our comedian-in-chief

CBS captures a couple great quotes in this article.

"[T]here is no* country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders..."

"So if we're serious about wanting to resolve this situation and create a genuine peace process, it starts with no* more missiles being fired..."

* whereby "no" excludes places that the Obama Administration and partnering governments like to bomb.

last call

(P) It's been 21 years since economic sanctions started killing Iraqis in 1990.

18 years since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

13 years since the 1998 African embassy bombings.

11 years since the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

10 years since the 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and the invasion of Afghanistan.

8 years since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

5 years since Saddam Hussein was killed in 2006.

And now, the White House is set to report the death of Osama bin Laden.

If we don't bring our troops home now from foreign military occupations, we'll be doing this forever.

Forever.

Well, as long as empires last.

Which tends to be shorter than forever.

highly recommend green zone

If you like Matt Damon and action movies, definitely rent Green Zone. I think it's slightly more suspense/less close violence than the Bourne series, but it's very similar. It's creepier to the extent that there's nothing magic or special. Damon isn't a superhero; nobody is.

To the extent that 'facts' are now 'politicized' (ie, that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs in Iraq should be about as controversial as the notion that the Earth orbits the sun), the movie certainly is political, but there's very little actual politicizing in the movie. There's all of about 90 seconds of dialogue sermonizing on the bigger picture. The other 90 minutes it's an action movie with fictional characters pursuing a fictional plot. And some of the fictionalization makes The Powers That Be look better, not worse, than reality might warrant. The reporter is actually investigating deeper into the story, questioning what is going on. The CIA is impressively nimble, and the notion that there aren't WMDs is treated innocently, as if no one would have contemplated it. The civilian administrators talk a lot about democracy and building Iraq, while magically never uttering that little word we hear so much about in real life. I'll let you guess which word that might be.

But the creepiness, it's all around. This thing might just as well have been a documentary. What difference would it make? We have so successfully blended fantasy and reality that maybe there's no meaningful distinction to be made. And really, what's it matter? The movie ends and you go on about life.

You know, if you're not, like, one of the characters stuck in the story.

will manning serve more jail time than libby?

There are some fascinating angles to this story at Wired. What is classified information? What should be classified? Who gets to determine what is classified? Is it ever okay to leak something? What should happen to whistleblowers? How does the public conduct oversight of classification?

And perhaps most interestingly, what is the military smoking to give a 22 year old the keys to the kingdom? Is this what our military has become? We're so far removed from dealing with actual national security matters that an army specialist deemed by our own government as barely competent to drink a beer has access to sensitive diplomatic cables that have nothing to do with his assignment in Iraq?

Or maybe, they do have something to do with Iraq, and they would be quite embarrassing for our political leadership. But of course, how can we know what they are when the government classifies them and prevents We the People from seeing them? This is particularly intriguing as it involves the Wikileaks video Collateral Murder to which my reaction is basically ho hum.

You see, unlike when, say, the Bush Administration destroyed an actual national security asset, and most ironically, one working on WMDs, stuff like this carries no military value. None. Zero. It's political, and there are no reasons to classify politics. In fact, secrecy is pretty much exactly how We the People get screwed.

But remember, no senior Bush official served jail time for revealing undercover agent Valerie Plame (Wilson). None. Zero. Wanna bet 22 year old Manning gets more than that?

I don't get the Iraq shooting video

(P) I had been debating whether I wanted to see the video posted at Wikileaks of the shooting of some Iraqis a few years ago from Apache helicopters. There was so much hype around it, I really wasn't sure what might be on it.

But I went and watched it last night, and I don't get it. The soldiers in the video were quite professional. They maintained aerial surveillance of the ground, stayed in contact with each other, sought permission from their commanders before taking action, used short controlled bursts of rounds, and were otherwise quite calm and focused. I was particularly impressed by their restraint after one of them thought he saw an RPG. I'm sorry, but if I'm in a helicopter in a war zone, and my colleague is saying there's an RPG, I just might pull that trigger and ask permission to engage later. After wetting my pants, of course.

This. Is. War.

What the bleeping bleepity bleep bleep did you think was going on over there? We're handing out flowers? Baking cookies? Singing Kum ba yah?

