Quantcast
Channel: Pax on both houses
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live

Ebola Survivors Move To The Forefront Of West African Clinical Care

$
0
0

"Ebola survivors' blood could be used to treat patients, says WHO doctor"


***

In Liberia, Ebola Survivors Find They Have Superpowers

Second in a series.
Dr. Darin PortnoyPhotograph by Malin LagerDr. Darin Portnoy
Yesterday, Dr. Darin Portnoy, a family physician from the Bronx, completed his first rounds—60 patients, five of them children—in an Ebola ward of a treatment center in Paynesville, about 250 miles southeast of Monrovia, Liberia. He’s been impressed from the start by the efficiency of the clinic, but what struck him the most was watching as an Ebola survivor, a man he describes as looking a little like Mike Tyson, scooped up an 11-year-old boy in the infectious stages of the disease, carried him to a washbasin, and gave him a sponge bath, before carefully returning him to his cot.
Survivors, Portnoy says, are playing an increasing role in caring for the sick and the effort outside the wards to halt the epidemic. Ebola survivors are immune to the virus for as long as three months. This means they can risk getting close to those with symptoms, and even touch them—something that’s especially helpful with children, a number of whom are separated from their families. “It’s kind of like a superpower,” Portnoy says of the survivor’s immunity. “Even those who are not fully recovered, but that you can tell are going to clear the virus, they’ll help other patients before they’ve finished convalescing,” he adds.
This is Week One of Portnoy’s four-week stint at ELWA3, an Ebola treatment center with 250 beds in Paynesville. ELWA3 is operated by Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders, the privately funded relief organization often known simply as MSF. The center’s staff totals around 700, about 100 of whom are from outside West Africa. MSF has similar, smaller facilities in the neighboring countries of Sierra Leone and Guinea, where Ebola remains out of control.
Photograph by Malin Lager
Portnoy has just arrived as a volunteer. On his rounds, he isn’t working solo, of course. A nurse and sanitation aide, also suited head-to-toe in personal protection equipment (PPE), accompany him; assistants are available, as well, to help clean patients and disinfect around them. “I had a couple of dry runs, where we put on the PPEs, took off the PPEs,” the 52-year-old doctor says. “Then I did one round where I only spoke to patients.”
There is no cure for Ebola, but Portnoy provides his patients with anti-malaria and anti-nausea medicines, generic Tylenol and antibiotics, and hydration salts. Severe dehydration is the underlying, grave danger with hemorrhagic fevers. “Sometimes we prescribe morphine, too,” he says. “It can be very painful.”
Via phone, Portnoy confirmed the press reports and World Health Organizationfigures showing that, for the first time in weeks, there are fewer new cases of Ebola in Liberia. At ELWA3, empty beds outnumber the patients, and only about 80 to 85 confirmed cases remain. Did this decline strike those who’d been there all summer as cause for optimism that there won’t be, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned, as many as 5,000 new cases a week by January?
Photograph by Malin Lager
“It would be great to think so. It’s the best news,” Portnoy says, but no one at ELWA3 believes it’s over yet. “For us, it’s more a chance to prepare, build capacity, train as many people as we can, and be ready.” To hear him tell it, ELWA3 is becoming the world’s first Ebola-treatment teaching hospital.
The reason it was too soon to declare victory, he says, is that “a lot of things that should be working are not. Contact tracing”—tracking those who may have been exposed—“is not working. The ambulances are not functioning. It’s hard to tell if safe burial practices are really being observed. So we are keeping an eye on it and staying vigilant.”
As for the survivors, getting clear of the virus is just part of a long journey.
“Some [survivors] want to return to their communities kind of anonymously, because there’s still a lot of stigma,” says Athena Viscusi, a New Yorker who ran the mental health intervention center at ELWA3 until last week. (MSF mental health workers provide grief counseling to families and help to caregivers, too, as the work is often traumatic.) “Usually, though, Ebola’s affected several members of the family, and the neighbors know there’s been an infection in the house, so they can’t return quietly,” Viscusi says. “And they find they’re more comfortable coming back to the Ebola centers, because we’re very welcoming of them.” MSF hires some of these returning survivors to work with patients.
Of the man who helped the child, says Portnoy: “You know you hear about things like that, but when you see it—that whatever someone is going through, their humanity remains intact. It’s magnificent.”
Wieners_190
Wieners (@bradwieners) is an executive editor for Bloomberg Businessweek.

Socrates: Applying His Teaching Method Today

$
0
0
Today, NPR Ed kicks off a yearlong series: 50 Great Teachers.
We're starting this celebration of teaching with Socrates, the superstar teacher of the ancient world. He was sentenced to death more than 2,400 years ago for "impiety" and "corrupting" the minds of the youth of Athens.
But Socrates' ideas helped form the foundation of Western philosophy and the scientific method of inquiry. And his question-and-dialogue-based teaching style lives on in many classrooms as the Socratic method.
I went to Oakland Technical High School in California to see it in action.
It's the first period of the morning, and student Annelise Eeckman is sparring with teacher Maryann Wolfe about Social Security. They get into the roller-coaster nature of the U.S. stock market and the question of what role the market should play, if any, in workers' retirement plans.
"It's not influencing me," Wolfe says.
"You're not retired currently," Eeckman counters.
"But I have stock," Wolfe says. "You know what happened Thursday and Friday, right? Friday it started going back up again; yesterday it went up a little bit more."
"And what if tomorrow it dips?" Eeckman says.
"Well, yeah, but you depend on one day?"
In this 12th-grade Advanced Placement American government class, students are not just encouraged, they're expected to question the teacher — and each other.
That's at the heart of the Socratic method that's come down to us from the streets of Athens: dialogue-based critical inquiry. The goal here is to focus on the text, ideas and facts — not just opinions — and to dig deeper through discussion.
Maryann Wolfe leads her AP American government class at Oakland Technical High School in a discussion about the history of third parties in American politics.
Maryann Wolfe leads her AP American government class at Oakland Technical High School in a discussion about the history of third parties in American politics.
Elissa Nadworny/NPR
On this particular morning, students are tackling the history of third parties in American politics. They're poring over the platforms of past candidates, including Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.
"I'm just trying to figure out what the Republicans must be thinking, what Pat Buchanan must be thinking," says Wolfe as she leans on her lectern.
"Well, if we look at the group of people that the Republicans tend to focus their opinions on, they're usually of the more wealthy classes," one student says.
Senior Jonah Oderberg confidently pushes back on the idea of school vouchers, which Wolfe is defending.
"If you have that high-enough income to afford that private education," says Oderberg, "that should be coming out of your own pocket. There's already adequate public schools."
"So you want me to pay double?" asks Wolfe, smiling as she walks closer to Oderberg's desk in the back of the room.
"Um, no," Oderberg says. The class laughs.
"Sounds like it," Wolfe counters and turns back to the front of the class.
'The Complexity Of The Issues'
This is good classroom jousting.
OK, one student is falling asleep.
But everyone else is wide awake and into the discussion.
"I think the Socratic method means that you're going to have a whole bunch of ideas floating to the surface," says Wolfe, who helped build this school's Socratic seminar program, which is part of a national Paideia program that encourages the Socratic method.
"I want them to see the complexity of the issues. I believe the students really learn that way. Because they have to speak, they have to be engaged in what we're trying to learn."
For Wolfe, the Socratic method at its core means getting students to actually listen to each other and to differing opinions. It's been her main teaching tool during her nearly three decades in the classroom.
"Maybe we won't find exact truths in this class," she says. "But we will at least look at all possibilities, and they will have a truth right at that moment. And the moment comes when they have to stand up and debate it, when they have to write an essay about it. They have to take a side."
As part of the class, Wolfe requires students to get involved with a local political campaign, ballot measure or issue. Senior Sierra Robbins is volunteering for a local effort to boost the minimum wage, which she says has changed her views about the power of civic engagement and the role of government.
"It felt so distant and too big to be changed," Robbins says. "And I went out and talked to people, and it felt really different. It felt like you could really do something."
'Critical Dialogue'
Socrates didn't write anything down. And details of his life remain largely unknown. Many of his ideas, and much of his life as a teacher and philosopher, are known largely through the writings of his best student, Plato, in his Dialogues.
But we do know that Socrates — the man and myth — valued reasoned, logical oral arguments that sought truth through probing discourse.
Today you can call Wolfe's Oakland classes Socratic. But maybe this is just what good teaching looks like: an engaged, passionate teacher facilitating a critical dialogue and acting as a kind of intellectual coach. Not a teacher merely lecturing or teaching to a test.
I asked 17-year-old Maddie Ahlers what she's gotten out of the program.
"I think that the Socratic method has to be a part of good teaching, because it's one thing to write an essay or be able to take a test," Ahlers says. "But later in life, you're gonna have to be able to articulate your own views and say verbally what you think about an issue or anything you believe."
Black Pine Circle
At Oakland Tech, Socrates lives on mainly in its AP classes and seminars. At some other schools, he is literally everywhere.
At Black Pine Circle, a private school in Berkeley, Socrates' stenciled face peers out at students from many of the walls and hallways.
"Now remember, in the inner circle we don't need to raise hands," sixth- and seventh-grade teacher Tim Ogburn tells his students. "Let's just try to have a conversation. Outer circle for right now, I just want you guys listening."
Seventh-grade students respond to teacher Tim Ogburn's questions about a Japanese creation myth. Their school, Black Pine Circle, in Berkeley, Calif., follows the Socratic method.
Seventh-grade students respond to teacher Tim Ogburn's questions about a Japanese creation myth. Their school, Black Pine Circle, in Berkeley, Calif., follows the Socratic method.
Elissa Nadworny/NPR
Every class is imbued with Socratic style, and the pedagogy includes regular Socratic seminars. (OK, Socrates likely skips gym class.)
"When you hear people tell a story it kind of gives you an idea of who they are," says one seventh-grader in Ogburn's class. Students sit in semicircular rows discussing a Japanese creation myth. One circle is tasked with talking while another is supposed to just listen — and think.
Ogburn is trying to get students to look beyond the basics: that the myth was part of a pre-scientific society trying to explain the world.
"So, inner circle, tell me: How is this story about balance?"
When done right, Ogburn says, he is facilitating a real dialogue. It's a method he hopes his students can use to approach lifelong learning as well as life itself.
"The Socratic method forces us to take a step back from that and ask questions like: What's going on here? What does this possibly mean?" Ogburn says. "What's important? What's less important? What might be motivating this person to say this?"
Head of School John Carlstroem agrees. "What we're trying to teach kids is to ask the question, 'What makes you say that?'" he says.
"I think that the best scientists and mathematicians — that's the question they're asking in all of their work: 'What makes us say that? What gives us this idea?'"
In the eighth grade, students are expected to take charge. In English class, teacher Chris Chun sits to the side and largely stays quiet while eighth-grader Alexander Blau leads a small-group discussion on George Orwell's classic dystopian novel, Animal Farm.
Another group silently listens while a third group will offer critical feedback.
"Does anybody here know what 'beatifically' means, and could you guess it based on the context?" Blau asks the group. "Tommy, do you think you have an idea?"
After the discussion, teacher Chun asks the class how they did. The other students comment on the discussion. One student suggests Blau shouldn't have let another student, David, take over as the leader. Then the groups switch, and another student-led discussion begins.
"We really remind our teachers that what we're trying to get at is the process of learning for learning's sake," Carlstroem says. "Let's not make this all about learning to gain information but to learn how to learn. I think that's when the democratic process comes through in all this."
Start 'Em Young
At this K-8 school, it's never too early to start a Socratic seminar. Black Pine Circle's kindergartners start with a Question of the Day. On the day I visited, first-graders were doing basic addition — as a group — using dominoes.
First-graders at Black Pine Circle School in Berkeley, Calif., learn basic addition using dominoes.
First-graders at Black Pine Circle School in Berkeley, Calif., learn basic addition using dominoes.
Elissa Nadworny/NPR
"I think of it as the teacher doesn't have the one true answer; the class constructs knowledge together," says first-grade teacher Leila Sinclaire. "They need to learn how to listen to one another and learn from one another and celebrate mistakes. I don't explain things by saying, 'This is what we're doing and this is why.' I ask them: 'What are you interested in and how can we explore that together?'" Sinclaire says.
Carlstroem says young children respond well to this style of teaching.
"Five-, 6- and 7-year-olds are so naturally curious that in many ways they may be the most naturally Socratic," he says. "Those of us who have had 3-year-olds know that that's a part of what that is when they say, 'Why? Why? Why?' all the time."
Some scholars argue that Socrates was being ironic and playful when he said that all he knows is that he knows nothing. His call for intellectual humility was also meant to poke fun at the pretensions of Athenian society. So maybe it's fitting that the Bay Area has a school dedicated to the Socratic method. At times Silicon Valley's 'we're saving the world one app at a time' ethos could perhaps use a dose of Socratic humility.
Scholars today are still trying to parse what's truly Socratic from Plato's idealized accounts. Was the great teacher mainly a creation of his student?
Maybe it doesn't matter.
"Would we still do it if it was called Frodo's practice?" asks Head of School John Carlstroem. "My answer is yes, because the proof is in the pudding. When we look at what happens in a Socratic classroom and how it works — it's amazing. I think the reason we call it Socratic practice is because, like a lot of things, we're working at it."
They're practicing and refining the techniques of critical thinking all the time, he says. It's a process that's never really finished.

