Harvest

They're there
reeds bending beneath
the unforgiving weight of the sun
fishing fruit from the fractured ribs of the earth
as their own bones unravel within them.

Here
Here and here
You can measure the marks left
by indescribable pain
See the geography of cruelty
a topographical map cut into each of their bodies
So that even in their sleep, they cannot escape.

And here
here and here
We sit harvesting discourse
in ergonomic designed office chairs
writing protest letters on our computers
promising to mail them in the morning
promising to do "all we can"
promising promises without end.

Words evaporate in the mid-morning heat
Words fester in the infected blister-split-lip smile of a child
who dreams not of playing in water but drinking it
drowning in it
Until his throat
the cracked, parched Earth
finally gives way.

Our gaze is caught
in the television religion of SUV's and privilege
worrying over rising gas prices and summer vacations
while the "third world" collapses on the front lawn of the White House
dead from heat exhaustion
holding a petition in one hand and a bag of produce in the other.
But the media's one good eye is focused only in the direction of Mecca
The other eye was blinded long ago by a sky full of neon light.
The media's voice was lost while trying to speak a language
it did not understand
and the hands over its mouth kept it from asking why?

They're there
trees without sustainable, nurtured roots.
Trying so hard to pick democracy's fruit
before it withers and rots on the vine.

Blind Offenses

Fragility binds the skin of the wrist to the bone.

Yet you insist upon searching for me there
with blunt-knife kisses
clenched fists, shovels, gun butts.

I feel you as a wave forever trying
to overpower stone.

As you think up new ways to suffocate
and bury so many in receding tides
Their bones become flowers
broken and stripped by rain
but neither dead nor forgotten.
Their very existence a stubbornness
that defies you.

Yet you continue
trying to drown Hope in traffic and noise
in pompous patriotism
in effect without "cause"
to distract
to divert the world's eyes
from your face
and the way
you sharpen your teeth on time and misery
open. tear. divide.

Cutting me to bleed you.


Thirst
a sandstorm of words
Distance an illusion
Denial the blind offense
that renders a fuckable corpse
into a refuge. A trophy. Another body
Another land to be abused. Mouths and flags twist
and shadow the ground
dancing like a wind-swept noose.

I know.

Imprisoning me makes you feel free

Killing me gives you need
means
reasons
tools.

Your language of hate resonates

but Silence is the one pleasure

I will die


Refusing you.



(For those whose bloodied bodies become
the chessboard upon which global power brokers play).
For Dafur. For Iraq. For survivors. For the silenced.
For civilians. For soldiers too.

*footnote: the fuckable corpse bit is a reference to a term some friends and I coined way back
to describe our view of politics ("corpsefucking") because so much of politics today is both vulgar, dishonest, despicable but also optimistic and important. The term was intended to represent those who infect law and democracy with their greedy little diseases and in infecting law and democracy, threaten the wellbeing of every living being. This poem is about anger but also recognition. It says: tell me how to hold my anger so that it becomes a tool rather than a weapon, an open hand rather than another wall, another bomb, another war that destroys both me and you. I refuse to play this game of death and consequence by your rules.

peace!

Heavy in this skin

I HATE POLITICS. I HATE the idea of offices and prizes and the politicization of everything from food to literature to the body and to thought. I attended a rather informative lecture tonight by a prominent human rights figure and yet I left feeling so disillusioned. So heavy in my skin. I can't explain why exactly and I think that's what troubles me. On the one hand, leaning on corporations to adopt "ethical" practices and set standards in human rights (not only abide by them) seems on the one hand hopelessly idealistic and contradictory (downright antithetical to the capitalist profit lust) and on the other, quite practical. As the multinational corporations continue to replace nations at the center of global/economic and military power, they become a logical point of engagement if human rights is ever to be a universalized reality. How though can you trust a corporation or corporate entity to do what it promises any more than you can a nation? The Kyoto Protocols and the environmental sidestepping corporations have done in the face of obvious threats to the Earth leaves me with little faith in the "ethical/moral" compass of corporations. Nations are increasingly less able to check each other in a balance of power or are subject to the will of their people and global opposition to blatant human rights violations and environmental degradation. Corporations however lack those checks and balances even more than nations do. So I don't really like (or trust) the idea of engaging corporations in human rights activism, yet I can see why it is necessary and inevitable. I don't know. My idealism wants new lines to be drawn that gives international law true protection/enforcement of human rights over absolute state sovereignty. My cynicism has to figure out how this will occur. The urgency bothers me more than anything. With every person killed, tortured, dispossessed and disenfranchised, it makes me crazy to think that some damn commission (powerless commission) can do little more than hang their heads like flags draped over coffins and cry woe over preventable loss. Committees, Commissions, Sanctions, what are these words to those whose words are cut from their throats? Where to begin? Where to end? I don't know. I wish those who did have the words could leave a little for me. Peace.