If Iraqis (and Afghans and Iranians and Saudis and Pakistanis and everybody else) are our enemies, then we should celebrate the efficient, professional conduct captured in this engagement. If those people aren't our enemies, well, get the heck out of there. Until the President, Secretary of Defense, and Centcom commanders give the orders to leave, this is precisely what will continue in our name.

The story of this video is that there's no story. That's why the government fought Reuters' FOIA request. The Reuters employees, and the other Iraqis too, are dead because of the choice to occupy the country. These events are expected consequences of sending military troops to patrol foreign places.

happy armistice day

Well, we're about where we were last year. As we remember peace and veterans, we're stuck with wars and way too many policy areas that deny veterans the support they need.

How is it that there are homeless veterans in our country? Those without decent employment? Backlogs at the VA? Why does our prison system incarcerate so many veterans?

Don't hold your breath waiting for politicians to do anything bold about it. They're too busy waving their flags at the parades and talking about how brave and heroic other people are to allocate any real public dollars to these problems.

After all, we need the money to bail out corporate criminals and pay private mercenaries to imprison, torture, and kill scary muslim foreigners.

unsanitizing torture

(P) I personally tend to be more discrete and diplomatic in my communication, but I wanted to highlight somebody being a little more direct in telling it like it is. The notion that our prison policies have been anything but immoral, illegal, and counterproductive is pretty funny.

Some articles have a way of just lettin' it all hang out, leaving little to the imagination. The graphic alone makes reading this story worth it.

I would normally give a warning that this is mature content, but this is what our government is doing in our name to real human beings. How can conduct be so horrific we should shelter our kids from it, but at the same time, not be worth investigating and prosecuting? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Of the millions of Americans who have been arrested in the last few years, few have committed crimes even remotely as disgusting or an as large a scale as the senior officials of the Bush Administration.

For your reading pleasure, Whores on Terror by Allan Uthman.

A snippet:

I don’t want to come off as minimizing the horror of controlled drowning. It’s just that there’s something about forcible anal rape that brings the torture issue into sharp focus. Just once, I’d like to hear one of these American Enterprise Institute psychos, the ones that always trot out to defend the Neocons’ freakish obsessions, have to defend shoving a flashlight up a guy’s ass. I want to hear Frank Gaffney or Jonah Goldberg tell me why I shouldn’t be fucking mortified that raping prisoners was considered within tolerable interrogation practices by my country. I want Glenn Beck to justify butt-raping a suspect.

i want my money back

(P, R) Well, my checks to the Department of the Treasury and the Missouri Department of Revenue cleared the bank yesterday. I'm passionate year round about responsible uses of public dollars, but tax time does serve as a nice reminder as it puts the specific numbers in front of you in a way that can't be ignored.

For fun, I thought I'd break out rough estimates of spending categories exceeding $1,000 in 2008. I realize not everybody gets worked up by numbers, but these kinds of things really make me mad.

What's my top expense? Rent? Car insurance? Utilities? My Roth IRA? Nope. Federal income taxes.

1. Federal income taxes: $5,600
2. Roth IRA: $5,000
3. Rent: $4,900
4. Europe/Other travel: $4,000
5. Payroll taxes: $3,500
6. Groceries/Eating out: $2,500
7. Missouri income taxes: $1,800
8. Other taxes: $1,600
9. Car insurance: $1,300
10. Utilities: $1,300

In case you're keeping score, my rough estimate of my total tax burden last year (income, property, sales, OASDI, and medicare) is approximately $12,500.

Now, what separates me from the conservatives like Grover Norquist is that I'm not opposed to taxation per se. I recognize that programs require resources, and the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue to pay for those programs. I happen to like courts and armies and fire departments and schools and roads and subways and sewers and parks and so forth. Indeed, most people understand that in order to have these popular services, we have to be taxed.

What's aggravating, what gets me ranting around tax time, is the unnecessary expenses, the waste, the programs that do nothing to invest in the safety and prosperity of our country. The Republican Party has taken an interesting strategic course, which is to talk about fiscal responsibility while doing the opposite. The enormous disconnect between rhetoric and reality from the GOP leadership has done much to put them in an amazingly restrictive demographic situation looking forward. And the Democratic Party has certainly shown progress. But what stands out is how little has changed since the Democrats took control of Congress over two years ago now. It's like celebrating cutting an alcoholic back from 10 drinks a day to 9. Well, that's great and all, but it's only progress if much more noticeable changes are around the corner.