Shakespeare: The Mysterious Scope Of Existence

The Unstealable Bike? Three Chilean Students Hope To Prevent Theft Through Design

$
0
0

Yerka Bike Chile.jpg

Twenty years ago, riding a bike through New York City – or any other major metropolitan area in the United States, for that matter – was considered a near suicidal act. City streets were the terrain of taxis, delivery trucks and out-of-state drivers, braved only by the intrepid bike messenger, the anti-auto activists and Talking Heads musician David Byrne.
Fast forward to 2014 and – thanks to designated cycling lanes, artfully-designed storage racks and bike share programs – more and more city dwellers are abandoning their gas guzzlers for pedal power when it comes to commuting to work, grocery shopping or just getting around town. While this cycling shift has reduced traffic congestion and eased some of the carbon emissions given off by cars, it has also led to one unsavory side effect: a spike in bike thefts.
With cities like Philadelphia, New York and San Francisco reporting record numbers of bikes stolen every year, it seems that no matter how tough or imposing companies make their lock, a determined thief will find a way to get through it.
Three Chilean engineering students, however, are hoping to cull this trend by creating what they claim is the world’s first “unstealable bike.”
"The three of us have always been bike enthusiasts since kids, we love to use them as transportation or as a simple way to have fun," Juan José Monsalve, who along with Cristóbal Cabello and Andrés Roi designed what they call the Yerka bike, told Fox News Latino. 
"Sadly, Andrés had two of his bikes stolen in a short period of time. A few years ago we took an engineering design class at Adolfo Ibáñez University here in Chile and were asked to solve a problem to an actual commute. Using Andrés’ experience as a starting point we started to throw ideas to the table trying to solve this problem, and finally came up with something very similar to what we have today."
What they have today is a bike that looks almost identical to almost every other commuter bike on the street, except that the bottom tube of the frame consists of two separate sections that can be split in two and wrapped around a pole. The bike is then secured to a pole or tree using the seat post to connect the arms and locked shut with a key.
Monsalve added that the company is working on prototypes that work with combination locks and through a smartphone via Bluetooth. They are also designing prototypes with a step-through frame and a bike with gears.
The Yerka Project’s original design idea took some trial and error before they came up with their current model and the Chilean students first experimented with a PVC model of the bike before moving on to a model that could actually be ridden around the Chilean capital of Santiago.
"We first had like three different ideas in mind, but quickly discarded them as they would fall to the ground no matter where you parked them," Monsalve said. "The first prototype we made was in PVC and it was just to show the teacher how the mechanism would work, but very few people could understand it, so about a year later we built our first rideable bike so anyone could understand how it works."
Even before going on sale, the Yerka bike has already drawn criticism for its claim that it’s the world’s first unstealable bike, with detractors saying that any lock can be picked and even if the bike can’t be stolen it can easily be destroyed.
"Remember how people used to open those ubiquitous cylinder locks with a Bic pen? Any lock can be picked and the bike stolen," Lloyd Alter, the managing editor at the website TreeHugger wrote. "Over at BikeRumor, the one bike site that I have seen cover this, a commentator noted that one good kick on that seat post and it will be dented, making the bike unrideable for the owner as well."
Some have also pointed out that sometimes thieves are just as happy to make away with a bike's handlebars or a front wheel, forcing some cyclists to use another cable lock through both wheels.
Monsalve acknowledged the critics and said that the company would soon be releasing a video to explain all the questions people have about their “unstealable” claim, but that for now the denunciations only prove that they are doing something right.
“If we weren’t doing something as disruptive as this, or something that people aren’t interested in, we wouldn’t receive any critics, and believe me when I say we’ve had lots of them mainly referring to the same ‘what if I cut the seat post’ question,'" he said. "We try to learn and improve our project with every critic, and we are soon to release a video in which we probably answer those kind of questions."
The Yerka bike, which will retail for between $400 and $1,000 when it finally hits the market, may not fit in everyone’s price range but Monsalve says that its internal lock and the difficulty in stealing it are worth the price … especially if one has to buy a new bike every couple months because the old one is stolen.
"We think the Yerka bike will fit into this price range, incorporating its own lock into the frame which is an advantage to all the competition," he said.
While the three Chilean students say they want to secure a patent for their product before they begin selling the Yerka bike, they hope to have the first batch of bikes ready for sale sometime in the early months of 2015 and will be using a Kickstarter campaign to raise money to produce it.
The students don’t just plan to keep their secret cycling formula for their own company, but instead license out their design to other bike companies.
“The plan is to license the patent to different brands interested in incorporating this technology to their urban models,” Monsalve said. “We hope this process of licensing takes place soon so we can see Yerka bikes being ridden hopefully worldwide.
Follow Andrew O'Reilly on Twitter @aoreilly84.

100 Incidents Of Street Harrassment In Ten Hours Of New York City Walking (Video)

$
0
0

"Justice While Black," By Lawyer Robbin Shipp

$
0
0
"The game is rigged": Longtime defense attorney Robbin Shipp takes on the carceral state
Robbin Shipp

“The game is rigged”: Longtime defense attorney Robbin Shipp takes on the carceral state

"Justice While Black" author tells Salon why after 18 years she decided she could keep her peace no longer


As the arrest of Cornel West and others in Ferguson this week made clear, the national conversation that began this summer following the killing of teenager Michael Brown by officer Darren Wilson is not over, and is unlikely to be so any time soon. That’s due in significant part to the tenacity and endurance of activists in Missouri and elsewhere who refuse to let the national media turn its fickle attention elsewhere. But it’s due in larger part to the stubborn fact that the social maladies revealed in the Brown incident — police brutality, the rise of mass incarceration and the persistent scourge of institutional racism — are dysfunctions that, left unaddressed, will simply not go away.
In her new book, “Justice While Black: Helping African-American Families Navigate and Survive the Criminal Justice System,” defense attorney and Georgia Commissioner of Labor candidate Robbin Shipp, along with co-author Nick Chiles, offer a searing and sobering artifact of just how destructive those social forces can be. A mix of how-to and social criticism, “Justice While Black,” offers an insider’s view of how the justice system functions to stack the deck against millions of African-Americans, and what individuals and their families can do to survive it all the same. Salon spoke with Shipp recently about her time as an attorney, institutional racism and what inspired her to step outside the justice system and write her first book. Our conversation is below and has been edited for clarity and length.
Before we talk about “Justice While Black,” can you tell me a bit about how your professional background made you want to write this book?
I’m a licensed attorney in the state of Georgia, and I have been licensed since my completion of law school in ’96. I graduated from the Walter F. George College of Law at Mercer University, and started practicing law immediately after graduation. At that point, I focused primarily on criminal defense; I tried my first case two months out of law school. So I was very quickly in the fray.

I’ve practiced now for a little over 18 years, and handled a lot of major felony cases; murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, those types of cases. How have my views grown or changed over the years? As a new attorney, I was concerned about disparities relating to both charges and sentencing between African-Americans and other groups… But what I found I had to do, as a new attorney in order to grow in my profession, was divorce my social concerns from the practical, everyday practice of law in order to function as a criminal defense attorney.
And when you say “social concerns,” I take it you mean your concerns about the judicial system as a whole?
Right. Exactly. Because I started practicing law in an area … where the judges were all white, and an overwhelming number of defendants who appeared in front of these judges were African-American. As an attorney, you cannot stand in a courtroom and yell “racism!” every time someone is sentenced or charged … disproportionately, because … the resolutions are not going to be the best resolutions, because you are expressing an emotional reaction to charges.
I had to separate my concerns in regard to social disparities from the actual practice of law, to try to circumvent what may be biased — because judges are people, too — to particular racial groups or gender … I had to circumvent those biases by emphasizing the human story in a lot of cases of my particular clients.
And that’s something you found you had to do often? Simply reminding judges that your clients were actual human beings?
Absolutely. That became a hallmark of my practice. Particularly in a situation where someone is accepting a plea, I always looked for and established their human story, because everybody has a story in their lives. In my experience, there’s usually a catalyst that brought someone to the point, if they in fact did commit a crime, there was oftentimes some kind of catalyst that brought someone to that point of committing a crime.
So when did you start feeling like you couldn’t maintain the compartmentalization of your day-to-day work and your overarching beliefs any longer?
This book started in, I want to say, 2010, because at that point, 16 years practicing primarily criminal defense work, I saw this pattern — and the pattern was that young people would incriminate themselves with regard to a crime that they’re alleged to have committed by giving voluntarily a statement to a police officer or agreeing to the search of their vehicle or their home where incriminating evidence is discovered. There seemed to be this disconnect from constitutional rights and practical, everyday life.
So I hoped to help young people understand that the Constitution really does mean something in our country and in our everyday practical life experiences; and in particular, that it applies [to them] and that [they] are allowed to assert its protections. Because so many people didn’t seem to a) know their constitutional rights, and b) in that moment of adrenaline surge and panic that is associated with being stopped by police officers, they were willing to just give away the constitutional protections.
And from your anecdotal impression, how often do you think this was happening not just because people didn’t know their rights but also because they assumed the game was rigged, anyway, and they’d be better off resisting as little as they could?
That’s frequently a situation that criminal defense attorneys encounter. Because the truth of the matter is, the game is rigged. The prosecution has so much more resources aimed at obtaining convictions for people who are accused of crimes. And we all see it. The system itself is so overwhelmed that a careful analysis of the facts of every case is oftentimes challenging.
But what is critical at that juncture, where you’re interacting with someone who’s been charged with a crime, is to make them accept the possibility of a successful outcome — because every fact-scenario is different for every crime that is accused. People have to understand that it is the prosecution’s responsibility, or duty, or burden, to establish guilt in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. And oftentimes what you find are that the steps in the process of creating a case against someone have been skipped or the procedure was in some sort of way flawed.
How rampant a problem is that, the skipping of steps or the slip into sloppiness? How often does the system end up operating more like an incarceration assembly line than a real deliberative process to find out truth and deliver justice?
Well, as we allude to in the book, it is almost a factory. That’s why it’s incumbent upon an individual and that person’s family to obtain the best representation that they can for young people.
I had a case where, when I got the case, the young man had been in jail for right out around two years, and he was charged with murder, as being the accomplice in an armed robbery of a known drug dealer … My client was alleged to have been there with the individual who actually committed the murder, the shooting of the young woman that resulted in her death.
Initially, in investigating the case, the police [told my client] that he was not going to be charged. But when the district attorney assigned to the case got ahold of it … he was arrested on a grand jury warrant and charged with murder. Bond was set, and it was an amount in excess of what the family could come up with. So when I was appointed to the case, my client had sat in jail for about two years.
When I got the case, he was adamant in his innocence; so I began my investigation, and there were inconsistencies in the case against him … But still, the prosecution was insistent on going forward against my client, because they had the victim’s sister making what they conveyed was a positive identification of my client as being one of the people present — not the shooter, but one of the people present. The sister, who was troubled herself, had some serious issues, mental health issues, she was kind of underground, difficult to track down, difficult to find …
But my investigator and I, we were able to track down the sister’s mother and went to interview her, and it was just happenstance that we asked if the sister was there … so she came out from the back of the house and sat down with us, and we identified who we were, and we started talking about the incident, and … we showed the alternative picture of what she had identified as my client, and she said, “Yeah. That’s the guy who was present. That’s the guy who was involved in the robbery.”
This was a completely different person then, and it was apparent that this was a completely different person from my client. We disclosed this incorrect identification and filed the appropriate motions to the prosecutor, and he advised that he would look into it. This was some four months prior to the trial. Well, on the eve of jury selection, the Friday before we were scheduled to go into court and select a jury for murder charges, the prosecutor gave me a call and said, “We’re dismissing the charges against your client.” They had apparently brought in the victim/witness … and she was shown my client’s picture, and she reiterated what she had previously said to me — that he was not involved, he was not there that evening.
That’s a situation where there was a breakdown in the system … and that sort of thing happens all the time. What could have been prevented was my client sitting in jail for two years.
Your book is a guide, but it’s also an analysis of the justice system as it exists today. Can you tell me a bit about the role the “War on Drugs” plays, as you see it?
We started this war on drugs back in the ’80s, and the goal was to stamp out drugs in our communities. But what it ended up being was a war on street-level sales. That’s really what it ended up being. The people who were actually importing the drugs, sometimes they were caught, and you’d hear about these huge busts; but the majority of folks who we saw going in and out of our justice system were street-level … That’s kind of the disappointment in the drug war. We never really reached those who were actually the ones who were making it convenient for people to acquire drugs, the ones who were actually importing it for mass sale.
Is this focus on small-timers, is it a result of law enforcement having to produce numbers, statistics, to prove they’re doing their job? Or is it the result of laws that don’t give prosecutors and others enough flexibility to determine punishment? Or is it both?
It’s a combination of both. It is also that judges have demands placed on them to clear out their caseloads. Your defense attorneys — particularly if you’re talking public defenders — have demands placed on them to clear out their caseloads to get ready for the next hundred that come in their way. Police officers have in some instances spoken (in other instances, unspoken) quotas that they have to fill as it relates to arrests. And caught in the middle of all that are young people, often in urban areas, who are in a sense the low-hanging fruit to feed this machine.
And you write in the book that it was, ultimately, the Trayvon Martin case — which was not explicitly about the “War on Drugs,” but which was very much about the way our system treats young African-Americans — that sort of pushed you to a breaking point.
Yes. I had shelved the book to do some other things … I was aware of the Trayvon Martin case, but in my lawyer brain, I thought, “This is a clear-cut case [that should lead to] some level of conviction.” I purposefully did not watch the trial, because it’s stuff that I live every day, so I knew how this was supposed to conclude: with a conviction on some level of George Zimmerman.
Flash-forward, I’m in Washington, D.C., celebrating the 100th anniversary of my sorority, and I woke up and saw this news flash: Zimmerman verdict is in, and he’s not guilty. And as an attorney who has handles major felony defense work for a lot of years, you divorce yourself from your feelings, so I kind of walked around that evening in a bit of a stupor … At this point [in my career], it’s 18 years of pent-up emotions, of feeling as if black life in this country is not valued the same as others.
The Sunday morning following the Saturday verdict, I went to an ecumenical service. And the chaplain, she started to preach about the Zimmerman verdict, and how Trayvon Martin’s life was not valued … and the floodgates burst open, and I wept in a way that I had not wept since losing my father in 2008. I wept not just for Trayvon Martin, but I wept for the hundreds upon hundreds of young men whose lives I had had the privilege of touching in some way or another … and all of the others that have come after Trayvon Martin.
After I finished crying, after that ecumenical service, and after I got back to Atlanta, I immediately called my co-author, Nick Chiles, and I said to him, “We gotta do the book.”
Elias Isquith
Elias Isquith is a staff writer at Salon, focusing on politics. Follow him on Twitter at @eliasisquith, and email him at eisquith@salon.com.


