I turned my Roe v Wade day post into an article, and it now appears on CommonDreams.org. Or, if you're finding this later and it no longer appears on the front page, go here.
Apologies to loyal readers who are also on my email list. This must be getting boring!
1.24.2005
playing to an empty house
Times Square, at night, completely empty. Imagine that. The neon billboards are flashing, the lights are whirling, yet only one or two people are hurrying by, hands in pockets, hunched against the cold. I saw this last night.
After my shift at the law firm, I am entitled to go home by car service, paid for by the company. That's pretty much standard for night support jobs at big companies in New York City. Let me tell you, after my 12-hour day, it is a nice perk.
But this weekend, the roads were dicey, I couldn't be sure if my street was plowed, and car services were as rare as atheists in the White House. Time to take the subway. I could have gotten a train right under the building where I work, but I decided to walk cross-town and take a different train, to avoid transferring (i.e., waiting) between train lines.
It was cold! (Yes, I know it is colder in Canada. Please do not write to tell me so.) The streets were almost empty. Some cross-streets were closed and had enormous piles of snow in the middle, with plows continuing to add to the small mountain. Three kids were climbing a pile, and a few people were taking their pictures.
And Times Square was utterly deserted, the tourists all gone, New Yorkers having no use for it on a freezing Sunday night.
After my shift at the law firm, I am entitled to go home by car service, paid for by the company. That's pretty much standard for night support jobs at big companies in New York City. Let me tell you, after my 12-hour day, it is a nice perk.
But this weekend, the roads were dicey, I couldn't be sure if my street was plowed, and car services were as rare as atheists in the White House. Time to take the subway. I could have gotten a train right under the building where I work, but I decided to walk cross-town and take a different train, to avoid transferring (i.e., waiting) between train lines.
It was cold! (Yes, I know it is colder in Canada. Please do not write to tell me so.) The streets were almost empty. Some cross-streets were closed and had enormous piles of snow in the middle, with plows continuing to add to the small mountain. Three kids were climbing a pile, and a few people were taking their pictures.
And Times Square was utterly deserted, the tourists all gone, New Yorkers having no use for it on a freezing Sunday night.
1.23.2005
the definition of fanaticism
I am amazed at how many people who opposed the US invasion of Iraq now believe that the US "cannot just pull out" of the war. These are not wingnuts. They are generally intelligent, good-hearted people. Yet they insist on this illogical non-reasoning: it was wrong to go there in the first place, but now that we're there, we have to stay.
This view ignores a near-certainty: the US will have to pull out eventually anyway. The "insurgency" will not be crushed. People fighting against an occupation are endlessly motivated and resourceful. Combine that with a willingness to die for their cause and you have a recipe for endless war.
Richard Nixon said, "I will not be the first American president to lose a war." Then Americans were airlifted off a roof in Saigon. 58,000 Americans and half a million Vietnamese died before it was over. Who knows how many were permanently maimed, physically and emotionally. What will the final tally be this time? This much we know: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld won't lose a wink of sleep over it.
In his recent piece in the Miami Herald, Howard Zinn says, "The definition of fanaticism is that when you discover that you are going in the wrong direction, you redouble your speed."
Zinn offers some historical examples and suggests a next step.
This view ignores a near-certainty: the US will have to pull out eventually anyway. The "insurgency" will not be crushed. People fighting against an occupation are endlessly motivated and resourceful. Combine that with a willingness to die for their cause and you have a recipe for endless war.
Richard Nixon said, "I will not be the first American president to lose a war." Then Americans were airlifted off a roof in Saigon. 58,000 Americans and half a million Vietnamese died before it was over. Who knows how many were permanently maimed, physically and emotionally. What will the final tally be this time? This much we know: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld won't lose a wink of sleep over it.
In his recent piece in the Miami Herald, Howard Zinn says, "The definition of fanaticism is that when you discover that you are going in the wrong direction, you redouble your speed."
Zinn offers some historical examples and suggests a next step.
keep off the bandwagon
Linda McQuaig, a Canadian author, warns her country of the danger of cozying up to the W clan:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's dogged loyalty to Bush over Iraq has won him little more than the nickname "Poodle." Blair's loyalty didn't even protect British steel exports from punishing U.S. tariffs. Bush's only concession to Blair seems to be the repatriation of British prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps in the ghastly Bush era, this is the only concession a country can hope to win from the U.S. — a torture reprieve for its citizens.The column is reprinted on Common Dreams.