From corporate subsidies to war profiteering to the costs of inaction on things like mass transit, energy, and healthcare, there is enormous waste and outright theft going on in our system. We devote massive resources to law enforcement efforts against petty criminals, and yet these master thieves walk around freely enjoying the spoils of their endeavors. Maybe it's one of those cases where being mugged personally makes it easier for you to get angry about the more impersonal kinds of muggings going on.

AIG has been mugging me every month since last September. The broader financial bailouts, from Goldman to Citi and on, will be mugging me for years to come. The Iraq war has been mugging me every month since 2003. The drug war mugs me a couple times a year. Farm subsidies, wealthy tax cheats, on and on, these are greater thefts than any petty criminal who steals a hundred bucks from your wallet. Over six million Americans are incarcerated or on probation or parole. We've done God knows awful things to 'high value' detainees all over the world. And yet the very people who have caused massive suffering and looting still walk around in charge of our government and the financial industry they wrecked.

And then that doesn't even cover the opportunity costs, the extra expenses we pay because we don't have good mass transit systems, passenger rail lines, freight rail lines, wind and solar energy, single payer health insurance, universal unemployment insurance, and all the other investments that actually make us better off.

It's probably unrealistic to ask the rich to play by the same rules as the rest of us. The Bernie Madoffs of the financial world will be the Lynndie Englands of the war crimes world, people who did bad stuff, but who can serve to be scapegoats for the larger perpetrators rather than compasses pointing to the larger perpetrators. But at least, stop taking my tax dollars. If you want me to bail out Goldman Sachs, sell me as an investor, not a taxpayer. If you want me to fund a trillion dollar defense industry, fund everything else that lavishly, too, from education to healthcare to employment services to affordable housing to energy to transportation to the environment to every other sector that produces a bigger return than another Reaper flying over Pakistan.

basketball and bailouts

(P) When the girlfriend's out of town and there's the NCAA tourny on TV, what else is there to think about besides our current economic situation?

The message that I keep coming back to is to not panic. We have a variety of policy options before us, and we don't have to do whatever Fed or Treasury plan happens to be the focus du jour. It's really pretty remarkable the scale of the dollars we've put on the line for these actions, trillions upon trillions of dollars, and yet getting money for much more reasonable activities that have a higher bang for the buck is like pulling teeth. And asking who should pay for this seems to be out of the question entirely. Democrats seem happy to raise the debt ceiling or just flat out print money, while Republicans scream their hypocrisy scream when you point out that spending requires taxation to pay for it. When wealth is so concentrated, the rich are the only people with meaningful amounts of money sitting around to tax.

One of the key methods for persuading people to accept bad options is to convince them the situation is urgent and that better options do not exist, or more subtlely, that there's not time to implement better options. This is a universal principle, whether trying to sell the invasion of a foreign country or something right here at home. And, this is a nonpartisan principle. In our recent times, the GOP has certainly exercised the bulk of this activity, but Democratic officials have not been immune from abandoning calm, rational, thorough analysis to embrace a position that conveniently happens to benefit a major donor.

The dialogue around the AIG bonuses has been particularly interesting this week. The public outcry managed to happen in a way that overwhelmed the corporate messaging system. Talking points didn't get out fast enough, or consistently enough, to control the message. And it really created some fascinating consequences. Are bonuses a distraction, or do they focus attention on the problems? Is executive compensation a rounding error, or a core issue? When public officials talk about transparency and the public knowing where their money is going, what do they mean? Does the public not understand that AIG has been given an amount 1,000 times the recent bonus amount, or does the public get that and the bonuses are precisely the lightning rod for articulating anger at the whole situation? Does the public think AIG is a lone wolf, or part of a larger pattern of corporate abuses, a systemic failure that should be addressed? What was interesting about the pushback against the public anger was that the scale of the dissatisfaction was so widespread that the defenders of AIG couldn't get on the same page about their justifications. That is a tell tale sign that many of the justifications were simply excuses after the fact.

Now, I personally think the outrage is valuable. I think the public has been consistently upset about executive compensation in particular and corporate bailouts more generally. They were pushed on the people, not by the people. But, I do appreciate the truth in some of the positions concerned about the bonus story as a distraction. One of the legitimate observations is that just saying no to something isn't enough. You have to have alternatives. Ranting and raving can be emotionally healing, but you need to do more than just complain, otherwise, you're just being obstructionist. You've got to have something you advocate, something you believe, something you will defend against criticism.