Untranslatable Words From Around The World. Verschlimmbessern!?!

$
0
0


by John-Erik Jordan

You Can’t Say That In English!

By some estimates the English language has more than a million words. It’s impossible to nail down an exact figure, but it’s generally agreed that no other language has nearly as many. It’s not like any of ususe all one million words, but still – you would think that English must have a word for everything, right?
No way. Not even close.
There are over 6,000 languages spoken on Earth, and all of them describe the breadth and depth of human life. But since all of these languages provide slightly different ways of seeing the world, no one language can perfectly encapsulate the entire human experience. Conversely, every language on Earth contains certain words that don’t exist in any other language. These linguistic gems can certainly be defined, but they cannot be directly translated. For example, can you think of just one word to mean the essence of yourself that you put into your work? You might say that you “put your heart and soul” into something, but the Greeks simply call this kind of passion for what you do μεράκι (meraki).
Untranslatable words highlight the rich diversity of the ethnosphere. Geography, climate, cuisine, religion, history and humor are just some of the factors that lead every language to invent such unique and specific words – the outliers of the human experience.
There are so many great examples of untranslatable words that we’ve decided to turn them into a continuing series. Here are the first eight.
Un Words Eng

abbiocco (Italian)

noun: that sleepy feeling you get after a big meal
Everyone has succumbed to drowsiness after a meal at one time or another, but only the Italians have enshrined the phenomenon in a single word. When you wish you could take a nap after lunch, you’re “having the abbiocco” (avere l’abbiocco).

desenrascanço (Portuguese)

noun: the ability to improvise a quick solution
Desenrascanço is the M.O. of any high-functioning procrastinator. Not only does it mean to solve a problem or complete a task, it means doing so with a completely improvised solution. TV’s MacGyverutilized this skill every time he averted disaster with nothing but a bent paper clip and a chewing gum wrapper.

hyggelig (Danish)

adj: comfy, cozy; intimate; contented
Do you ever wish there was one word to combine everything snuggly, safe, friendly and caring? The Danes have you covered with hyggelig. The word is used so often in daily life that many Danes consider it part of the national character.

sobremesa (Spanish)

noun: after-lunch conversation around the table
The Spanish are known for enjoying long meals together, but eating isn’t just about food. When you stay at the table after lunch in order to savor a final course of stimulating conversation, you are indulging insobremesa.

utepils (Norwegian)

noun: a beer you drink outside
Norwegians must endure a long, dark winter before they can enjoy the brilliant, but brief, summer. So a beer that you can drink outside, while absorbing the sun’s glorious rays, is not just any old beer.

verschlimmbessern (German)

verb: to make something worse when trying to improve it
We’ve all done this before: by trying to fix a small problem we create a bigger problem. Perhaps you tried to repair a flat tire on your bike, and now the wheel won’t turn? Or after reinstalling Windows your laptop freezes every time you boot up? Oh no, don’t tell me you tried to fix that bad haircut yourself!

yakamoz (Turkish) and mångata (Swedish)

noun: the reflection of moonlight on water
No matter which language you speak, from time to time you probably admire the moon’s reflection on a body of water. But unless you’re Turkish or Swedish it’s impossible to describe this beauty with a single word. The Swedish mångata literally translates to “moon-road”, an aptly poetic description.
Turkish also has a very specific word, gümüşservi, but it’s not really used in everyday speech. It’s far more common to call the moon’s reflection on water yakamoz, which can be used to describe any kind of light reflecting on water, or even the sparkle of fish.
Can you think of any totally unique words from your native language? Share them with us and we’ll compile the best in our ongoing video series!

Police Brutality

$
0
0
"Why did you draw your gun?” How the law encourages police brutality
Police Brutality (Huff Post)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/police-brutality/***Blacks 21 Times More Likely To Be Shot Dead Than White But Commit Only 10 Times As Much Murderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/racial-disparity-police-killings_n_5965706.html?utm_hp_ref=police-brutality***

"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right"

A few years ago in juvenile court, a police officer was testifying about approaching my client, a teenager who more or less fit the description of someone who had recently stolen a pack of gum from a convenience store. At about 11:00 a.m. on a Sunday in the summer, my client, along with two other young men, was sitting on the front steps of an apartment building. When the police car pulled up to the curb in front of them, none of the three men reacted. They just sat there talking. When the door to the cruiser opened, no one ran. No one reached for a gun. According to the officer’s testimony, the three didn’t even seem to look up. Then, the cop testified, he drew his gun and pointed it at the three men as he walked toward them.
“Had any of the men made any suspicious movements?” I asked.
“No,” said the cop.
“Did you have any reason to think the men were armed?”
“No.”
“So why did you draw your gun?”
Trial lawyers are taught never to ask a question to which they don’t already know the answer, and I was breaking that rule when I asked the last question. But I figured no possible answer could hurt my client. Still, the cop’s answer stunned me:
“I was outnumbered.”
I looked around the courtroom, making a show of quietly counting on my fingers the other people there – the court reporter, opposing counsel, the clerk, the judge. Then I asked the officer, “Are you outnumbered right now?”
It is hard to imagine moving through the world and seeing every other human being around you, no matter how ordinary, as a threat. If I lived like that, I wouldn’t leave the house. But police are trained to see the world that way, and for at least fifty years, our courts have ratified their worldview.
In court decisions and training manuals, the term “officer safety” comes up again and again, a shorthand for the inoffensive notion that cops have an inviolable prerogative to use force to protect themselves. But “officer safety” exists as a concept because we believe in a complementary but more sinister concept: civilian dangerousness. In a highly segregated society with a 400-year history of white fear of black violence, where criminality and blackness are deeply intertwined in the imagination of the majority, civilian dangerousness means black dangerousness. Culture teaches the members of our disproportionately white police forces to view young men of color with fear and suspicion. Police training reinforces the idea that every interaction with a civilian is a tactical operation fraught with peril. This is a recipe for interactions that turn into violent confrontations. This is our policy, and we are seeing its logical results around the country.


