“I have never seen such unanimity in the LGBT community,” he said. “They want an inclusive bill.”

That’s purely anecdotal, but take it as you will.

++++++++++

That’s enough for one post.  I’ll be doing another on the ugly racial/sexual politics that played out during the Obama/McClurkin debacle, but it’s much more pessimistic than this one.  Ultimately I don’t have a “point” or any suggestions for how to avoid these issues in the future, except to note that the nature of self-interest makes it very difficult otherwise.  It’s not easy to ask people to give up their chance for legal protections until others have the same chance, and without a strong ethos of communal effort we can expect our fragile coalitions to crumble again and again.  That’s one area I agree with Aravosis: the problem is that we haven’t had these conversations, and we desperately need to. 

But politics without coalitions is impossible, as the Republican presidential candidates are finding out.  While each frontrunner tries to reach out to groups normally not aligned with him, the fundamental incompatibility of different corners of the Tent is promising a candidate who pleases no one. 

I’ll have more to say in the second half of this post.  In the meantime, some questions for you all:

  • What interest groups and/or ideological groups do you think pose the greatest challenge to unified party fronts?  Are some more polarizing than others?
  • When the opportunity arises to meet the demands of part of a coalition group, is it better to fight for who you can or to maintain group solidarity (basically, do you agree with Frank’s argument for incremental change, or with his opponents)?
  • While each coalition can flame out in its own spectacular way, are there overall strategies for getting non-aligned groups to work together?

I’d be interested in hearing what you think.

(cross-posted at Swords Crossed.)

Load more