What is not legitimate is claiming we don't have such alternatives. Alternatives are precisely what we have been advocating, whether the time frame is the past month, or past six months, or past year, or past two years, or past 8 years, or even farther back along the ascension of movement conservatism. We do not lack for alternatives. Indeed, people from all sorts of disciplines have all kinds of ideas about how to make a better system.

Last summer, I made the following observation about corporate bailouts

Taxpayers can bail out the losses. This should be an extreme example, but my guess is, this is the 'conventional wisdom' among the people who have influence in DC and what will end up happening.

Indeed, that's pretty much what we've done. We're transferring losses from management and shareholders to taxpayers. That governing philosophy so far has not changed.

But what could we be doing instead? Lots of things. They could have been in ARRA '09. They could have been in EESA '08. (Indeed, bits and pieces of these solutions have made their way into legislation.) They could have been implemented when we first started having problems that reached national attention in 2007. They could have been implemented before our economic problems became a national issue, back when the 'fundamentals' were sound, nevermind tens of millions of Americans looking on from outside the American dream.

One of the most sinister and malicious memes is that our problems are technical in nature, or that the 'experts' don't know what to do. I think one of the most important ways of being vigilant is to educate ourselves of the actual situation. An educated citizenry is an important bulwark of democracy, and it's an important component in combatting the narrative that we shouldn't trust lay opinions, or that Americans are too dumb; we should just leave decision-making in the hands of the deciders. The kernel of truth that makes this lie so powerful is that of course, we can't be certain about outcomes in the future. It wasn't impossible that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in 2002. Rather, it was highly improbable. We don't know for sure that allowing homeowners to stay in their homes as renters would help the situation, but we have good reason to find it highly probable that would help. We can't be certain that the government can use its experience nationalizing smaller failed banks to handle the nationalization of larger failed banks, but we can reasonably infer a high probability of this being a better course of action for society.

Here are some things that various economists, architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, custodians, plumbers, trash collectors, writers, and so forth suggest would earn a greater return on our investment than bailing out failed management teams at large corporations. And I think it's very telling that the specifics of these kinds of recommendations are never refuted. People calling for tax cuts or corporate bailouts simply don't respond when it's pointed out to them that things like unemployment insurance and food stamps have a bigger bang-for-the-buck. This doesn't mean we're all going to agree on every one of these points, or that we would all prioritize them similarly. Reality simply is messier than that. The point of evidence-based analysis is to replace ideology with focus on the core question of what works. For if the purpose of action is to solve the problem, then the best course of action is the best means of solving the problem. Opposition to what works is a direct sign of motives other than attempting to solve the problem purported to exist to justify the preferred solution. This recognition alone is not enough to create the political will for evidence-based policy, but I do believe strongly it's a necessary component.

In the immediate term, we should do things like this

1. Take over failed firms that are 'too big to fail'. After all, that's why we created the FDIC in the first place, because temporary nationalization is the most efficient means when normal bankruptcy proceedings are not an option. This applies to investment banks and insurance companies just as much as commercial banks.

2. Break up non-failed firms that are 'too big to fail'. It was a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, that we usually think of as 'trustbusting'. This is a nonpartisan, no-nonsense, proactive response. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.

3. Provide direct assistance to stimulate the economy, rather than provide direct assistance to stimulate financial transactions. This means, in particular, universal unemployment insurance, single payer health insurance, expanded TANF and Food Stamps, and so forth. By far, the two biggest causes of mortgage defaults are job losses and medical bills. You don't give banks money so they can afford to write off defaults, or give money to hedge funds to buy the financial instruments tied to the defaults. You give people money so they don't default in the first place. This concept is so basic that it calls into question the motives of people who distract from this core economic reality. Our economic problems, caused by wage stagnation, are causing our financial problems, not the other way around. The short-term solution is to provide a safety net for those out of work.

4. Make the legislative jump from a minimum wage to a living wage. We're already set to increase the minimum wage. Let's make that increase substantially larger. Will a tiny, marginal number of jobs be lost? Probably. That's why we're funding universal unemployment insurance and single payer health insurance. We need to transition away from the concept of a whole class of working poor. In other words, we are experiencing a wage crisis; that's what causes a credit crunch or housing crisis or liquidity trap or other terms floating around in our lexicon these past couple years. While most wage issues are more medium and long-term solutions, the minimum wage is something that could increase quickly to affect workers in the short-term.