Is torture always political?

Having read further in Scarry's book, I'm wondering about one key issue:
Is torture always political or does torture politicize the individuals involved (torturer and tortured) or must it always have a political context? For example: to "illicit confession or information." My own thoughts on this tend more toward the idea that torture politicizes the individuals involved, and the act of torture itself need not necessarily have a political context or goal. I'm confused though by Scarry's points in this because she seems to suggest that to assign meaning or context to why one tortures, through motive, is to assign a role to the torturer that he/she does not have. She writes, "Torture, ...consists of a primary physical act, the infliction of pain, and a primary verbal act, the interrogation. The verbal act, in turn, consists of two parts, "the question" and "the answer" each with conventional connotations that wholly falsify it. "The question" is mistakenly understood to be the "motive"; "the answer" is mistakenly understood to be "the betrayal." The first credits the torturer, providing him with a justification, his cruelty with an explanation. The second discredits the prisoner, making him rather than the torturer, his voice rather than his pain, the cause of his loss of self and world" (35).
So, I'm wondering if her argument is that to try and understand the "motive" of torture is to automatically give it an excuse? By seeking justification, it is somehow justified? My biggest question though of the above quote is that where does the differentiation come from regarding torture for confession's sake vs. torture that stems from rage, such as the mental torture of knowing one or one loves is about to be executed by a death squad or the torture that might occur (such as rape, deprivation of food/sleep/shelter etc) in a time of war that is not "used" to gather information but as a punishment or tool of annihilation? Is that not torture? I don't understand where that distinction comes from and why it is even desirable to distinguish between torture for national security vs. torture as a means of further (and near total) dehumanization? When does torture become seperate from abuse if by definition it encompasses abuse and amplifies it? Does this seperation hinge on intention, and if so does the intention being "ethnic cleansing" or "policies of differentiation" or "security," distinguish it any way from the violence that is embedded in the very structure of certain occupations, such as being a soldier? What I mean by that is, not to equate soldiers as torturers but as agents who are both dehumanized by their occupation but also must in turn dehumanize others in order to "defend" "protect" or "conquer" and "destroy" a perceived threat or enemy.

One of those most fascinating points that Scarry brings up is the use of the location of torture, a room, a hospital, a factory, a ditch...the way that the location and the objects used to torture are often very every day objects such as a bathtub, a rope, soap, water, showers, a telephone, electricity. She explains that this is the very inversion of "civilization" in that by using every day objects associated with domesticity and civilization as tools and rooms of torture, this turns the connotations of what it means to be civilized on its head. She also comments on the way that the torturers build their own vocabulary alluding to the "work" they do, naming a torture room and the tools of their 'trade' also with domestic references. This idea of torture being part of their work/trade/occupation is also interestingly in line with what I wrote before about occupations that require the dehumanization of all involved. Soldiers are expected to adhere to the "rules of engagement" and be able to just "turn off" the ability to kill when they return from war but when does the process of turning that on begin, if not with their own dehumanization and dissolution of their individuality for the sake of the collective, ambiguity required to subscribe to such abstract notions as "duty." Yes, individuals can act on their own conscience but doesn't "training" that strips the individual down to a programmable machine defeat or at the very least undermine the notion of the individual still having the freedom and the responsibility to act ethically in an entirely unethical situation? More later.

peace!