In his inaugural address, Bush hinted he plans to attack Iran as soon as possible. This sort of lawlessness is offensive to Canadians and others. But, while no country can stop — or even influence — the Bush administration, it's important to steer clear of its bandwagon.
With scary times ahead, keeping a cool head and staying true to our values should be the goal — not trying to find a comfy but worthless niche inside the Republican tent.
the definition of courage
Support Operation Truth. I admire these men so much. Let's do what we can to help their voices be heard.
Here's a partial list of other veteran groups opposing the war.
Here's a partial list of other veteran groups opposing the war.
what i'm reading: seymour hersh, buster olney
I finally finished Reading Lolita In Tehran, and can now concentrate on Chain Of Command. Because I expect the Seymour Hersh book to be difficult emotionally, I'm going to read The Last Night Of The Yankee Dynasty, by Buster Olney, at the same time.
Olney was The New York Times Yankees beat reporter during the years that I followed the team obsessively (as opposed to just constantly): 1996 through 2002. He's an excellent writer, and not a Yankee fan by birth or nature, so he tends to be more objective than other New York sportswriters. In the depths of winter, with single-digit temperatures and a foot of snow on the ground, it's definitely time to read about baseball.
Reading Lolita In Tehran was disappointing. I liked about half of it. Reading about the everyday lives of women living under a totalitarian regime - this particular one of the pseudo-religious variety - is very eye-opening. But the conceit that distinguishes this book from ordinary memoirs - the literary analysis Nafisi weaves in - didn't work for me. She's supposedly making connections between her life and the fiction she reveres, but I didn't get it.
Also, much of the literary criticism is incomprehensible if you haven't read the books. I've read some of them, but umpteen years ago, in college, and some I don't know at all. The book is on the Times's best seller list, and I wonder how casual readers understand this part. On the other hand, if Lolita In Tehran moves people to read Nabokov, Henry James, Saul Bellow and Jane Austen, then Nafisi is a genius.
Speaking of which, I noticed that Devil In The White City, which I mentioned in this "what i'm reading" post, is also on the paperback best seller list. This is probably the first time two books I've read are on that list at the same time; my reading tastes don't usually coincide with popularity. It's great to see well-written, substantial books are being read by that many people.
Heaven will wait. I was so excited when Handheld Evangelist emailed me a story about the digital collection at the New York Public Library. You can check out e-books online, from any computer. When they are due, the file will no longer open! Brilliant!
The idea of being able to check out books from home really jazzed me, since my goal in life is to do every errand from my computer. (I'm making good progress.) I sat down with my book list, ready to download a few titles, and found... nothing. Not one book from my very extensive to-read list was available digitally through the NYPL. Chain of Command is on the iPAQ, but I'll be reading Buster Olney the old-fashioned way.
Olney was The New York Times Yankees beat reporter during the years that I followed the team obsessively (as opposed to just constantly): 1996 through 2002. He's an excellent writer, and not a Yankee fan by birth or nature, so he tends to be more objective than other New York sportswriters. In the depths of winter, with single-digit temperatures and a foot of snow on the ground, it's definitely time to read about baseball.
Reading Lolita In Tehran was disappointing. I liked about half of it. Reading about the everyday lives of women living under a totalitarian regime - this particular one of the pseudo-religious variety - is very eye-opening. But the conceit that distinguishes this book from ordinary memoirs - the literary analysis Nafisi weaves in - didn't work for me. She's supposedly making connections between her life and the fiction she reveres, but I didn't get it.
Also, much of the literary criticism is incomprehensible if you haven't read the books. I've read some of them, but umpteen years ago, in college, and some I don't know at all. The book is on the Times's best seller list, and I wonder how casual readers understand this part. On the other hand, if Lolita In Tehran moves people to read Nabokov, Henry James, Saul Bellow and Jane Austen, then Nafisi is a genius.
Speaking of which, I noticed that Devil In The White City, which I mentioned in this "what i'm reading" post, is also on the paperback best seller list. This is probably the first time two books I've read are on that list at the same time; my reading tastes don't usually coincide with popularity. It's great to see well-written, substantial books are being read by that many people.