5. Use our public policy to save communities, not companies; industries, not particular firms. Tools from changing bankruptcy laws to allow homeowners to stay as renters to using eminent domain to seize properties that banks are not maintaining are quite workable in a short timeframe within our legal framework. We already have bankruptcy judges and city inspectors and police doing evictions and so forth. Let's change some of the parameters of their work.

After these initial coping mechanisms, we can start addressing some of the broader challenges we face

1. Re-connect wages and productivity. This encompasses a variety of reforms like reducing exemptions to FLSA wage and hour guidelines, universal paid time off, meaningful progressive income taxation, increased worker protections (like EFCA for unions and whistleblower protections with substantive rewards for whistleblowers and fines for retaliatory action), and so forth.

2. Re-regulate industries like financial services. Obama has great rhetoric about 21st century financial regulation. Back when Clinton was building the bridge to the 21st century, the Congressional Republicans and his Administration successfully destroyed the old bridge from the New Deal era. But they purposefully never replaced it. From financial services to media to pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and on, we have a number of industries that need a new set of comprehensive regulations and oversight. These are industries that should be in private hands over the long-term, but they should play by public rules. Either the economic system is governed by democracy, or it owns democracy.

3. Re-invest in our public commons. Movement conservatism has been very successful at convincing some people that massive public works projects are un-American. And yet, the opposite is true. It's the abandonment of deferred maintenance and new investment that neither conserves our history nor builds our future. This is the bulk of Obama's budget outline, and it appears much of this might come to pass reasonably soon. These are the various infrastructure things like transportation (crumbling roads and bridges, subways, light rail, freight rail, passenger rail, etc), energy (wind, solar, etc), water and sewer systems, education, computers and broadband, parks, etc. There are countless professionals who have written detailed observations about how we can be bigger and bolder in our investments precisely to ensure a safer, healthier, more prosperous future.

4. Re-write our tax code, in particular, the Internal Revenue Code. Our tax code doesn't make any sense because it's written explicitly for the benefit of special interests. It no longer represents a roughly fair sharing of the national burden of paying for valuable programs. This is unfortunate because it is both inefficient (you really should be able to do your taxes on a postcard) and inequitable (we have basically destroyed progressive taxation with death by a thousand cuts). The vast majority of taxpayers should simply have to report their financial intake for the year, subtract a standard deduction, then calculate the taxes due. That's all filing income taxes should be for about 95% of natural persons filing taxes. Complexity should be the exception, not the rule. The various deductions, at base, are merely methods of shifting the tax burden from its progressive core philosophy to a more regressive reality. Even widely used deductions, like IRAs and home mortgage interest deduction, are still regressive, and they have interesting unintended consequences, too, like subsidizing the buying of bigger houses, which require more land and energy to utilize. With all the talk about McMansions and transportation and energy and suburbia and so forth, the National Association of Realtors works very hard to make sure we don't connect the dots between sprawl and the tax code.

5. Re-think our social and military policies. I separate this category because I understand things like ending the drug war (or more generally being 'soft' on crime) or substantially reducing farm subsidies or making meaningful cuts to defense budgets are somewhat controversial even outside of the religious and business right. They are some of the most difficult areas to get people to apply evidence-based reasoning. But it's really important to our peace and prosperity to reclaim the limited part of limited government, to end the racial and economic injustices that are inextricably caught up in these kinds of policies. I am a big advocate of reading the summary at the Drug Policy Alliance if you think the problem isn't that bad, or you think that criminalization is the correct policy response. I understand that it's politically quite difficult to change the madness of militarism, but I don't think that lessons the importance of trying.

We have the same options today we had last fall or last summer or last spring, or in 2007, and despite trillions of dollars more put on the line for corporate bailouts, we're still in the same boat. Indeed, if anything, people think our situation today is worse than any time in the past two years. We are a rich country, and we do not have to panic. We have good options available to us looking forward.

Let's try putting some real resources behind them.

P.S. I forgot to mention. Go Bears! Back to back D-III champions.

look, victory

I ran across a rather funny AP article in the Oklahoman. It's called Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost.