White fear of black men has a very long and deplorable history in this country, and innumerable innocents have seen the business end of a noose because of it. But the police procedures and legal presumptions that enshrine white fear today began to calcify in the 1960s. Toward the end of that decade, black Americans found themselves in possession of a series of long overdue legal victories that seemed to be good only on paper. The Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were the law of the land, but the South and much of the North still operated by the law of a sheriff’s gun. School integration, too, was a battle won and yet lost. And of course, the unfair economic advantages of centuries of oppression were only being refined and entrenched, as Ta-Nehisi Coates has eloquently explained. So when urban black America was finally convulsed by the sort of violence that we would expect from anyone in the face of such vicious and unceasing abuse, many white Americans, the bulk of them probably apolitical, some of them supporters of the civil rights movement, were suddenly and decidedly afraid.
Not surprisingly, then, white flight hit its stride in the 1960s, timed perfectly to fuel the burgeoning suburbanization that the interstate system had made possible. Then, in the 1970s, the manufacturing economy that had drawn blacks from the South began to fizzle. The cities, which had lately become appreciably blacker, now became appreciably poorer as well. A divide was growing in this country, between the suburban, predominantly white middle class and the urban, predominantly black working class. Into this climate came police militarization: as Tamara Knopper and Mariame Kaba observe in Jacobin, “[T]he militarization of US police can be traced back to the mid-1960s. . . The social anxiety and fear engendered by the Vietnam War and domestic urban rebellions led by black people provided license for the police to turn these new products on the marginalized populations of inner-city America.”
As downtowns deteriorated, suburban whites had fewer and fewer reasons to visit cities at all, and less and less contact with people of color. It became easier for them to imagine black Americans as a faceless horde, unified in their hostility toward authority in general and white people in particular, and cloistered in fetid cities that were to be avoided at all costs. It wasn’t an accident that when Boston’s seedy downtown entertainment district was dubbed the “Combat Zone” by journalists in the 1960s, the name stuck – the concept of city-as-war zone resonated in the suburbs. At the same time, Readers Digest and Look began a sporadic series of salacious stories on urban welfare fraud. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, who probably did the scary-urban-black-people trope better than anyone in politics, made the largely fictional phenomenon of“welfare queens” the signal element in distinguishing himself from Jimmy Carter. That same year, Billy Joel could catalog his own craziness in a song with just three examples: “been stranded in the Combat Zone,” “walked through Bedford Stuy alone,” and “rode my motorcycle in the rain” – never mind that the people who lived in Bed Stuy had to walk through the neighborhood alone all the time. Joel was a suburban white person singing to other suburban white people, and they knew what he meant.
The development and institutionalization of this social anxiety can be neatly tracked just by looking at decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, where “officer safety” has developed into a talisman to be invoked against any restraint on the exercise of police power. By expanding, again and again, what may be done in the name of officer safety, the Court has made manifest its perception that there is a corresponding growth in the danger posed to police by civilians, and the measures that police must take to protect themselves. In practically every case that has defined this body of law, the civilian involved was black.
The high court considered police officer safety as a justification for a cop’s action for the first time in 1968, in the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio. That case involved a veteran beatcop who noticed two men standing on a street corner in downtown Cleveland in 1963. Here is how the Supreme Court explained the beginning of the encounter:
At the hearing on the motion to suppress this evidence, Officer McFadden testified that while he was patrolling in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of October 31, 1963, his attention was attracted by two men, Chilton and Terry, standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. However, he testified that he had been a policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35 and that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for 30 years. He explained that he had developed routine habits of observation over the years and that he would “stand and watch people or walk and watch people at many intervals of the day.” He added: “Now, in this case when I looked over they didn’t look right to me at the time.”
Detective McFadden followed Terry and Chilton, who seemed to be taking turns walking down the street, looking into a shop window, and then returning to the corner. The officer thought they might be preparing a robbery. Ultimately, the officer approached Chilton, Terry, and another man, Katz, who had all gathered in front of the store. The officer asked them their names, they answered, and then, without saying anything else, he patted each one down and discovered that Terry and Chilton had a gun each.
From this set of facts, the Supreme Court drew the following conclusion: “We cannot say his decision at that point to seize Terry and pat his clothing for weapons was the product of a volatile or inventive imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of harassment; the record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so.” And thus was born the Terry stop – the idea that police can conduct a warrantless search if they have a reasonable suspicion that there is a threat to their safety.
Since then, the breadth of what officer safety will justify has expanded. In 1973, in United States v. Robinson, the Court upheld an officer’s full search of a man who was being arrested for driving with a revoked license. This wasn’t just a search for weapons — the officer did that and found none. Instead, after finding no weapons, the cop took a cigarette pack from the man’s pocket, opened it, and found heroin inside. Still, the justification for that search was officer safety, which the court felt was only properly protected by full searches for any arrestable offense. The court declined to accept the notion “that persons arrested for the offense of driving while their licenses have been revoked are less likely to possess dangerous weapons than are those arrested for other crimes.” Think about that: the Supreme Court said that anyone stopped for any arrestable crime (jaywalking, say, or selling untaxed cigarettes) is as likely to present an immediate danger to police as a person arrested for murder or armed robbery. It’s a bold step away from the circumstances of Terry, where the officer had some concrete reasons to think an armed robbery might be in the offing. In Robinson, the Supreme Court said, in essence, “every suspect is dangerous.” And of course, it is the police who determine who the suspects are.
By 1977, officer safety had become a reflexive invocation entirely divorced from specific facts. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Court extended Robinson beyond arrestable offenses to any interaction between a cop and a person in a car, saying that a routine traffic stop was enough justification for an officer to order a driver out of the car and pat him down, even without actual indications of danger. “The State freely concedes the officer had no reason to suspect foul play from the particular driver at the time of the stop, there having been nothing unusual or suspicious about his behavior. It was apparently his practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles as a matter of course whenever they had been stopped for a traffic violation.” But, said the high Court, “we think it too plain for argument that the State’s proffered justification – the safety of the officer – is both legitimate and weighty.”
In the nine years between Terry and Mimms, the danger faced by police on the job had grown, in the perception of the Supreme Court, from something to be conceded only in particular circumstances (men who appeared to be preparing for an armed robbery) to something to be presumed whenever cops interacted with civilians. And who were those civilians? When the Supreme Court quoted Detective McFadden’s testimony that Chilton and Terry “didn’t look right” to him, it left out another detail revealed in the same hearing: they were black. So, too, were Willie Robinson and Harry Mimms.
In 1989, the Supreme Court synthesized some of its accumulated ideas about officer safety inGraham v. Connor, a case involving a man who sued the police for using excessive force in detaining him. Most importantly, the Court ruled that police use of force should be judged not from the perspective of a judge or an ordinary citizen, but from the viewpoint of a reasonable police officer. And “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
That view of the peril of police stops persists, and it informs police procedure. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, on a web page titled “Traffic Stops are Dangerous”:
Many officers are killed each year and thousands more are injured in traffic related incidences. For example, in 1999, over half of all officer, line-of-duty deaths were related to traffic incidences. In addition, when the use of weapons at the traffic stop are added, the percentage of traffic related deaths is over 55 percent. Every stop for a traffic violation has the potential for danger.
Routine traffic stops, as they are sometimes called, sometimes turn out to be anything but routine. Officers find uninsured drivers, drivers with suspended licenses, impaired drivers, illegal firearms, drugs and fugitives. Discoveries like these are all in a day’s work for many officers. This is why officers are trained to place a great deal of emphasis on their safety and take a defensive posture at the stop until the risk of confrontation or injury is diminished.
The takeaway is that police work is highly dangerous and routinely presents highly volatile, unpredictable scenarios. As the NTHSA website suggests, this is the fundamental assumption that girds police training materials. A survey of widely used police training literature by law professor Seth Stoughton, himself a former police officer, reveals that:
[f]rom the time they are in the police academy, officers are taught that their single overriding goal every day is going home at the end of the shift. One of the most popular police training texts instructs officers to make tactical thinking a constant part of their working lives by considering, as they approach each encounter, their response to possible resistance. Police operating procedures enshrine the concept of tactical awareness. Suspicion is not reserved for suspects; a safety-conscious officer approaches witnesses and victims with similar care. An officer will take steps to control a scene well before they initiate contact with someone. For example, an officer who is going to conduct a traffic stop may delay by following the target vehicle until they reach an area that will provide some tactical advantage. Officers are trained to approach pedestrian stops in a similar manner; they select the location and environment, so far as possible, before commanding a civilian to stop.
Here’s the problem: while police work often entails great courage, the assumption that police work is especially dangerous is not necessarily supported by the numbers. On-the-job police fatalities are statistically rare; the profession does not rank among the nation’s most dangerous in this regard. Despite the notion — often voiced by defenders of police accused of using excessive force — that cops must be eternally vigilant against assailants who will grab their weapons, that basically never happens.
Of the roughly 780,000 law enforcement officers in the United States, 105 died in the line of duty in 2013, and 30 of those were from hostile gunfire of any kind (including, presumably, incidents involving their own service weapons). A thorough analysis by Professor Stoughton revealed that police interactions with civilians are almost never “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving,” as the Supreme Court described them in Graham v. Connor.
In the Tulane Law Review, Stoughton writes, “in 2008, officers used or threatened force in less than 2% of approximately forty million civilian interactions.” And even the Supreme Court’s theory that automobile stops are especially dangerous for cops crumbles under scrutiny: In Robinson and Mimms, the high court relied on a single study that indicated that 30% of incidents where cops were shot began with traffic stops (the NHTSA offers the even higher rate of “more than half”). As any student of basic statistics will tell you, that figure reveals almost nothing about how dangerous traffic stops are. (There could be three million traffic stops, only three of which resulted in officers’ being shot, and the statistic would still hold true as long as seven officers were shot in other types of encounters). A 2001 review of ten years of national traffic stop data in the Journal of Criminal Justice estimated the risk of a police fatality during a traffic stop at between 1 in 6.7 million and 1 in 20.1 million.
Why, in the face of these data, does police training continue to tell officers that they are targets? And why do courts continue blithely to ratify this view, holding cops blameless for conduct that would get most of us charged with a felony? The answer is in another set of data: Studies and polls routinely show that white Americans, and the American public in general, perceive black people to be more violent than other groups and more prone to drug abuse, although neither of those assertions is demonstrably true. Americans generally overestimate the percentage of violent crimes attributable to blacks.
We live in a nation where white and black people continue to live in separate neighborhoods, where most white people don’t have any black friends, and where police forces and judiciariesare significantly whiter than the communities they serve. In that context, it’s not really surprising that police training and practices are adversarial toward black people, that courts approve of the approach, or that the white majority largely fails to understand or be moved by the situation.
There’s a video, taken on September 4 of this year, of a white South Carolina Highway Patrol Officer stopping a black man for a seatbelt violation. The man, Levar Jones, has already parked at a gas station and is getting out of his car when the officer, Sean Groubert, pulls up and asks to see his license. Jones does pretty much what you might expect – he turns around and leans back into his car, as if to retrieve something. And then, in an instant, Groubert is screaming, “Get out of the car! Get out of the car!” as he runs toward Jones. It takes Groubert less than one second to say that, and then he shoots Jones multiple times from just a few feet away:
Jones (who was unarmed) survived, and Groubert was fired and charged criminally. But when you listen to Groubert’s voice in the second before he starts shooting, you can hear something clearly: fear. He really thought Jones was dangerous, and he was well trained in how to react to danger. The South Carolina Public Safety Director described the shooting this way: “I believe this case was an isolated incident in which Mr. Groubert reacted to a perceived threat where there was none.” But the incident is not isolated. We are a nation that has trained its police to treat people of color the way the white majority always has — the way that Sean Groubert treated Levar Jones: perceiving a threat where there was none. As long as that perception continues, young men of color will continue to be needlessly beaten, and sometimes killed, at the hands of the police.
Josh Michtom is a public defender in Hartford, Conn. His views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.


Cornel West Interviewed By NPR: "Black Prophecy." What King And X Had In Common

$
0
0
Black Prophetic Fire

Reviving A Grand Tradition Of 'Black Prophetic Fire'

In a new book, Cornel West tries to look unblinkingly at the power of what he calls black prophetic fire: Six African American leaders — Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ella Baker, Malcom X and Ida B. Wells, whom he believes have enlivened America, even as their messages have often blunted, ignored, or, almost worse, deodorized, as he puts it. West tells NPR's Scott Simon that there are leaders — and then there are prophets. "A leader is somebody who has to jump in the middle of the fray and be prudential, we hope, rather than opportunistic," he says. "But a prophetic person tells the truth, exposes lies, bears witness and then, usually, is pushed to the margins or shot dead."

Interview Highlights

On Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X
Well, you know, brother Martin Luther King, Jr., he was an exemplary figure when it comes to prophetic fire. We like to freeze him in 1963; we like to think that, somehow, he would not engage what seemed to be un-American critique when he said, "My government is the biggest conveyor of violence in the world."
Malcolm X was motivated by a very, very deep love of a hated people. His commitment to black people was so intense that it scared many black people themselves ... I think we need Malcolm's spirit, even in 2014, with the Fergusons, and with the massive unemployment, the soul murder that takes place too often in our inner city schools and, of course, the greed at the top.
On Ida B. Wells
She looked American terrorism in the face. She looked lynching in the face. She was run out of Tennessee — bounty on her head — and then went to England. She was willing to speak truths at the cost of life. And, you see, Du Bois, at the time, Booker T. Washington, at the time, they did not want to speak as candidly — and ended up not speaking as courageously as Ida B. Wells-Barnett. That's why I conclude, in many ways, she is the most courageous in the sense of looking that terror in the face and being willing to be crushed by it.
On bringing back "black prophetic fire"
I was just so down and out, feeling as if maybe we were experiencing the relative death of black prophetic fire in the age of Obama — what I call the re-negrization of the black professional class, where everybody's looking at black professionals for success. But, in many ways, they are as fearful, intimidated, afraid vis-a-vis their careers and, therefore, they don't want to tell the truth; they don't want to serve and sacrifice and take a risk. But I wanted to tell them to just lay bare the tradition.
Lo and behold, here goes a great tradition of a people who have been hated and despised, but still loved — a people who were deceived, but still wanted to be honest as Du Bois, as Douglas, as Ida B. Wells, as Ella Baker, as Martin and Malcolm. Not perfect, but exemplary figures of integrity, honesty and decency; and therefore, an example for all of us, regardless of color, sexual orientation or nation.

Martin Luther Kind Jr. On The Minimum Wage

$
0
0
  • We know of no more crucial civil rights issue facing Congress today than the need to increase the federal minimum wage and extend its coverage.
    • Statement on minimum wage legislation, March 18, 1966 Source: Now Is the Time. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on Labor in the South: The Case for a Coalition. Booklet prepared by the Southern Labor Institute under the auspices of the Labor Subcommittee of the King Holiday Commission, designed by the AFT and printed by AFSCME. January 1986.

Martin Luther King Jr. On Hatred, Violence, Love And Jesus The Way

$
0
0

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Wikiquote Page

***

"Pax On Both Houses: A Compendium Of Martin Luther King Jr. Quotes"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-favorite-martin-luther-king-quote.html