Heaven will wait. I was so excited when Handheld Evangelist emailed me a story about the digital collection at the New York Public Library. You can check out e-books online, from any computer. When they are due, the file will no longer open! Brilliant!
The idea of being able to check out books from home really jazzed me, since my goal in life is to do every errand from my computer. (I'm making good progress.) I sat down with my book list, ready to download a few titles, and found... nothing. Not one book from my very extensive to-read list was available digitally through the NYPL. Chain of Command is on the iPAQ, but I'll be reading Buster Olney the old-fashioned way.
exodus, or not
Dr Marco, who writes this very interesting blog, says:
I'm not worried about the US in terms of smart, forward-thinking people leaving. I think most are in "stay and fight" mode. Many consider leaving, but most won't go through with it. That's my sense of it, anyway. We won't know the answer for another year or so.
Of course I'm incredibly worried about the US for other reasons. But we know that already.
I did a search in Google and was astonished by the amount of information and the number of people who want to go to Canada from the US. If things go the way they are going it might become a significant trend. Canada will really benefit from the arrival of the smartest American minds. I am worried about America.I would be very interested to see how many people actually go. Of the many thousands who look for information, or who say, "It's time to move to Canada!" (the way we always used to), how many will actually plunk down a couple thousand dollars, fill out a big stack of forms, get all the documents together - go through the whole long process, with all the waiting - and make the commitment to leave.
I'm not worried about the US in terms of smart, forward-thinking people leaving. I think most are in "stay and fight" mode. Many consider leaving, but most won't go through with it. That's my sense of it, anyway. We won't know the answer for another year or so.
Of course I'm incredibly worried about the US for other reasons. But we know that already.
1.22.2005
"was anyone ever so young?"
I am a writer and reader of personal essays. I've had a few published, and written many more that remain read only by me and a close friend or two.
My all-time favorite personal essay is "Goodbye To All That," by Joan Didion. It perfectly captures the feeling of looking back at youth - not simple nostalgia, but a kind of awe and sadness at our former selves. It is also a bittersweet love song to New York, written by a former New Yorker, who knows she can never recapture the wonder she once felt, but who remembers that wonder so clearly.
My all-time favorite personal essay is "Goodbye To All That," by Joan Didion. It perfectly captures the feeling of looking back at youth - not simple nostalgia, but a kind of awe and sadness at our former selves. It is also a bittersweet love song to New York, written by a former New Yorker, who knows she can never recapture the wonder she once felt, but who remembers that wonder so clearly.
And then one morning in April (we had been married in January) he called and told me that he wanted to get out of New York for a while, that he would take a six-month leave of absence, that we would go somewhere.I found the whole essay online. Treat yourself to a lovely read.
It was three years ago he told me that, and we have lived in Los Angeles since. Many of the people we knew in New York think this a curious aberration, and in fact tell us so. There is no possible, no adequate answer to that, and so we give certain stock answers, the answers everyone gives. I talk about how difficult it would be for us to "afford" to live in New York right now, about how much "space" we need. All I mean is that I was very young in New York, and that at some point the golden rhythm was broken, and I am not that young anymore.
get educated
If you haven't been to this site, please GO. If you have a blog, you can post a "There Is No Crisis" banner; scroll down to see it.
roe day
Thirty-two years ago today, American women gained greater control over their bodies - and therefore, over their lives - when Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, became the law of the land.
The choice community celebrates the Roe anniversary as a kind of emancipation day, but it is unlikely we will see too many more of those celebrations. Roe will almost certainly be reversed soon. Abortion will be legal in some states and not others. State laws will vary widely in the circumstances under which a pregnancy may be terminated - as is now the case, only more so.
However, those of us involved in abortion access know that for millions of American women, Roe is already irrelevant.
Money. For a few years after the Roe decision, Medicaid paid for abortions; anyone could get an abortion regardless of her age or ability to pay. Only four years later, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which banned payment for abortions unless the woman's life was endangered. (In 1993, after much struggle, those exceptions were broadened to include cases of rape and incest.)
In most states, Medicaid rarely covers abortion. Yet the cost of a first-trimester abortion can be more than a family on public assistance receives in a month. In our Wal-Mart economy, many working women can't afford a procedure.
Low-income women and girls delay termination as they try to scrape together the money they need. These delays often force them to have second-trimester procedures, which are more complicated medically, more risky - and much more expensive. It is not uncommon for women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because they cannot afford a simple medical procedure.