It essentially argues that we're winning because insurgents "no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government." Heck, if that's the criteria, why'd we invade again? The central government in place at the time proved pretty resilient to internal dissent.

But the real kicker is farther down. Check this out:

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

In other words, Iraq is so stable now only martial law keeps it stable. And walling off neighborhoods. After the insurgent groups are done with their ethnic cleansing.

Bravo Bush Administration team! You've successfully gotten rid of minority groups in Baghdad! Whoever said ethnic cleansing is a bad thing?

aging gracefully

As we take some time to observe the birthday of one of the truly inspiring Americans of the 20th century, I'm sparked by the thought that some things age so well, and others, well, just feel old.

My car, for example, is definitely not new anymore, passing several milestones this past year. But, it's hanging in there pretty well. The only major expense in 2007 was replacing the tires, which were the original tires on the car.



On the other hand, with several of us turning 26 this year, that just feels old. 25 was a major psychological marker for me. But happy birthday Kelli, Andrew, Scott, Jodi, etc, etc! And no Jodi, we will not tell you what we are doing for your birthday this Saturday.

The birthday we observe today (which, of course, is not his actual birthday) has some of both. Everybody embraces the safer parts of King's message. The media and political candidates all have a dream. And it really is pretty amazing how successful they were at radically changing our society.

Yet for all the talk about MLK, it also feels pretty sanitized. It's been cleaned up. The parts that don't age well in our materialistic, militaristic society get relegated to that dustbin of history politicians like to assign to uncomfortable truths.

By the mid 1960s, King was speaking very strongly about the relationships of racism and poverty and war. He made poverty an important issue, he supported labor rights, he opposed the Vietnam War in increasingly impassioned ways. Certainly not everyone agrees with his views by 1967 or 1968, then or now. What's so interesting, or concerning, is that we have a media and political process that can so loudly embrace the less controversial parts of the King identity while virtually ignoring the rest.

So here are a few of my favorite lesser well known quotes not from I Have a Dream, along with links to three speeches. The greatest disservice we can do his memory is ignoring the tight linkage he made between racial equality, economic justice, and opposition to war. As King described it in his Nobel speech, "each of these problems, while appearing to be separate and isolated, is inextricably bound to the other. I refer to racial injustice, poverty, and war."

Nobel speech
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
I've Been to the Mountaintop

Optimism:

"Let me close by saying that I have the personal faith that mankind will somehow rise up to the occasion and give new directions to an age drifting rapidly to its doom. In spite of the tensions and uncertainties of this period something profoundly meaningful is taking place. Old systems of exploitation and oppression are passing away, and out of the womb of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born."

"If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

"But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars."

"Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!"

Politics and Labor:

"The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path."

“Those who in the second half of the 19th century could not tolerate organized labor have had a rebirth of power and seek to regain the despotism of that era while retaining the wealth and privileges of the 20th century. Their target is labor, liberals and the Negro people.”

"The issue is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happen to be sanitation workers."

"That's the question before you tonight. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to my job. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?" The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" The question is, "If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?" That's the question."

Poverty:

"So it is obvious that if man is to redeem his spiritual and moral "lag", he must go all out to bridge the social and economic gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots" of the world. Poverty is one of the most urgent items on the agenda of modern life."

"There is nothing new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we have the resources to get rid of it."

"In the final analysis, the rich must not ignore the poor because both rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny. All life is interrelated, and all men are interdependent."

Urgency:

"We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late."

"Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today."

War and Peace:

"Recent events have vividly reminded us that nations are not reducing but rather increasing their arsenals of weapons of mass destruction."

"In a day when vehicles hurtle through outer space and guided ballistic missiles carve highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can claim victory in war. A so-called limited war will leave little more than a calamitous legacy of human suffering, political turmoil, and spiritual disillusionment."

"Equality with whites will hardly solve the problems of either whites or Negroes if it means equality in a society under the spell of terror and a world doomed to extinction."

"It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but on the positive affirmation of peace."

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."

"Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours."

fall is here

Yay fall. A season almost as good as summer and spring. It occured to me as tonight was the first night I've driven home from work after the sun has set. Woohoo.