***
  • If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through retaliatory violence.We must meet violence with nonviolence. Remember the words of Jesus: "He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword." We must love our white brothers, no matter what they do to us. We must make them know that we love them. Jesus still cries out in words that echo across the centuries: "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; pray for them that despitefully use you." This is what we must live by. We must meet hate with love. Remember, if I am stopped, this movement will not stop, because God is with the movement. Go home with this glowing faith and this radiant assurance.
    • King's words after a bomb was thrown into his house in Alabama, on 30 January 1956, in Stride Toward Freedom (1958)
  • Let us move now from the practical how to the theoretical why: Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says "love your enemies," he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies-or else? The chain reaction of evil-Hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars-must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
    • This passage contains some phrases King later used in "Where Do We Go From Here?" (1967) which has a section below.
  • Another reason why we must love our enemies is that hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. Mindful that hate is an evil and dangerous force, we too often think of what it does to the person hated. This is understandable, for hate bring irreparable damage to its victims. We have seen its ugly consequences in the ignominious deaths brought to six million Jews by a hate-obsessed madman named Hitler, in the unspeakable violence inflicted upon Negroes by blood-thirsty mobs, in the dark horrors of war, and in the terrible indignities and injustices perpetrated against millions of God's children by unconscionable oppressors.
    But there is another side which we must never overlook. Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.
  • Modern psychology recognizes what Jesus taught centuries ago: Hate divides the personality and love in an amazing and inexorable way unites it.
  • A third reason why we should love our enemies is that love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend. We never get rid of an enemy by meeting hate with hate; we get rid of an enemy by getting rid of enmity. By its very nature, love creates and builds up. Love transforms with redemptive power.
  • The meaning of love is not to be confused with some sentimental outpouring. Love is something much deeper that emotional bosh. Perhaps the Greek language can clear our confusion at this point. In the Greek New Testament are three words for love. The word eros is sort of aesthetic or romantic love. In the Platonic dialogues eros is the yearning of the soul for the realm of the divine. The second word is philia, a reciprocal of love and the intimate affection and friendship between friends. We love those whom we like, and we love because we are loved. The third word is agape, understanding and creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. An overflowing love which seek nothing in return, agape is the love of God operating in the human heart. At this level, we love men not because we like them, nor because they possess some type of divine spark; we love every man because God loves him. At this level, we love the person who does an evil deed, although we hate the deed that he does. [...] When Jesus bids us to love our enemies, he is speaking neither of eros nor philia; he is speaking of agape, understanding and creative, redemptive goodwill toward men. Only by following this way and responding with this type of love are we able to be children of our father which is in heaven.
  • An even more basic reason why we are commanded to love is expressed explicitly in Jesus' words, "love your enemies....that ye may be children of your father which is in heaven." We are called to this difficult task in order to realize a unique relationship with God. We are potential sons of God. Through love that potentiality becomes actuality. We must love our enemies, because only loving them can we know God and experience the beauty of His holiness.
  • The darkness of racial injustice will be dispelled only by the light of forgiving love. For more that three centuries American Negroes have been frustrated by day and bewilderment by night by unbearable injustice, and burdened with the ugly weight of discrimination. Forced to live with these shameful conditions, we are tempted to become bitter and retaliate with a corresponding hate. But if this happens, the new order we seek will be little more than a duplicate of the old order. We must in strength and humility meet hate with love.
  • Time is cluttered with wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation or mankind, we must follow another way. This does not mean that we abandon our righteous efforts. With every ounce of our energy we must continue to rid this nation of the incubus of segregation. But we shall not in the process relinquish our privilege and our obligation to love. While abhorring segregation, we shall love the segregationist. This is the only way to create the beloved community.
  • To our most bitter opponents we say: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process and our victory will be a double victory."
  • Love is the most durable power in the world. This creative force, so beautifully exemplified in the life of our Christ, is the most potent instrument available in mankind's quest for peace and security. Napoleon Bonaparte, the great military genius, looking back over his years of conquest, is reported to have said: "Alexander,CaesarCharlemagne and I have built great empires. But upon what did they depend? They depended on force. But centuries ago Jesus started an empire that was built onlove, and even to this day millions will die for him." Who can doubt the veracity of these words. The great military leaders of the past have gone, their empires have crumbled and burned to ashes. But the empire of Jesus, built solidly and majestically on the foundation of love, is still growing. It started with a small group of dedicated men, who, through the inspiration of their Lord, were able to shake the hinges form the gates of the Roman Empire, and carry the gospel into all the world. Today the vast earthly kingdom of Christ numbers more than 900,000,000 and covers every land and tribe.
  • Jesus is eternally right. History is replete with the bleached bones of nations that refused to listen to him. May we in the twentieth century hear and follow his words-before it is too late. May we solemnly realize that we shall never be true sons of our heavenly Father until we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.
  • Oppressed people deal with their oppression in three characteristic ways. One way is acquiescence: the oppressed resign themselves to their doom. They tacitly adjust themselves to oppression and thereby become conditioned to it. In every movement toward freedom some of the oppressed prefer to remain oppressed.
  • There is such a thing as the freedom of exhaustion. Some people are so worn down by the yoke of oppression that they give up. A few years ago in the slum areas of Atlanta, a Negro guitarist used to sing almost daily: "Been down so long that down don't bother me." This is the type of negative freedom and resignation that often engulfs the life of the oppressed.
  • To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. The oppressed must never allow the conscience of the oppressor to slumber. Religion reminds every man that he is his brother's keeper. To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right. It is a way of allowing his conscience to fall asleep. At this moment the oppressed fails to be his brother's keeper. So acquiescence-while often the easier way-is not the moral way. It is the way of the coward.
  • A second way that oppressed people sometimes deal with oppression is to resort to physical violence and corroding hatred. Violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem; it merely creates new and more complicated ones.
  • Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.
  • The third way open to oppressed people in their quest for freedom is the way of nonviolent resistance. Like the synthesis in Hegelian philosophythe principle of nonviolent resistance seeks to reconcile the truths of two opposites, acquiescence and violence, while avoiding the extremes and immoralities of both. The nonviolent resister agrees with the person who acquiesces that one should not be physically aggressive toward his opponent; but he balances the equation by agreeing with the person of violence that evil must be resisted. He avoids the nonresistance of the former and the violent resistance of the latter. With nonviolent resistance, no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong.
  • Nonviolent resistance is not aimed against oppressors, but against oppression.
  • The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
    • 'Where Do We Go From Here?" as published in Where Do We Go from Here : Chaos or Community? (1967), p. 62; many statements in this book, or slight variants of them, were also part of his address Where Do We Go From Here?" which has a section below. A common variant appearing at least as early as 1968 has "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence..." An early version of the speech as published in A Martin Luther King Treasury (1964), p. 173, has : "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate..."
  • I met Malcolm X once in Washington, but circumstances didn't enable me to talk with him for more than a minute. He is very articulate ... but I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views — at least insofar as I understand where he now stands. I don't want to seem to sound self-righteous, or absolutist, or that I think I have the only truth, the only way. Maybe he does have some of the answer. I don't know how he feels now, but I know that I have often wished that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem. And in his litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive, creative alternative, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. Fiery, demagogic oratory in the black ghettos, urging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done, can reap nothing but grief.
  • In this period of social change the Negro must work on two fronts. On the one hand we must continue to break down the barrier of segregation. We must resist all forms of racial injustice. This resistance must always be on the highest level of dignity and discipline. It must never degenerate to the crippling level of violence. There is another way-a way as old as the insights of Jesus of Nazareth and as modern as the methods of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a way not for the weak and cowardly but for the strong and courageous. It has been variously called passive resistance, non-violent resistance or simply Christian love. It is my great hope that as the Negro plunges deeper into the quest for freedom, he will plunge deeper into the philosophy of non-violence. As a race we must work passionately and unrelentingly for first-class citizenship, but we must never use second class methods to gain it. Our aim must not be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding. We must never become bitter nor should we succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle, for if this happens, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness and our chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.
  • I feel that this way of non-violence is vital because it is the only way to reestablish the broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride or irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep.
  • The non-violent resistors can summarize their message in the following simple terms: we will take direct action against injustice without waiting for other agencies to act. We will not obey unjust laws or submit to unjust practices. We will do this peacefully, openly and cheerfully because our aim is to persuade. We adopt the means of non-violence because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try to persuade with our acts. We will always be willing to talk and seek fair compromise, but we are ready to suffer when necessary and even risk our lives to become witnesses to the truth as we see it.
  • But if physical death is the price that a man must pay to free his children and his white brethren from a permanent death of the spirit, then nothing could be more redemptive. This is the type of soul force that I am convinced will triumph over the physical force of the oppressor.
  • Some years ago Professor Bixler reminded us of the danger of overstressing the well-adjusted life. Everybody passionately seeks to be well-adjusted. We must, of course, be well-adjusted to avoid neurotic schizophrenic personalities, but there are some things in our world to which men of goodwill must be maladjusted. I confess that I never intend to become adjusted to the evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and the to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.
    • Ch. 2 : Transformed nonconformist
  • Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.
    • Ch. 2 : Transformed nonconformist
  • The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige and even his life for the welfare of others.
    • Strength to Love, p. 25
  • Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time — the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts… Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Nonviolence has also meant that my people in the agonizing struggles of recent years have taken suffering upon themselves instead of inflicting it on others. It has meant, as I said, that we are no longer afraid and cowed. But in some substantial degree it has meant that we do not want to instill fear in others or into the society of which we are a part. The movement does not seek to liberate Negroes at the expense of the humiliation and enslavement of whites. It seeks no victory over anyone. It seeks to liberate American society and to share in the self-liberation of all the people.

  • Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.
  • Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.
    I believe in this method because I think it is the only way to reestablish a broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride, and irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep.
  • The nonviolent resisters can summarize their message in the following simple terms: we will take direct action against injustice despite the failure of governmental and other official agencies to act first. We will not obey unjust laws or submit to unjust practices. We will do this peacefully, openly, cheerfully because our aim is to persuade. We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try to persuade with our acts. We will always be willing to talk and seek fair compromise, but we are ready to suffer when necessary and even risk our lives to become witnesses to truth as we see it.
  • In the past ten years unarmed gallant men and women of the United States have given living testimony to the moral power and efficacy of nonviolence. By the thousands, faceless, anonymous, relentless young people, black and white, have temporarily left the ivory towers of learning for the barricades of bias. Their courageous and disciplined activities have come as a refreshing oasis in a desert sweltering with the heat of injustice. They have taken our whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. One day all of America will be proud of their achievements.
  • Why should there be hunger and privation in any land, in any city, at any table when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessities of life? Even deserts can be irrigated and top soil can be replaced. We cannot complain of a lack of land, for there are twenty-five million square miles of tillable land, of which we are using less than seven million. We have amazing knowledge of vitamins, nutrition, the chemistry of food, and the versatility of atoms. There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will. The well-off and the secure have too often become indifferent and oblivious to the poverty and deprivation in their midst. The poor in our countries have been shut out of our minds, and driven from the mainstream of our societies, because we have allowed them to become invisible. Just as nonviolence exposed the ugliness of racial injustice, so must the infection and sickness of poverty be exposed and healed - not only its symptoms but its basic causes. This, too, will be a fierce struggle, but we must not be afraid to pursue the remedy no matter how formidable the task.

  • Love is basic for the very survival of mankind. I’m convinced that love is the only absolute ultimately; love is the highest good. He who loves has somehow discovered the meaning of ultimate reality. He who hates does not know God; he who hates has no knowledge of God. Love is the supreme unifying principle of life. Psychiatrists are telling us now that many of the strange things that happen in the [subconscious], many of the inner conflicts are rooted in hate, and they are now saying “Love or perish.” Oh, how basic this is. It rings down across the centuries: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself. We’ve been in the mountain of violence and hatred too long.
  • We’ve got to move on to the point of seeing that on the international scale, war is obsolete -- that it must somehow be cast into unending limbo. But in a day when Sputniksand Explorers are dashing through outer space and guided ballistic missiles are carving highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can win a war. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence; it is either nonviolence or nonexistence.

1967

Beyond Vietnam (1967)

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.

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 hopesof men the world over.

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action.

If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, andshameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power withoutcompassion, might without morality, and strength without sight. Now let usbegin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world.
Speech at Riverside Church in New York City (4 April 1967) - Online text and audio This speech is similarly in style and themes to "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam (1967)" (see below), but offers a more detailled view with respect to the early US involvement in the Vietnam War than the "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" speech.
  • 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 perplexing 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.
  • 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 asked — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They asked 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.
  • 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 — are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
  • 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 [...] 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" [...] 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 of the — for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam.
    • Note: Rev. King was paraphrasing the Book of Proverbs 31:8-10 when referring to "speak out for the voiceless" and the rights of people who need justice.
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computersprofit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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 lifeLove is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality.
  • 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.
  • We are now faced with the fact 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.


Vietnam

Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam (1967)

He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slaveryFreedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free."

There is something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that would praise you when you say, "Be nonviolent toward Jim Clark," but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be nonviolent toward little brown Vietnamese children." There is something wrong with that press.

We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines andcomputersprofit motives and propertyrights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

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

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.

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, unconditionallove for all men.

All men are made in the image of God. All men are brothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State — they are God-given.
Speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia (30 April 1967) This speech is similarly in style and themes to "Beyond Vietnam (1967)" (see above), but offers a less detailled view with respect to the early US involvement in the Vietnam War than the "Beyond Vietnam" speech.
  • I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.
    • King quoted here John F. Kennedy who at the signing of a charter establishing the German Peace Corps in Bonn, West Germany (24 June 1963) remarked: Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
      • According to Bartleby.com, Kennedy's remark may have been inspired by the passage from Dante Alighieri’s La Comedia Divina “Inferno,” canto 3, lines 35–42 (1972) passage as translated by Geoffrey L. Bickersteth: "by those disbodied wretches who were loth when living, to be either blamed or praised. [...] Fear to lose beauty caused the heavens to expel these caitiffs; nor, lest to the damned they theng ave cause to boast, receives them the deep hell." A more modern-sounding translation from the foregoing Dante’s Inferno passage was translataed 1971 by Mark Musa thus: “They are mixed with that repulsive choir of angels … undecided in neutrality. Heaven, to keep its beauty, cast them out, but even Hell itself would not receive them for fear the wicked there might glory over them.”
    • This is also often quoted slightly differently as: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict"
  • 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 perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. 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 in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.
  • Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.
  • There is...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 that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was 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. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.
  • 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 non-violent action; for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our 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 first having 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.
  • There is something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that would praise you when you say, "Be nonviolent toward Jim Clark," but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be nonviolent toward little brown Vietnamese children." There is something wrong with that press.
  • I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was 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 am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and 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 to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life?
  • I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the 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 today to speak for them. 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 not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply of the people who have been 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 until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.
  • 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 not now of the soldiers of each side, not of military government in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been 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 until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries. Now let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945, after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little known fact, these people declared themselves independent in 1945, they quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom. And yet our government refused to recognize, President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we failed victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years, trying to reconquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America, it came to the point that we were meeting more than 80% of the war cost. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that and even after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought in a real sense to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem, who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition, people were brutally murdered merely because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. 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 dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of General Ky, who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we're supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government, and the press generally, won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.
  • 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 United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm 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 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, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.
  • A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritanon 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 changed 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. 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 Latin 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 hands 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.
  • It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, 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 anti-revolutionaries. 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, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."
  • 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, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and 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 mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. 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 John "Let us love one another, for God is love. 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 me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.
  • We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image ofGod. All men are brothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State — they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.
  • Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore." I don't know about you, I ain't going to study war anymore.
  • I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.


Where Do We Go From Here?

  • We must reaffirm our commitment to nonviolence. I want to stress this. The futility of violence in the struggle for racial justice has been tragically etched in all the recent Negro riots. Yesterday, I tried to analyze the riots and deal with their causes. Today I want to give the other side. There is certainly something painfully sad about a riot. One sees screaming youngsters and angry adults fighting hopelessly and aimlessly against impossible odds. And deep down within them, you can see a desire for self-destruction, a kind of suicidal longing.
    Occasionally Negroes contend that the 1965 Watts riot and the other riots in various cities represented effective civil rights action. But those who express this view always end up with stumbling words when asked what concrete gains have been won as a result. At best, the riots have produced a little additional anti-poverty money allotted by frightened government officials and a few water sprinklers to cool the children of the ghettos. It is something like improving the food in the prison while the people remain securely incarcerated behind bars.