Laws. Then there are the other obstacles. With the Webster (1989) and Casey (1992) decisions, the Supreme Court upheld states' rights to restrict access to abortion in myriad ways. Women must jump through hoops and over hurdles before they can terminate a pregnancy. These laws run the gamut of idiocy, from 48-hour waiting periods, to parental consent and notification for minors, to mandatory "counseling," which often involves coercion.
These laws assume women are incompetent, irresponsible, and unable to make their own decisions. They also expose the anti-choice "abortion is murder" argument for the smokescreen that it is. If abortion was murder, these types of laws would be anathema to the anti-choice crowd: what good is delaying murder? However, if one's goal is to control women and punish them for having sex and getting pregnant, then these laws make perfect sense.
But wait, there's more.
Availability. In addition to the financial and legal obstacles, there is one last, often insurmountable obstacle: availability.
Because of anti-choice terrorism and political action, thousands of doctors have stopped providing abortions and thousands of towns have stopped leasing space to abortion providers. Right now, nearly 80% of American women live in a county with no abortion provider. Obtaining an abortion often means traveling long distances, which in turn means finding child care and transportation, and even more funds. Imagine if the state also has a mandatory waiting period, so the entire trip has to be made twice. A baby should not be born because a woman could not afford the price of a bus ticket or had no one to watch her children.
When Roe is overturned, I will mourn. But in a very real sense, Roe is already history and has been for a long time. Without access, legal abortion is meaningless.
For more information, and how you can help:
To make a donation that is only used to help a low-income woman obtain an abortion, and to read about the financial obstacles, visit National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF).
To learn more about the political side of this issue, or to make a donation to help organizing efforts, try these excellent organizations:
NARAL Pro-Choice America
the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
To learn more about reproductive rights, which includes access to sex education, family planning and contraception, you can't do better than the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
And to read about one grassroots effort to help women exercise their human, civil and legal right to control their bodies, check out these stories about the Haven Coalition of New York City (she says proudly):
"Shelter From The Storm", by Lynn Harris, from Salon (Salon.com free day pass needed)
"Emergency Landing", by Jennifer Block, from the Village Voice
"East Village Mameles Marching For Choice" by Marjorie Ingall, originally published in The Forward
---------------
Please note: this blog is not intended as a forum to discuss the morality of abortion.
The choice community celebrates the Roe anniversary as a kind of emancipation day, but it is unlikely we will see too many more of those celebrations. Roe will almost certainly be reversed soon. Abortion will be legal in some states and not others. State laws will vary widely in the circumstances under which a pregnancy may be terminated - as is now the case, only more so.
However, those of us involved in abortion access know that for millions of American women, Roe is already irrelevant.
Money. For a few years after the Roe decision, Medicaid paid for abortions; anyone could get an abortion regardless of her age or ability to pay. Only four years later, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which banned payment for abortions unless the woman's life was endangered. (In 1993, after much struggle, those exceptions were broadened to include cases of rape and incest.)
In most states, Medicaid rarely covers abortion. Yet the cost of a first-trimester abortion can be more than a family on public assistance receives in a month. In our Wal-Mart economy, many working women can't afford a procedure.
Low-income women and girls delay termination as they try to scrape together the money they need. These delays often force them to have second-trimester procedures, which are more complicated medically, more risky - and much more expensive. It is not uncommon for women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because they cannot afford a simple medical procedure.
Laws. Then there are the other obstacles. With the Webster (1989) and Casey (1992) decisions, the Supreme Court upheld states' rights to restrict access to abortion in myriad ways. Women must jump through hoops and over hurdles before they can terminate a pregnancy. These laws run the gamut of idiocy, from 48-hour waiting periods, to parental consent and notification for minors, to mandatory "counseling," which often involves coercion.
These laws assume women are incompetent, irresponsible, and unable to make their own decisions. They also expose the anti-choice "abortion is murder" argument for the smokescreen that it is. If abortion was murder, these types of laws would be anathema to the anti-choice crowd: what good is delaying murder? However, if one's goal is to control women and punish them for having sex and getting pregnant, then these laws make perfect sense.
But wait, there's more.
Availability. In addition to the financial and legal obstacles, there is one last, often insurmountable obstacle: availability.