(P) As it's been about five years now since the Bush Administration ramped up their Iraq invasion sales pitch, I've been thinking a lot about where we're headed. The initial justifications are so obviously absurd, that it makes one conclude that the Administration must think eventually public opinion will force Congress to do something. Are they hoping the situation stays under control until they're out of office? Are they making a nice little retirement fund out of the cash that's unaccounted for? Are they planning to stay in office longer than January 2009? Do they have the goods via domestic spying on enough Congressmen to prevent real legislation or accountability?

About the only way this can be beneficial long term is if they convince the Iraqis to privatize their oil and sign sweetheart PSA deals with Western firms. But that seems far from certain, and the trends seem to favor the political forces opposing cooperation with the US.

So it begs the question of what if something catastrophic happens? We are so much more powerful than any other nation that it's hard to express the scale of the superiority of our equipment and offensive capability. Yet, it's worthless against an asymmetric foe; we're basically at an impasse. We're going through our stocks of equipment, we're paying huge sums of money to unaccountable private companies, we're destroying decades of international leadership, we're burning out tens of thousands of highly trained troops, and it's all we can do to hang on to a few bases against a fractured resistance. What happens if nationalistic groups manage to work together and overrun a base? What if they take the embassy compound we're building and a couple major airstrips? You can't airlift a quarter of a million people out of a country overnight. What if a real security concern arises unexpectedly, the whole point for having a standing army in the first place?

maybe we should be recruiting them

(P) I was doing a little reading this afternoon, and I ran into a very interesting tidbit of information. One of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in the cases that were recently thrown out, Omar Kadhr, is charged with killing a special forces medic on the battlefield.

Omar was 15.

For all the talk about how illegal and immoral the Bush Administration's wars are, maybe there's another problem we need to address.

Let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume Omar is guilty. What does that say about the state of our military when a teenager in an impoverished country can kill a special forces medic on the battlefield?

happy valentine's day

This is really cool.

Apparently a Navy officer sent a list of Guantanamo detainees' names in a Valentine's Day card. As he told a reporter, "My oath as a commissioned officer is to the Constitution of the United States". He was sentenced to six months in jail, but it could have been a lot worse.

AP story
Dallas Morning News

an open letter to senator mccaskill

(P) Dear Senator McCaskill,

I am disappointed that after such an inspiring campaign in which you unseated a heavily supported Republican incumbant, you are not yet willing to show the courage and leadership to declare clearly and publicly the need to change course in Iraq.

I understand that there are a variety of influences you face and that you may not feel the urgency of this issue. But a majority of your constituents have felt the urgency for some time, and now we have a vote on the Feingold-Reid Amendment with a majority of your Democratic colleagues recognizing publicly the urgency of this issue.

At some point, as more and more time passes, you will come around and vote for legislation to end the disaster in Iraq. I urge you to come to this realization and act on it publicly sooner rather than later. If you will not lead on this most important issue, Missourians will be forced to find new leaders. Do not be afraid to be bold.

Regards,

Nathaniel Dempsey
St. Louis, MO

40 years

This speech is worth remembering. Civil rights, economic justice, and opposition to military aggression are all related. MLK remains one of the most important leaders, organizers, and speakers in our country, speaking to us today.

One cannot celebrate just the work on civil rights. To uphold King's vision is to support peace. To support militarism is to reject his message.

"...For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent...I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours..."

This particular transcript is from American Rhetoric.

*Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit.*

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?" "Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellowed [sic] Americans, *who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision.* There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954** [sic]; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence *in 1954* -- in 1945 *rather* -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. *Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies.* What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than *eight hundred, or rather,* eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

*I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: *Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

Part of our ongoing...part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile... meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

*As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors.* These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

*This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations.* These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. *We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.*

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word" (unquote).

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,

In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;

Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,

And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet 'tis truth alone is strong

Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace.

If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

what would you do

(P) I've been thinking about this for a while, but the thoughts tend to be more angry than thoughtful. So lacking what I feel an appropriate post as we mark another year, I am left with a question.

What would you do with four years and a trillion dollars?

I must say too it is fabulous timing that the next DVD on Jodi's Blockbuster queue was a documentary about the Dixie Chicks. Bravo karma.

the great moral tissue of our time

This is great. I would end up quoting every other paragraph, so just read the whole thing.

I know you want to. It even says genitals in the title. No self-respecting person can avoid an article like that. Plus, I needed an excuse to add a new label called scrotum.