  • I say to you today that I still stand by nonviolence. And I am still convinced that it is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for justice in this country. And the other thing is that I am concerned about a better world. I'm concerned about justice. I'm concerned about brotherhood. I'm concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about these, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer but you can't murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that.

  • Another reason that I'm happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we're going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. 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.


Love Is The Ultimate Force.


The First Hope In Our Inventory Must Be 

The Hope That Love Is Going To Have The 

Last Word.

  • 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." 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. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. Love is the key to the solution of the problems of the world.

***

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Wikiquote Page


U.S. Map: Which Counties Are Doing Best And Worst. The South Is Third World

$
0
0

Nurse Kaci Hickox Addresses Media After Maine Judge Lifts Quarantine. Strong Woman

$
0
0
                 
 "Ebola Presents Trivial Threat To America's Health"

***
Maine Judge Rejects Ebola Quarantine for Nurse
FORT KENT, Me.  — Less than a day after restricting the movements of a nurse who treated Ebola victims in West Africa, a judge in Maine has lifted the measures, rejecting arguments by the State of Maine that a quarantine was necessary to protect the public....
...The order, signed on Friday by Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere, the chief judge for the Maine District Courts who serves in Kennebec and Somerset counties, said the nurse, Kaci Hickox, “currently does not show symptoms of Ebola and is therefore not infectious.”
The order requires Ms. Hickox to submit to daily monitoring for symptoms, to coordinate her travel with state health officials, and to notify them immediately if symptoms appear. Ms. Hickox has agreed to follow the requirements.
During the question and answer period with the press, Ms. Hickox was asked about the "State" saying that her ex-roommate in Sierra Leon had been diagnosed with Ebola. Miss Hickox quickly and emphatically said that the report was "incorrect."
In his ruling, Judge Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere made note of the "misinformation" being spread.
The judge thanked Hickox for her service in Africa and acknowledged the gravity of restricting someone’s constitutional rights without solid science to back it up.
“The court is fully aware of the misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information being spread from shore to shore in our country with respect to Ebola,” he wrote. “The court is fully aware that people are acting out of fear and that this fear is not entirely rational.”
Maine's Governor Le Page and his cronies are lying through their teeth as usual. They are not the only ones. Panicking people is a tried and true Republican campaign strategy.
Please help Mike Michaud become the next Governor of Maine. We need him badly.
Please donate, volunteer, what ever you can do.
Link to Mike's campaign site is here -  http://www.michaud2014.com/
It's past time to take our country back. Kids are going to be out trick or treating tonight.
We can be out knocking on doors and making phone calls through election day.
None of us would want to miss the Great Pumpkin. None of us would want to miss the opportunity to make a difference either.
Happy Halloween! And have a great time GOTV!
1:25 PM PT: It is my belief that Kaci Hickox has done a huge service for this country by standing up on behalf of health care workers and sane health care policy. I bet most of you feel the same. What would you all think about making a donation to Doctors Without Borders in honor of Kaci and her fellow courageous health care professionals volunteering in West Africa? If you agree that is a good idea, the link to Doctors without Borders donation page is here -  http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/...


12% Of Americans Think It Likely That A Family Member Will Contract Ebola In Next Year

$
0
0
Alan: Twelve percent of Americans think it's likely that a family member will contract Ebola in the next year and five of six governors who have imposed obligatory quarantine on returning health workers are up for re-election.

Pandering to fear is worse than pandering to prostitution.


"The Danger Of Science Denial"
TED Talk by Michael Specter




Mark Twain's Ideal: Truth And Laughter Defeat "Sweet-Smelling, Sugar-Coated Lies"

$
0
0

Mark Twain’s democratic ideal: How truth, laughter defeat “sweet-smelling, sugar-coated lies”

"A man at play with freedoms of his mind, believing allegiance to the truth and not the flag rescues democracy"

Mark Twain undertook the project of an autobiography in 1870 at the age of thirty-five, still a young man but already established as the famous author of “Innocents Abroad” and confident that he could navigate the current of his life by drawing upon the lessons learned thirteen years earlier as a steamboat pilot on the Mississippi River. As he noted in “Life on the Mississippi,”
There is one faculty which a pilot must incessantly cultivate until he has brought it to absolute perfection. . . . That faculty is memory. He cannot stop with merely thinking a thing is so-and-so, he must know it. . . . One cannot easily realize what a tremendous thing it is to know every trivial detail of twelve hundred miles of river and know it with absolute exactness.
Twain expected the going to be as easy as a straight stretch of deep water under the light of a noonday sun. It wasn’t. His memory was too close to absolute perfection, and he soon ran across snags and shoals unlike the ones to which he was accustomed south of Memphis and north of Vicksburg, an embarrassment he admitted in 1899 to a reporter from the London Times: “You cannot lay bare your private soul and look at it. You are too much ashamed of yourself. It is too disgusting.”
But Twain doesn’t abandon his attempt at autobiography, because the longer he stays the course—for thirty-four years and through as many drafts of misbegotten manuscript while also writing nine other books, among them Huckleberry Finn—the more clearly he comes to see that what he intends is not the examination of an inner child or the confessions of a cloistered id. His topic is of a match with that of the volume here in hand—America and the Americans making their nineteenth-century passage from an agrarian democracy to an industrial oligarchy, to Twain’s mind a great and tragic tale, and one that no other writer of his generation was better positioned to tell because none had seen the country at so many of its compass points or become as acquainted with so many of its oddly assorted inhabitants.
Born in Missouri in 1835 on the frontier of what was still Indian territory, Twain as a boy of ten had seen the flogging and lynching of Negro slaves, had been present in his twenties not only at the wheel of the steamboats Pennsylvania and Alonzo Child but also at the pithead of the Comstock Lode when in 1861 he joined the going westward to the Nevada silver mines and the California goldfields, there to keep company with underage murderers and overage whores. In San Francisco he writes newspaper sketches and satires, becomes known as “The Wild Humorist of the Pacific Slope” who tells funny stories to the dancing girls and gamblers in the city’s waterfront saloons.
Back east in the 1870s, Twain settles in Hartford, Connecticut, an eminent man of letters and property, and for the next thirty years, oracle for all occasions and star attraction on the national and international lecture stage, his wit and wisdom everywhere a wonder to behold—at banquet tables with presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt, in New York City’s Tammany Hall with swindling politicians and thieving financiers, on the program at the Boston Lyceum with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horace Greeley, Petroleum V. Nasby, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. He also traveled forty-nine times across the Atlantic, and once across the Indian Ocean, as a dutiful tourist surveying the sights in Rome, Paris, and the Holy Land; as an itinerant sage entertaining crowds in Australia and Ceylon.
Laughter was Twain’s stock-in-trade, and he produced it in sufficient quantity to make bearable the acquaintance with grief he knew to be generously distributed among all present in a Newport drawing room or a Nevada brothel. Whether the audience was drunk or sober, swaddled in fur or armed with pistols, Twain recognized it as likely in need of comic relief. “The hard and sordid things in life,” he once said, “are too hard and too sordid and too cruel for us to know and touch them year after year without some mitigating influence.” He bottled the influence under whatever label drummed up a crowd—burlesque, satire, parody, sarcasm, ridicule—any or all of it guaranteed to fortify the blood and restore the spirit.
Twain coined the phrase the “Gilded Age” as a pejorative, to mark the calamity that was the collision of the democratic ideal with the democratic reality, the promise of a free, forbearing, and tolerant society run aground on the reef of destruction formed by the accruals of vanity and greed that Twain understood to be not a society at all but a state of war. The ostrich feathers and the mirrored glass, he associated with the epithet citified, “suggesting the absence of all spirituality, and the presence of all kinds of paltry materialisms and mean ideals and mean vanities and silly cynicisms.” His struggling with his own paltry materialisms further delayed the composition of the autobiography. For thirty-four years he couldn’t get out of his own way, kept trying to find a language worthy of a monument, to dress up the many manuscripts in literary velvets and brocades.
Eventually faced with the approaching sandbar of his death, he puts aside his pen and ink and elects to dictate, not write, what he construes as his “bequest to posterity.” He begins the experiment in 1904 in Florence, where he has rented a handsome villa in which to care for his cherished, dying wife. To William Dean Howells, close friend and trusted editor, he writes to say, “I’ve struck it!” a method that removes all traces of a style that is “too prim, too nice,” too slow and artificial in its movement for the telling of a story.
“Narrative,” he had said at the outset of his labors,
should flow as flows the brook down through the hills and the leafy woodlands . . . a brook that never goes straight for a minute, but goes, and goes briskly, and sometimes ungrammatically, and sometimes fetching a horseshoe three-quarters of a mile around and at the end of the circuit flowing within the yard of the path it traversed an hour before; but always going, and always following at least one law, always loyal to that law, the law of narrative, which has no law. Nothing to do but make the trip; the how of it is not important so that the trip is made. 
Twain’s wife does not survive her season in the Italian sun, and at the age of seventy-one soon after his return to America, he casts himself adrift on the flood tide of his memory, dictating at discursive length to a series of stenographers while “propped up against great snowy white pillows” in a Fifth Avenue town house three blocks north of Washington Square. He delivers the deposition over a period of nearly four years, from the winter of 1906 until a few months before his death in the spring of 1910, here and there introducing into the record miscellaneous exhibits—previously published speeches, anecdotes and sketches, newspaper clippings, brief biographies, letters, philosophical digressions, and theatrical asides.
The autobiography he offers as an omnium-gatherum, its author reserving the right to digress at will, talk only about whatever interests him at the moment, “drop it at the moment its interest threatens to pale.” He leaves the reader free to adopt the same approach, to come across Twain at a meeting of the Hartford Monday Evening Club in 1884 (at which the subject of discussion is the price of cigars and the befriending of cats) and to skip over as many pages as necessary to find Twain in Honolulu in 1866 with the survivors of forty-three days at sea in an open boat, or discover him in Calcutta in 1896 in the company of Mary Wilson, “old and gray-haired, but . . . very handsome,” a woman whom he had much admired in her prior incarnation as a young woman in 1849 in Hannibal, Missouri:
We sat down and talked. We steeped our thirsty souls in the reviving wine of the past, the pathetic past, the beautiful past, the dear and lamented past; we uttered the names that had been silent upon our lips for fifty years, and it was as if they were made of music; with reverent hands we unburied our dead, the mates of our youth, and caressed them with our speech; we searched the dusty chambers of our memories and dragged forth incident after incident, episode after episode, folly after folly, and laughed such good laughs over them, with the tears running down. 
The turn of Twain’s mind is democratic. He holds his fellow citizens in generous and affectionate regard not because they are rich or beautiful or famous but because they are his fellow citizens. His dictations he employs as “a form and method whereby the past and the present are constantly brought face-to-face resulting in contrasts which newly fire up the interest all along like contact of flint with steel.” Something seen in Paris in 1894 reminds him of something else seen in Virginia City in 1864; an impression of the first time he saw Florence in 1892 sends him back to St. Louis in 1845.
The intelligence that is wide-wandering, intuitive, and sympathetic is also, in the parsing of it by Bernard De Voto, the historian and editor of Twain’s papers, “undeluded, merciless and final.” His comedy drifts toward the darker shore of tragedy as he grows older and loses much of his liking for what he comes to regard as “the damned human race,” his judgment rendered “in the absence of respect-worthy evidence that the human being has morals.”
Twain doesn’t absent himself from the company of the damned. He knows himself made, like all other men, as “a poor, cheap, wormy thing . . . a sarcasm, the Creator’s prime miscarriage in invention, the moral inferior of all the animals . . . the superior to them all in one gift only, and that one not up to his estimation of it—intellect.” The steamboat pilot’s delight in that one gift holds fast only to the end of his trick at the wheel of his life. Mankind as a species he writes off as a miscarriage in invention, but he makes exceptions—a very great many exceptions—for the men, women, and children (usually together with any and all of their uncles, nieces, grandmothers, and cousins) whom he has come to know and hold dear over the course of his travels. The autobiography is crowded with their portraits sketched in an always loving few sentences or a handsome turn of phrase. Humor is still “the great thing, the saving thing after all,” but as the gilded spirit of the age becomes everywhere more oppressive under the late-nineteenth-century chandeliers, Twain pits the force of his merciless and undeluded wit against “the peacock shams” of the world’s “colossal humbug.” He doesn’t traffic in the mockery of a cynic or the bitterness of the misanthrope. Nor does he expect his ridicule to correct the conduct of Boss Tweed, improve the morals of Commodore Vanderbilt, or stop the same-day deliveries of the politicians to the banks.
His purpose is therapeutic. A man at play with the freedoms of his mind, believing that it is allegiance to the truth and not the flag that rescues the citizens of a democracy from the prisons of their selfishness and greed, Twain aims to blow away with a blast of laughter the pestilent hospitality tents of a society making itself sick with its consumption of “sweet-smelling, sugar-coated lies.” He offers in their stead the reviving wine of the dear lamented past, and his autobiography stands, as does his presence in this book, as the story of an observant pilgrim heaving the weighted lead of his comprehensive and comprehending memory into the flow and stream of time.
Excerpted from “Mark Twain’s America” by Harry Katz and the Library of Congress. Published in October 2014 by Little, Brown and Company. Copyright © 2014 by Harry Katz and the Library of Congress. All rights reserved.
Lewis H. Lapham is editor of Lapham’s Quarterly. Formerly editor of Harper’s Magazine, he is the author of numerous books, including Money and Class in America, Theater of War, Gag Rule, and, most recently, Pretensions to Empire. The New York Times has likened him to H.L. Mencken; Vanity Fairhas suggested a strong resemblance to Mark Twain; and Tom Wolfe has compared him to Montaigne. This essay, shortened for TomDispatch, introduces "Magic Shows," the Summer 2012 issue of Lapham’s Quarterly.