Because of anti-choice terrorism and political action, thousands of doctors have stopped providing abortions and thousands of towns have stopped leasing space to abortion providers. Right now, nearly 80% of American women live in a county with no abortion provider. Obtaining an abortion often means traveling long distances, which in turn means finding child care and transportation, and even more funds. Imagine if the state also has a mandatory waiting period, so the entire trip has to be made twice. A baby should not be born because a woman could not afford the price of a bus ticket or had no one to watch her children.
When Roe is overturned, I will mourn. But in a very real sense, Roe is already history and has been for a long time. Without access, legal abortion is meaningless.
For more information, and how you can help:
To make a donation that is only used to help a low-income woman obtain an abortion, and to read about the financial obstacles, visit National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF).
To learn more about the political side of this issue, or to make a donation to help organizing efforts, try these excellent organizations:
NARAL Pro-Choice America
the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
To learn more about reproductive rights, which includes access to sex education, family planning and contraception, you can't do better than the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
And to read about one grassroots effort to help women exercise their human, civil and legal right to control their bodies, check out these stories about the Haven Coalition of New York City (she says proudly):
"Shelter From The Storm", by Lynn Harris, from Salon (Salon.com free day pass needed)
"Emergency Landing", by Jennifer Block, from the Village Voice
"East Village Mameles Marching For Choice" by Marjorie Ingall, originally published in The Forward
---------------
Please note: this blog is not intended as a forum to discuss the morality of abortion.
1.21.2005
do the math
Let's chip in and buy Condi a calculator. Maureen Dowd thinks the new Secretary of State needs some help with her math:
Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, has been pilloried for suggesting that women may be biologically unsuited to succeed at mathematics.Read the rest here.
He may have a point.
Just look at Condoleezza Rice.
She's clearly a well-educated, intelligent woman, versed in Brahms and the Bolsheviks, who has just been rewarded for her loyalty with the most plum assignment in the second Bush cabinet.
Yet her math skills are woefully inadequate.
She can't do simple equations. She doesn't even know that X times zero equals zero. If you multiply 1,370 dead soldiers times zero weapons of mass destruction, that equals zero achievement for Ms. Rice, who helped the president and vice president bamboozle the country into war.
sarcasm from a very red state
An anonymous reader (thank you!) sent me two articles, both from Arizona.
Here a sarcastic law student asks:
The writer doesn't examine why Canada might be preferred to the US. She only says, "It's tempting to romanticize our neighbors to the north and ironically to see the grass as greener even though most of the ground is covered in permafrost. But, we know better so we stay here."
We know better? It would be nice if she gave, say, one example to illustrate her point. But of course, that would require doing some work.
In a real Arizona newspaper, a writer looks at the numbers of Americans inquiring or applying to live in Canada and talks to a few people on various sides of the issues. (Ms Wang, are you getting this?) Still, she can't stay away from terms like "disgruntled liberals," "bellyaching Yankees" (hey! Redsock resents that!) and ends with the old tired quote from someone who is "happy to help them pack". I can't wait til this gang of neocons shows up at my door with bubble-wrap and twine! Do I have to pay them? Is minimum wage OK, or since that's a liberal scam, would fifty cents an hour do?
It's not a bad story. But someone should tell Barbara Yost that "disgruntled liberals" don't move to Canada. Anyone willing to uproot their life like this is way left of liberal and way beyond disgruntled. Heartbroken, more like.
Here a sarcastic law student asks:
OK, be honest: How many of you actually moved to Canada following the results of the presidential election? If you haven't yet, there is only one day left to pack your belongings and ship out because after today, you will have implicitly agreed to live another four years under the current administration. Two and a half months since Nov. 2 is enough time to exercise conscientious objection; after that, you're just moving. After all, shouldn't liberals try to overcome accusations of being indecisive this year?Perhaps they don't teach you this in law school in Arizona, but journalists are supposed to investigate subjects before they write about them. One cannot just pack up and move to Canada, and no one who applied to emigrate after the election could have been accepted yet.
The writer doesn't examine why Canada might be preferred to the US. She only says, "It's tempting to romanticize our neighbors to the north and ironically to see the grass as greener even though most of the ground is covered in permafrost. But, we know better so we stay here."
We know better? It would be nice if she gave, say, one example to illustrate her point. But of course, that would require doing some work.