"You liberals are such losers...
I bet you think it’s a big deal that al Qaeda and the Taliban – you know, the folks we said did 9/11 – are regrouping in Afghanistan, and that Osama bin Laden remains a free man five years later. So?...
How about all the corruption scandals and gross incompetence of George Bush’s crony government? Get over it...
I’ve heard you guys ranting on and on about the mountain of debt we’re leaving for your children to pay off, plus interest, in order to finance our twin extravaganzas of huge tax cuts for the wealthy and a useless war costing $1-2 trillion. What’s wrong that?...
No, the great moral issues of our time are: Your genitals..."

hanging by a moment

Having reached my 7th year more or less in St. Louis, an event has occurred (a Special Report at CNN) which causes me to reflect upon a rather memorable event from one of my first visits to St. Louis. Now, it is related with Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the Bush family and so forth, but this isn't a post on our current Iraq policy. That can be summed up pretty simply by stating it's an unmitigated disaster whose perpetrators should be impeached and investigated for violating several criminal statutes.

No, the hanging of Saddam Hussein actually brings back a rather fun, almost jovial feeling of a long-lasting discussion that my old debate partner and I started on a trip to St. Louis in high school the first time we qualified to nationals.

You see, Brian made some offhand claim about how Bush won the Gulf War, and me, largely just being smart, said not so fast, he really didn't win anything. We having nothing but a car ride ahead of us (like my school would fly us anywhere we could drive to), and Brian having already read the Cosmo quizzes from Mrs. Hale's magazines, fleshed this out a bit over the next hour or so, and as is the tendency, one starts to grow an affection for the merits of a position sustained for so long.

On the surface obviously, Saddam lost. His military was destroyed, sovereignty overran by years of US fighter jet sorties, and crippling sanctions enacted (well, crippling for poor Iraqis, at least). But scratch that surface, and look what happened. Bush lost the presidency. A generation of operatives ready for complete conservative dominance of governance was swept aside. Meanwhile, Hussein, while having lost offensive military capabilities, gained other forms of respect and power in the Arab world. His became the country that suffered at the hands of US-led sanctions. He became an important wedge between countries that wanted trade, like France and Russia, and those that wanted regime change, like the United States. And, absent massive disenfranchisement of huge numbers of black people, very shady post-election maneuvering in a state controlled by a Bush, and a remarkable, coincidental party-line vote, he would have seen the thwarting of the next generation of Bushies.

With another Bush in the White House, and lots of Reagan/Bush personnel in key positions, Saddam was due for another obvious setback. It's hard to argue that being executed is kind of the ultimate loss. And yet, scratch that surface, and Bush managed to end Hussein in a way that just about elevated his legacy as high as possible considering that he was, in fact, a hated dictator and perpetrator of war crimes. My goodness, Saddam is going to be remembered not for looking hollow and defeated in a legitimate court of law for his most serious crimes against humanity, but rather for valiantly fighting for his country against a hated invasion force. He wasn't kept from a trial because he got old and decrepit and developed serious health problems. He was denied justice under the law in a state able to not only claim injustices against him but even press his case in the very moments before his execution. And of course, it's all caught on camera. The grainy, cell-phone variety that adds that bit of legitimacy you just don't get on the fancy expensive equipment.

Meanwhile, he has ensured that the Bush legacy, at best, will be a remarkable combination of hubris and ignorance, and more likely, one of the worst presidencies in the history of the republic. He quite possibly has prevented Jeb from getting a nomination any time soon, if ever. Even if the opinion doesn't gain widespread adoption, certainly a significant minority of Americans will view the Bush/Cheney Administration as the greatest traitors to the Constitution and war criminals in recent US history, perhaps ever. Conservative governance has been completely discredited, to the point that even massive vote tampering, fraud, and shady tactics couldn't stop a landslide Democratic victory in 2006. In the Arab world, meanwhile (and much of Europe and Asia, for that matter), Saddam Hussein has managed to make himself look like the victim here. He will be martyred and glorified by a not insignificant number of Arabs. How does a man responsible for tremendous human rights abuses and (at least) two strategically challenged military engagements pull that off, particularly when he was so close with the Reagan/Bush "infidels" in the first place?

Just throw in a little Bush. The family helped create an evil dictator (or two or three). And then they replaced him with a hero. Bravo, our fearless replace-the-Kennedys family. Bravo.

And Brian, you still think Bush won the Gulf War?