A Calm Colonel Wins By Genuflecting Before The Enemy As Prelude To Retreat

$
0
0


Lt. Col. Chris Hughes wins by ordering soldiers to kneel and point guns at ground. When situation calmed, he ordered his men to slowly stand, smile broadly and back away.

***

"Martin Luther King Jr. On Hatred, Violence, Love And Jesus The Way"

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/11/martin-luther-king-jr-on-hatred.html

***




NAME: Lt. Col. Chris Hughes
AGE: 42
UNIT: 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division
HOMETOWN: Red Oak, Iowa
FAMILY: Wife, Marguerite, and three children
DETAILS: When Iraqis misunderstood his soldiers' mission, this colonel urged his infantry to back off to keep from making enemies of civilians.Commander shows restraint, prevents unnecessary violence

Three years ago on Najaf's battlefields, soldiers with the 101st Airborne Division routed Saddam Hussein's ragtag army of loyalists and thugs. The regime's stranglehold on the holy city was over.

Embedded with the 101st, CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmannmet hundreds of U.S. troops. But few stood out like Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, who won a big battle by never firing a shot.

On the morning of April 3, 2003, the 101st stood outside the holiest Shia mosque in all Iraq, watching hundreds of Iraqis suddenly turn on U.S. troops. Hughes had led them into the city to liberate it, but agitators had spread the lie that the Americans were going to seize the mosque and arrest the cleric.

Strassmann recalls that the situation seemed to turn in an instant.

"It seemed to turn like that, but it was a very deliberate turn," Hughes says today. "If somebody shot a round in the air, there was going to be some sort of massacre."

Hughes could have muscled his way in, but he took another approach.

"Everybody smile!" he ordered his troops, as CBS News cameras rolled. "Don't point your weapons at them. Take a knee, relax!"

For his tense soldiers, "taking a knee" first meant taking a deep breath. They did, and the crowd's mood eased. Hughes then ordered his men to withdraw.


 Watch more of the interview with Col. Chris Hughes: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-calm-colonels-strategic-victory/


He had avoided a massacre that minutes before seemed a gunshot away. But to Hughes, the strategic victory was preserving the mosque.

"In terms of scale of significance, that is the mosque that would have probably not just have caused every Shia in that country to rise up against the coalition," he says. "It probably would have at least brought in the Syrians, if not the Iranians."

These days, Hughes prowls the Pentagon's endless white corridors, into its Byzantine maze of top secret clearance. He's still involved in the war — he directs operations and contingency planning for the entire Army from the Crisis Action Center.

"We can pretty much from in here tell you everything the Army is doing," he says, "from the factory where the bayonet is coming off the assembly line to the soldier on the ground that needs that bayonet."

Despite working six days a week, 17 hours a day, Hughes feels guilty. Like any born soldier, he really wants to be back on the frontline.

"If there's anybody watching who can make that happen — besides my wife chewing me out tonight for saying that — then I would go in a heartbeat," Hughes says.

But right now, the Army has other plans for him. And as he proved outside the mosque in Najaf, Chris Hughes knows when not to pick a fight.

Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship To Democracy," A Dictator's Worst Nightmare

$
0
0
At 84, American political scientist Gene Sharp has seen his lifelong work on nonviolent resistance echo around the world.
At 84, American political scientist Gene Sharp has seen his lifelong work on nonviolent resistance echo around the world.


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Political scientist Gene Sharp has been called the father of nonviolent struggle
  • Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, "From Dictatorship to Democracy"
  • Sharp says no regime can survive without the support of its people
  • Arab Spring put a new spotlight on Sharp's work

 Gene Sharp: A dictator's  worst nightmare

       By Mairi Mackay, CNN
June 25, 2012
London (CNN) -- It's a dark January evening, and in an anonymous townhouse near Paddington station, a man is talking about how to stage a revolution.
A young Iranian asks a question: "The youth in Iran are very disillusioned by the brutality of the violence used against them ... It has stopped all the street protest," she says. "What would you say to them? How can they get themselves organized again?"
The man thinks for a moment. He's an unlikely looking radical -- slightly stooped with white hair, his bent frame engulfed by the low chair he's sitting in.
When he opens his mouth to speak, all eyes in the room are fastened on him.
"You don't march down the street towards soldiers with machine guns. ... That's not a wise thing to do.
"But there are other things that are much more extreme. ... You could have everybody stay at home.
"Total silence of the city," he says lowering his voice to a whisper, punctuating the words with his bent hands, as if he's wiping out the noise himself.
"Everybody at home." The man's eyes scan the room. "Silence," he whispers again.
"You think the regime will notice?"
He looks around the room, nodding almost imperceptibly. On the wall behind his head hangs a huge print of the Hiroshima atomic bomb mushrooming into the sky.
This is political scientist Gene Sharp, and explosive ideas are his specialty.
Political Scientist Gene Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships
Gene Sharp, who wrote "From Dictatorship to Democracy," says no regime can survive without the support of its people.
RUARIDH ARROW
He's been called the father of nonviolent struggle. He could be also described as a revolutionary's best friend. Or perhaps, more accurately, as a dictatorship's worst nightmare.
Now 84, the American academic has dedicated most of his life to the study of the bold, some might say reckless, idea that nonviolence -- rather than violence -- is the most effective way of overthrowing corrupt, repressive regimes.
On this winter night, he's talking at The Frontline Club, London's journalism hub, and it's standing room only.
Those without seats have crowded in at the back of the room under a huge photograph of a girl offering a flower to a line of riot police. She could have been inspired by Sharp's writings.
His practical manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, "From Dictatorship to Democracy," has spread like a virus since he wrote it 20 years ago and has been translated by activists into more than 30 languages.
He has also listed "198 Methods of Nonviolent Action" -- powerful, sometimes surprising, ways to tear power from the hands of regimes. Examples of their use by demonstrators and revolutionaries pop up over and over again.
In Ukraine, during the 2004 Orange Revolution that propelled opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to electoral triumph, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators turned Kiev's Independence Square into a sea of orange flags -- the color of Yuschenko's campaign.
No. 18 on Sharp's list: Displays of flags and symbolic colors.
In Serbia, activists fighting then-President Slobodan Milosevic in the 2000 presidential elections printed "Gotov Je!""He's Finished!" on stickers, T-shirts and posters to help the population understand he was not invincible.
No. 7 on Sharp's list: Slogans, caricatures and symbols.
In Cairo during last year's Egyptian revolution, protesters lived in a tent city in Tahrir Square, where they produced art, made music and sung anti-Hosni Mubarak songs. Many Egyptians would gather there for Friday prayers followed by mass political rallies.
Nos. 20, 37 and 47 on Sharp's list: Prayer and worship. Singing. Assembling to protest.
His ideas of revolution are based on an elegantly simple premise: No regime, not even the most brutally authoritarian, can survive without the support of its people. So, Sharp proposes, take it away.
Nonviolent action, he says, can eat away at a regime's pillars of power like termites in a tree. Eventually, the whole thing collapses.
For a half century, Sharp has refined the theory of nonviolent conflict and crafted the tools of his trade. His methods have liberated millions from tyranny -- and that makes regimes from Myanmar to Iran quake in their boots.
In 2009, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. During the Arab Spring uprisings, his methods were cited repeatedly.
The applause comes after "decades of hardships," he says. His methods have been dismissed and misinterpreted -- he's even been accused of working for the CIA.
But he's kept on with "the work," sometimes near penniless. He runs his organization, the Albert Einstein Institution, out of his home in East Boston because he cannot afford office space.
He'll give almost anyone a half hour of his time, even a high school kid doing a project. And the pilgrims come.
They come from all over the world because they want to change their situation. They come to hear the extraordinary ideas that Sharp has stubbornly built over a lifetime: ideas that have started revolutions.
The first rebellion
When Sharp graduated college in 1951, he moved to New York and worked odd jobs to put food on the table. He spent his spare time holed up in the New York City Library working on a book about the Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi, who he still loosely describes as his hero.
He was also dodging the draft.
The U.S. was fighting the Korean War, and Sharp was refusing to cooperate with the military draft board. He wouldn't report for physical examinations or carry a draft card.
"I had chosen a particular kind of conscientious objection, I guess the most obnoxious kind that existed -- civil disobedience."
It amounted to draft evasion, a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
His father, a Protestant minister, and mother were distraught. He was an outstanding student. Why was he throwing away his future?
"They put all kinds of strong, strong pressures on me," he remembers. But he continued. "It was just something I had to do and be done with it."
At first, Sharp applied for conscientious objector status but was refused. Then he changed his mind: "I realized I shouldn't have done it in the first place, I shouldn't have applied for it."
And when the board finally did give it to him, he wouldn't accept it.
By 1953, things weren't looking good for Sharp. He had been arrested by the FBI and locked up in a federal detention center, awaiting trial. But during this tough time, he had an unlikely and important ally: Albert Einstein.
Sharp was just 25, but already he displayed the intellectual chutzpah that would come to characterize his later work. He wrote to the physicist, asking him to pen the foreword to his book and telling him about his court case.
A notable pacifist in later life, Einstein shared Sharp's admiration for Gandhi. He agreed to write the foreword.
"I earnestly admire you for your moral strength and can only hope, although I really do not know, that I would have acted as you did, had I found myself in your situation," Einstein wrote in a letter dated April 2, 1953.
Einstein also wrote the foreword to Sharp's book, describing it as "the art of a born historian" and adding: "How is it possible that a young man was able to create such mature piece of work?"
Sharp used Einstein's name in a speech he made at his trial. In the end, he was sentenced to two years in prison.
His mother, Eve, who had traveled from Ohio for his sentencing also wrote to Einstein. And he wrote her back. Her son, he told her, was "irresistible in his noble sincerity." The letter was, Sharp says, "a big help" to his parents.
In the end, Sharp served nine months and 10 days.
"You count the days in those places," he says now, adding that if he hadn't followed his conscience, it would have been tragic for him.
"I would not have had the self-respect and internal integrity to go on and do in the future what might lie ahead."
Eureka moment
After his release from prison, Sharp concentrated on his work once again.
After a short spell in London as an editor at the pacifist journal Peace News, he moved to Norway where he joined the Institute for Social Research in Oslo.
"It was the first time I had financial support to do my own research and my own thinking and my own writing," says Sharp.
He had been invited by philosopher Arne Næss, who shared Sharp's interest in Gandhi and who, much later, would gain prominence as the father of environmentalism.
For a while, things looked promising. Næss persuaded the institute to fund a major research program into nonviolent conflict.
That's a great advantage -- to know what you don't know. You have a chance of learning -- if you want to and you're not arrogant.
Gene Sharp
But almost before it got off the ground, it was bypassed in favor of a new and more fashionable area of study: peace research.
To this day, Sharp has refused to allow his work to be absorbed into the grander narrative of Peace Studies, losing out on immeasurable funding.
"I still think a lot of the peace researchers are quite naïve and romantic under the guise of science," he says.
Amazingly, Sharp was kept on at the institute to do his own research for a couple of years. It was there that he laid the foundations of his work, tapping out page after page on his little portable typewriter.
But in Norway, Sharp also began to see the flaw in his work: He didn't understand political power.
"That's a great advantage -- to know what you don't know," he says now. "'You have a chance of learning -- if you want to and you're not arrogant."
So he returned to England to pursue a degree in political science at The University of Oxford. He studied under Alan Bullock, the first biographer of Adolf Hitler, reading everything from Machiavelli to Auguste Comte and David Hume; analyses of totalitarianism; histories of dictatorships.
And as he put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together, Sharp started revising his work and asking critical questions.
What gives a government -- even a repressive regime -- the power to rule? The answer, he realized, was people's belief in its power. Even dictatorships require the cooperation and obedience of the people they rule to stay in charge.
So, he reasoned, if you can identify the sources of a government's power -- people working in civil service, police and judges, even the army -- then you know what a dictatorship depends on for its existence.
Once he'd worked that out, Sharp went back to his theories of nonviolent struggle: "What is the nature of this technique?" he asked himself. "What are its methods ... different kinds of strikes, protests, boycotts, hunger strikes ... How does it work? It may fail. If it fails, why? If it succeeds, why?"
Suddenly, he got it. If a dictatorship depends on the cooperation of people and institutions, then all you have to do is shrink that support.
That's when the light went on in Sharp's head. That is exactly what nonviolent struggle does. By its very nature, nonviolent struggle destroys governments, even brutal dictatorships, politically.
It is a weapon as potent as a bomb or a gun -- maybe more so.
"That was the eureka moment," says Sharp. He remembers sitting in his little room in Oxford, shocked and, he says, relieved.
"This was not just a theory. This was actually something that had been applied in many different historical cases."
That moment would evolve into Sharp's first big text, "The Politics of Non-Violence," which was published in 1973. It was immediately hailed a classic and is still considered the definitive study of nonviolent struggle.
The viral pamphlet
Sharp's best-known work, "From Dictatorship to Democracy," is a how-to manual for overthrowing dictatorships.
It started life in Myanmar as incendiary advice printed on a few sheets of paper and surreptitiously exchanged by activists living under a military dictatorship. Those found in possession of the booklet were sentenced to seven years in prison.
From Myanmar, it was taken to Indonesia, then to Serbia. After that, Sharp says, he lost track of the book. But it took on a life of its own, spreading from activist to activist and eventually, some say, inspiring the uprisings known as the Arab Spring.
Ahmed Maher, a leading organizer of the April 6 Youth Movement that played a key role in last year's Egyptian revolution, told The New York Times that the group read about nonviolent conflict.
He said some members of the group traveled to Serbia to exchange ideas with members of The Centre for Applied Non Violent Actions and Strategies . The Belgrade-based institution was formed in 2004 by former members of Otpor!, the youth group that helped overthrow Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 using Sharp's methods.
Political Scientist Gene Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships
Political Scientist Gene Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, "From Dictatorship to Democracy."
RUARIDH ARROW
Journalist and filmmaker Ruaridh Arrow, who made a documentary about Sharp's work called "How to Start a Revolution," was in Egypt during last year's revolution. He says a young activist told him Sharp's work had been widely distributed in Arabic, but he refused to talk about it on camera for fear that knowledge of the U.S. influence would destabilize the movement.
Sharp has written about 30 books and has a 900-page guide to self-liberation available for free download on his website. He says military people often have taken his work more seriously than pacifists.
"They could understand the clashing of forces and the use of strategy and tactics."
One such convert was Robert Helvey, a retired U.S. Army colonel who met Sharp at Harvard University in 1987.
Sharp was director of the Program for Nonviolent Sanctions at the Center for International Affairs at Harvard, and Helvey, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was a senior fellow there.
Helvey's experiences in the Vietnam War had convinced him that there had to be an alternative to killing people. After hearing Sharp speak, he was hooked. Myanmar, Helvey decided, was the perfect place to bring Sharp's theories.
Helvey had been a U.S. military attache in Rangoon (the former capital of Myanmar, now called Yangon) and had become sympathetic to groups opposing the regime. After leaving the army, he started doing consultancy work for the Karen National Union, conducting a series of courses on nonviolent struggle for the leadership of the democratic opposition.
The Burmese were amazed by Sharp's theories. They couldn't believe they had been fighting and killing for 20 years when there was an alternative.
The late U Tin Maung Win, a prominent exiled Burmese democrat, asked Sharp to write something for them.
"I couldn't write about Burma honestly because I didn't know Burma well," Sharp says, "and you should at least have the humility not to write about something you don't know anything about.
"So I had to write generically -- if there was a movement that wanted to bring a dictatorship to an end, how could they do it."
Clearly, the news is getting around that nonviolent struggle exists. And clearly it comes almost as a revelation to people that they are not helpless.
Gene Sharp
And so, "From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation" was born.
Today, the book has been translated into Amharic, Farsi, French, German, Serbian, Tibetan, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Arabic and dozens of other languages.
"Clearly the news is getting around that nonviolent struggle exists," says Sharp. "And clearly it comes almost as a revelation to people that they are not helpless."
Despite the Arab Spring pushing his work into the spotlight in 2011 like never before, Sharp remains skeptical about his actual, measurable influence.
"Even today, I'm credited with some major influence in Egypt, for example," he says. "I haven't seen hard data that would prove that."
Einstein's legacy
Today, Sharp spends much of his time running the Albert Einstein Institution -- the organization he founded in 1983 to spread his ideas and secure some much-needed funding, something he's struggled with his whole career.
"(Nonviolent struggle) was not credited with being realistic or with being powerful," he says.
It's a shoestring operation with outsize influence that he runs alongside Executive Director Jamila Raqib. She's his right hand; a subtle organizing influence, watchdog and second brain when Sharp's memory occasionally fails him.
She also supervises the people who come from all over the world to visit Sharp, allowing her to see his influence on those struggling against tyranny or living under a dictatorship.
They come from India, Syria, Russia, Sri Lanka -- from all over. They leave, says Raqib, "with stars in their eyes."
"There's something happening," she adds. "Oftentimes people would say, you know, 'This can't work for us, my situation is unique, my situation is worse, the repression is particularly harsh.'
"And what he does during those conversations ... they leave with the understanding that, you know ... a seed has been planted; a new possibility is there."
Sharp sees himself as a kind of mentor.
"I always refuse to tell them what to do. I'm trying to get them to realize that they understand maybe more than they thought they did.
"There's one phrase that's been quoted -- 'Dictatorships are never as strong as they think they are, and people are never as weak as they think they are.'"
Earlier this year, he released "Sharp's Dictionary of Power and Struggle: Language of Civil Resistance in Conflicts." He says the major unsolved problems of our time -- genocide, dictatorship, war -- require us to rethink the very language we use to define them.
His dictionary contains some 900 terms. It reconceives many words we take for granted -- such as power or defense. "The defense force -- sometimes they attack," Sharp says.
The institute also supervises translations of Sharp's work into other languages -- a task made more complicated by the precisely defined concepts.
They rely on activists for translating, rather than professional translators, because they understand the nature of the work the words describe.
For Sharp, the language is crucial: "If our language doesn't have clear meanings and accurate meanings, you can't think clearly.
"If you can't think clearly, you have no ability to evaluate or influence what happens. So the distortions of our language help make us helpless."
Sharp has no plans to settle into a comfortable retirement, not now, when things are finally taking off.
He admits that he "gets tired sometimes." But there's so much to do.
"The last few weeks I've been waking up in the middle of the night and finding some ideas ... or a solution to a problem I've been trying to solve for a week or two or three."
At the Frontline Club, the questions from the audience keep coming. Sharp's answers, more than anything, underscore his modesty and lack of pretention.
What about government defectors who want to join freedom groups, asks another Iranian. When should you allow them in and when should you reject them?
"An outsider like me can't tell you what to do," he says, "and if I did, you shouldn't believe me. Trust yourselves.
"You've got to be smart. This takes time and energy ... know your situation in depth."
For those who are serious, Sharp has a condensed version of what he says are the required readings of his work, a guide to self-liberation, available free on the Albert Einstein Institution website.
"It's only 900 pages in English," he deadpans, raising a chuckle.
"And if you're not interested in reading 900 pages, you're not interested in getting rid of the dictator," he retorts, whip smart. "Quite seriously."
At the end, people crowd forward to speak to him, kneeling at his chair as if he were royalty, asking him to sign copies of his books.