In a real Arizona newspaper, a writer looks at the numbers of Americans inquiring or applying to live in Canada and talks to a few people on various sides of the issues. (Ms Wang, are you getting this?) Still, she can't stay away from terms like "disgruntled liberals," "bellyaching Yankees" (hey! Redsock resents that!) and ends with the old tired quote from someone who is "happy to help them pack". I can't wait til this gang of neocons shows up at my door with bubble-wrap and twine! Do I have to pay them? Is minimum wage OK, or since that's a liberal scam, would fifty cents an hour do?
It's not a bad story. But someone should tell Barbara Yost that "disgruntled liberals" don't move to Canada. Anyone willing to uproot their life like this is way left of liberal and way beyond disgruntled. Heartbroken, more like.
1.20.2005
a minor nation borne of compromise
Discussing our respective Constitutions, Rob says:
And now I must get to work! So long for now.
I think one big difference between Canadians and Americans is that we lack sentimentality about ourselves and our country. That is reflected in our constitution. It is essentially a legal document. It would be nice to have stirring language and a vision for the ages, but quite frankly, if we did that, most Canadians would find it silly and pretentious. We just don't take ourselves very seriously. We are a minor nation borne of compromise and surely destined to fail at some future date, so we just try to muddle through and make the best of the hand we were dealt.Do you have any idea how comforting that sounds?? What a relief it will be to live in such a place.
And now I must get to work! So long for now.
we are not alone
Not that we thought we were. A reader sent this story from The Independent.
These articles always focus on people moving to Canada (or claiming they will) after the election. Our application was signed, sealed and delivered six months before I cast my vote.
These articles always focus on people moving to Canada (or claiming they will) after the election. Our application was signed, sealed and delivered six months before I cast my vote.
new zealand was my second choice
A reader writes:
I didn't know that the Australian PM was a poodle along the Blair model. Interesting.
Re King, I get annoyed at the way the word "hero" is used these days. Most people popularly called heroes are either victims (who either survived or did not by chance), or just rich and famous. King, however, deserves the label. The more you learn about his life and work, the more you'll know this to be true.
I just found your blog, and can quite understand why you're moving to Canada. I'm in Australia and would love to move to New Zealand except I have ageing parents to look after here. My reasons are the same as yours. We have a moron Prime Minister who follows the bush like a puppy on a leash, and most of the population don't seem to care about anything.New Zealand sounds like a wonderful place to live. We know people there and I would seriously consider moving there one day. Now, however, it's not possible for reasons similar to Linda's - it's too far from family.
Martin Luther King was a hero and an inspiration.
I didn't know that the Australian PM was a poodle along the Blair model. Interesting.
Re King, I get annoyed at the way the word "hero" is used these days. Most people popularly called heroes are either victims (who either survived or did not by chance), or just rich and famous. King, however, deserves the label. The more you learn about his life and work, the more you'll know this to be true.
we are the ones we are waiting for
More from Jon Stewart. Two nights ago (I watched the re-run last night), his guest was Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners, the magazine of Christian justice and peace.
Wallis is funny and biting, noting his surprise that Jesus would be so interested in dropping bombs, sending kids off to war or preventing people who love each other from getting married. He also spoke adamantly that morals and values can guide all people, be they of any religion or of no religion.
Wallis's new book is God's Politics: Why The Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. He feels the next great movement in the US will arise from progressive evangelicals who are fed up with the twisted, one-sided representation of Christianity being foisted on us by the religious right.
He told a story of an organizer who said she's tired of hearing how we need another Martin Luther King, how we're waiting for great leadership to move us forward. She said, "We are the people we are waiting for."
Wallis is funny and biting, noting his surprise that Jesus would be so interested in dropping bombs, sending kids off to war or preventing people who love each other from getting married. He also spoke adamantly that morals and values can guide all people, be they of any religion or of no religion.
Wallis's new book is God's Politics: Why The Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. He feels the next great movement in the US will arise from progressive evangelicals who are fed up with the twisted, one-sided representation of Christianity being foisted on us by the religious right.
He told a story of an organizer who said she's tired of hearing how we need another Martin Luther King, how we're waiting for great leadership to move us forward. She said, "We are the people we are waiting for."
the democrats' new slogan
Riffing on the Condoleezza Rice confirmation hearings last night, Jon Stewart outdid himself. John Kerry - who, with Barbara Boxer, was one of only two Senators to vote against Rice - noted that the confirmation was a done deal. Stewart added, "...launching the Democrats' new slogan: A moment of resistance, a lifetime of capitulation."
I swear it's the best thing he's ever said!
I swear it's the best thing he's ever said!
some criminals are having themselves a party
From yesterday's New York Times, letters to the editor:
To the Editor:We constantly hear how this party's 40-million-dollar tab is being picked up by "private contributions". We're supposed to be happy that we're not paying for it. But private contributions means industry and corporations. They expect much in return, and we can be sure they'll get it.
Re "Laura Bush Defends Gala in Time of War and Disaster" (news article, Jan. 15):
While I agree with the first lady's assertion that "there's a symbolic aspect of the inauguration that ... you never want to - for any reason - cancel it," I think that she and the president are missing the real point.
It's not the inauguration that people are shaking their heads at. It's the fact that while this administration asks so much of our citizens, it is unwilling or unable to demonstrate any moral leadership during this time of war and natural disasters.
How refreshing it would be to see a scaled-back inauguration, with a significant portion of the money raised for the celebrations going to charities that desperately need additional funds. Such an action would, at the least, indicate that the president and his friends were aware that we are living in difficult times.
We, the people, are being asked to be patriotic, support our troops and increase our charitable contributions, while our leaders are being asked ... to party. That's the issue.
Jacqueline F. Dorfman
New York, Jan. 15, 2005
•
To the Editor:
Re "The Sophomore Slump," by Ronald C. White Jr. (Op-Ed, Jan. 15): If President Bush wants to make his second Inaugural Address historic, I have some simple advice: Include the phrases "I was wrong," "we miscalculated," and "I'm sorry."
Robert J. Inlow
Charlottesville, Va., Jan. 15, 2005
out of darkness
This week, Bob Herbert says he feels the absence of Dr King more than ever. On what would have been King's 76th birthday (he was only 39 when he was murdered), Herbert attended a reading at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, "the spiritual home (and primary safe house)" of King and the early civil rights movement.
The reading, by Martin Sheen, Lynn Redgrave, Alfre Woodard, Sean Penn, Woody Harrelson and others, was Ariel Dorfman's "Speak Truth to Power: Voices From Beyond the Dark," which is based on the book "Speak Truth to Power," by Kerry Kennedy and the photographer Eddie Adams.
The book and the play are excerpts from interviews with people who have defended human rights all over the world. Herbert writes:
The reading, by Martin Sheen, Lynn Redgrave, Alfre Woodard, Sean Penn, Woody Harrelson and others, was Ariel Dorfman's "Speak Truth to Power: Voices From Beyond the Dark," which is based on the book "Speak Truth to Power," by Kerry Kennedy and the photographer Eddie Adams.
The book and the play are excerpts from interviews with people who have defended human rights all over the world. Herbert writes:
The most hopeful thing to be drawn from Mr. Dorfman's play and Ms. Kennedy's book is that effective leadership can come from anywhere, at any time. From my perspective, this is a dark moment in American history. The Treasury has been raided and the loot is being turned over by the trainload to those who are already the richest citizens in the land. We've launched a hideous war for no good reason in Iraq. And we're about to elevate to the highest law enforcement position in the land a man who helped choreograph the American effort to evade the international prohibitions against torture.
Never since his assassination in 1968 have I felt the absence of Martin Luther King more acutely. Where are today's voices of moral outrage? Where is the leadership willing to stand up and say: Enough! We've sullied ourselves enough.
I'm convinced, without being able to prove it, that those voices will emerge. There was a time when no one had heard of Dr. King. Or Oscar Arias Sanchez. Or Martin O'Brien, who founded the foremost human rights organization in Northern Ireland, and who tells us: "The worst thing is apathy - to sit idly by in the face of injustice and to do nothing about it."
1.19.2005
celebrating king
It occurred to me that I was so focused on Moron's inauguration that I didn't properly acknowledge the holiday that celebrates one of the very greatest Americans.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s purpose and message have been sanitized for public consumption, as is the way of things. A kind of feel-good, we're-all-in-this-together spirit of volunteerism defines the current popular image. This is not in the spirit of King's life and work.