Later, as he's helped into his flecked black coat and handed his walking stick, he grins and says how much he enjoyed the evening: "The questions were good and hard."

The Body, The Brain And The Traumatic Response To Overwhelming Experience

$
0
0

October 30, 2014
BESSEL VAN DER KOLK —
Restoring the Body: Yoga, EMDR, and Treating Trauma
Human memory is a sensory experience, says psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk. Through his longtime research and innovation in trauma treatment, he shares what he's learning about how bodywork like yoga or eye movement therapy can restore a sense of goodness and safety. What he’s learning speaks to a resilience we can all cultivate in the face of the overwhelming events — which, after all, make up the drama of culture, of news, and of life.

GUESTS

is medical director of the Trauma Center at the Justice Resource Institute in Brookline, Massachusetts. He’s also professor of Psychiatry at Boston University Medical School. His books include Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on the Mind, Body and Society and The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma.

PERTINENT POSTS

Lonely Planet's "Best Travel" Recommendations, Including Best Value Destinations

Self-Terrorization, The Cornerstone Of American Politics

$
0
0

***

How to Scare People Into Voting for You

BY 

When does Ebola look like a gift? Apparently, when you are a Republican candidate for the Senate who sees it as a handy pretext for bringing up immigration politics while scaring people into voting for you. Thom Tillis, in a campaign debate in North Carolina with Senator Kay Hagan, put it this way: “Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve got an Ebola outbreak. We have bad actors that can come across the border. We need to seal the border.” In New Hampshire, Scott Brown started off by conjuring up ISIS fighters slipping through spongy borders, then casually switched to Ebola-sickened hordes. “One of the reasons why I have been so adamant about closing our border,” he said, “is because if people are coming through normal channels—can you imagine what they can do through a porous border?” Both ISIS and Ebola provoke enough anxiety for most people to contemplate them without being goaded. There are, however, no reported instances of Ebola-infected immigrants crossing illegally from Mexico, and, with ISIS fighters busy in Iraq and Syria, it’s possible but not likely that they’re hanging out in Ciudad Juárez, planning a raid on Arizona, as Representative Trent Franks maintains. But, as Franks and his fellow-Republicans demonstrated, you don’t need to construct a plausible or even a coherent scenario to deploy such threats for political ends.
12% of Americans think a relative will be infected by Ebola in 2015
The Democrats were not entirely immune from such temptation. Campaign ads and a few candidates—including Senator Mark Udall, of Colorado—implied that Ebola surveillance would have been better coördinated if the Republicans hadn’t managed to cut the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That apportionment of blame wasn’t strictly accurate. Funding for the N.I.H. and the C.D.C. hasn’t always kept pace with inflation in recent years, but, in some budgets, Congress allocated them more money than the Obama Administration had requested. Still, at least such tactics centered on the agencies responsible, and didn’t engage in the old practice of conflating disease and foreignness.
And the winner is...
Osama bin Laden for recruiting Americans as agents of terrorism!

The medical historian Howard Markel notes that “Chinese immigrants were once linked to bubonic plague and hookworm, Mexicans were thought to be infested with lice, and Russian Jews were seen as somehow especially vulnerable to tuberculosis and—a favorite wastebasket diagnosis of nativists in the early 1900s—‘poor physique.’ ” Taking advantage of such associations, which were almost never based on legitimate science, nativists helped pass the Immigration Act of 1924, the racist law that imposed quotas on the basis of national origin—Asians were completely excluded—and governed U.S. immigration until 1965. Senator Patrick McCarran, of Nevada, a co-sponsor of the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which, among other provisions, made it easier to bar immigrants who had chronic diseases, offered a metaphor that made explicit immigration law’s preoccupation with purity. Immigration was a stream, he said, adding that if it “is healthy, the impact on our society is salutary; but if that stream is polluted our institutions and our way of life become infected.”
Politicians now know better than to talk openly about immigration in terms of purity and contagion, but they still make the connection. This summer, as unaccompanied minors from Central America began arriving in large numbers at the border, Representative Phil Gingrey, of Georgia—a doctor, as it happens—wrote a letter to the C.D.C. in which he said that the influx “poses many risks, including grave public health threats,” and claimed that many of the children lacked basic vaccinations such as those for measles. In fact, the vaccination rates for measles in Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico are around ninety per cent, which means that children from those countries are about as likely to be vaccinated as children in the United States are. Undoubtedly, some of the kids were sick, or suffering from malnutrition and other ailments associated with poverty, but they were not an invading army of germ warriors.
President Obama tried to keep immigration politics out of the midterm elections; in September, the Washington Post reported that he had decided not to take the executive action on immigration reform which he had promised—protecting millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation—until after the midterms, “acquiescing to Democrats’ fears that such a move would damage their prospects for maintaining control of the U.S. Senate.” Meanwhile, the Administration announced plans to build an enormous detention camp for women and children who enter the country from Mexico without documentation. It will be situated in South Texas and operated by the Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison company with a controversial record. In 2009, the Administration stopped housing families in a similar facility that the company ran in Texas, the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, following widespread criticism and a lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U. which asserted that harsh, prisonlike conditions were harming the mental health of the children held there. Federal immigration officials found many “deficiencies,” including inadequate sanitation and an over-all attitude of “disinterest and complacency.” But somehow we’re back in a political moment when the privately contracted detention of children seems like good immigration policy.


While fears of Ebola—a disease from which one person in the United States has died—clouded the campaign like one of those imaginary miasmas to which doctors once attributed illness, real dangers seemed to slip from view. The latest school shooting, on October 24th, in Washington State, generated almost no discussion on the campaign trail, especially not of gun control. Just a week earlier, researchers affiliated with the Harvard School of Public Health had published findings showing that mass shootings in the United States—those in which the shooter did not generally know the victims, and in which at least four people were killed—have tripled since 2011. Over the past three years, a mass shooting has occurred, on average, every sixty-four days; over the previous twenty-nine years, one occurred every two hundred days. Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman, who became a gun-control advocate after she was wounded in a shooting in which six people died, toured the country in the run-up to the elections, calling for tighter legislation in order to help save lives. Not a single candidate joined her. 

Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live