King was not just a brilliant orator and an organizer of civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. He was a revolutionary. He understood - and acted on - the connections between human rights, poverty, segregation and war. He steadfastly opposed US involvement in Vietnam. He knew that justice must come hand in hand with jobs, and that democracy on paper is not good enough.
King was persecuted by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which went after him with a fervor unrivaled for actual criminal conspirators. And Hoover was able to act with impunity, because he was blackmailing the President. He had so much dirt on Kennedy - including that one of his many girlfriends had turned out to be a Soviet spy - that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy was helpless to stop the wiretapping, surveillance and, yes, death threats.
For more about the life and legacy of the great Reverend King, I highly recommend the two massive books known as "the King books": Taylor Branch's Pulitzer Prize- winning Parting the Waters and Pillar Of Fire. (They are the first two books of a planned trilogy; I eagerly await the third.) They are absolutely fascinating histories of the American civil rights movement, told through the prism of a biography of King.
These books are both epic in scope and rich in the details that make history vibrantly alive. Among its many eye-openers, these books will demolish your image of Kennedy as "the civil rights president", not because the author has an ax to grind against Kennedy, but because he cares about historical accuracy, as opposed to myth.
JFK did everything he could to ignore the entire civil rights movement, since championing it would cost him the precious Southern vote. As civil rights workers were attacked with bombs, shotguns and bullwhips, and an entire population lived in daily terror, the Kennedy Department of Justice turned their backs, interested only in appeasing the white Dixiecrat vote. JFK was dragged kicking and screaming into the civil rights era, and only because he could no longer count on the press to keep a lid on what was boiling over south of the Mason Dixon line.
If you haven't truly imagined what life was like for African-Americans living under Jim Crow, these books are endlessly revealing. You will come away filled with admiration and wonder at the moral (and physical) courage of ordinary citizens challenged to find their greatness against impossible odds.
In addition, I personally came away with disgust that such conditions were allowed to thrive in the United States well into the second half of the 20th Century. King is now hailed as a hero, but let's not forget he was denounced from the floor of the US Senate as the most dangerous man alive.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s purpose and message have been sanitized for public consumption, as is the way of things. A kind of feel-good, we're-all-in-this-together spirit of volunteerism defines the current popular image. This is not in the spirit of King's life and work.
King was not just a brilliant orator and an organizer of civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. He was a revolutionary. He understood - and acted on - the connections between human rights, poverty, segregation and war. He steadfastly opposed US involvement in Vietnam. He knew that justice must come hand in hand with jobs, and that democracy on paper is not good enough.
King was persecuted by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which went after him with a fervor unrivaled for actual criminal conspirators. And Hoover was able to act with impunity, because he was blackmailing the President. He had so much dirt on Kennedy - including that one of his many girlfriends had turned out to be a Soviet spy - that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy was helpless to stop the wiretapping, surveillance and, yes, death threats.
For more about the life and legacy of the great Reverend King, I highly recommend the two massive books known as "the King books": Taylor Branch's Pulitzer Prize- winning Parting the Waters and Pillar Of Fire. (They are the first two books of a planned trilogy; I eagerly await the third.) They are absolutely fascinating histories of the American civil rights movement, told through the prism of a biography of King.
These books are both epic in scope and rich in the details that make history vibrantly alive. Among its many eye-openers, these books will demolish your image of Kennedy as "the civil rights president", not because the author has an ax to grind against Kennedy, but because he cares about historical accuracy, as opposed to myth.
JFK did everything he could to ignore the entire civil rights movement, since championing it would cost him the precious Southern vote. As civil rights workers were attacked with bombs, shotguns and bullwhips, and an entire population lived in daily terror, the Kennedy Department of Justice turned their backs, interested only in appeasing the white Dixiecrat vote. JFK was dragged kicking and screaming into the civil rights era, and only because he could no longer count on the press to keep a lid on what was boiling over south of the Mason Dixon line.
If you haven't truly imagined what life was like for African-Americans living under Jim Crow, these books are endlessly revealing. You will come away filled with admiration and wonder at the moral (and physical) courage of ordinary citizens challenged to find their greatness against impossible odds.
In addition, I personally came away with disgust that such conditions were allowed to thrive in the United States well into the second half of the 20th Century. King is now hailed as a hero, but let's not forget he was denounced from the floor of the US Senate as the most dangerous man alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)