Countries becoming bodies becoming countries

It's raining. I have that image from the film in my head where a man is dunked repeatedly in a tank of water (presumably to persuade a confession). The U.N. in the film let the Algerians down as it has so many other nations and peoples. Blame the loopholes in international law. Blame the power the security council ensured itself. Blame history. Blame stupidity. Really, blaming does so little good. Learning the history of the rest of the world will certainly force you to rethink what such catch phrases as 'dignity' 'freedom' 'human rights' 'democracy' 'justice' and 'humanitarian' mean. They sound so GOOD don't they? And yet do those with the power and ammunition to spare ever think that what they are doing is wrong? Okay, whining aside...one of the things that keeps me feeling quite humble is the extent to which people are willing to go to be heard and to take back their human rights, even if that means to disregard the rights of others. It is easy to sit here and type (and whine) on my computer about the violence going on 'over there' and why does no one do anything about it. There's a rather telling line though in the film, where the Colonel asks the reporters interviewing him if they still want Algeria to remain under French control. If so, he says, they must be prepared to accept the consequences. Empires become empires when countries are made of bodies and bodies become countries. When individual lives cease to matter and are deemed worthy of sacrifice to a "higher vision" (be that liberalism, imperialism, terrorism, religion or freedom) human rights law becomes a tool to beat people into submission, rather than protect them from oppression. So, how then do you change this? I can't stand hearing Bush and Kerry (ketchup and mustard) 'vow' about how they won't give veto power over America to anyone else? How though can international law EVER work if those who have the power to fund it and enforce it are perfectly willing to break it and ignore it, to secure or further their power? Who wants "veto power" over the U.S. anyway? They missed the point, it seems, of all of the global protests to the invasion/occupation of Iraq. People weren't asking for a veto power or even that the U.N. or EU would trump us. They were simply asking the "great superpower" to actually consider the consequences of setting such a troubling precedent. I return again and again to that idea of the U.S. being known for human rights rather than military force. I can watch a film like "The Battle of Algiers" or even study the Vietnam war (and our own documents regarding it) and think about how wrong such land lust and power hunger was. As the Colonel suggested, if we are willing to go to any lengths to attain such a goal, we must be willing to accept the consequences.
I just wish the U.N. actually had the power to protect those whose bodies are being crushed and fed to satiate such cruel appetites, that the UN declaration on human rights promises. I think though the only way to achieve that would be to overhaul the idea of State sovereignty and especially, to extend the borders of legal protection to include individuals and not just nations or those legally identified as "persecuted" groups. Perhaps though, the weaknesses existing within the enforcement of international law is that as long as there are individuals who are willing and able to violate the rights of others for whatever purpose, gain, or cause, law will be more punitive rather than protective/preventative. How do you protect those who cannot protect themselves against those who seem to have no morality or fear of punishment? Well, the one way I can think of is to quit arming such people of highly questionable morality to the teeth and to let the idea of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend' serve as an excuse for rendering international law blind and in a state of perpetual bondage. peace!

Torture, Terrorism, and the film "The Battle of Algiers"

I've just watched the film "The Battle of Algiers" and the movie raises so many fascinating issues that I want to share here. These questions/issues are especially relevant with the war in Iraq and the prison torture/death scandals. First is the question of the use of terror as a means of resistance. In the film, the F.L.N. organized and lead a terrorist campaign against the French. This campaign included bombings, shootings and stabbings. The French initially responded by increasing their patrols and later calling in Paramilitary forces led by Colonel Marthineu. There are a couple of intriquing scenes regarding the police. First is when the Commissioner, in the face of bombings (a cafe, a bar and a subway or train or bus station, I'm not sure which) decides to comply officially with orders from Paris that call for closing off the Moslem section and setting up checkpoints. Unofficially however, he also goes (with friends) into the Moslem section and places a bomb that kills countless civilians. This action increases the violence which leads to the military presence, the use of torture to acquire information and the blurring of police power (investigation/security) verses military force (tanks, soldiers, better weaponry). There are also very fascinating depictions of the French Colonel authorizing brutal force (bombings, torture, imprisonment) coupled with humane regard for the Arabs. On the one hand, he's willing to authorize the use of torture to find out the information on 'terror cells' and to maintain French control over Algeria. On the other hand, he tells his soldiers to use a long fuse on the bombs they set up to force members of the F.L.N to surrender. He tries on several occasions in the film to spare civilians or at the very least, keep their deaths at a minimum. That said, he also uses the F.L.N. authorized strike and refrain from violence during the six day U.N. conference to consider the plight of Algeria (and the Algerian request for independence) to raid the already fenced off Moslem quarter and round up countless people (it seemed to be mainly men and older boys) for "questioning." This questioning of course included water torture, electric shock, suspension by one's arms and beatings galore. So I found it hard to understand what role the Colonel truly plays in all of this. Where does the conscience of the human being become seperated from doing one's "duty" especially in a military action? The "terrorist" leaders also held this duality. The film centers on the main character Ali who witnesses the execution of one of the resistence leaders while in prison and later becomes one of the last leaders to die. This chronology of violence made me wonder if it is the act of witnessing both the injustice of the other man's execution and living under the daily injustice of occupation that led Ali to resort to wage his own personal war against any and all occupiers, as well as to carry out "death sentences" on someone he knew. At what point then does terrorism become the last resort...the last actualization of a desperation that has no other means of expression? Both sides, after all, terrorized each other. One simply had better fire power than the other and the other found ways (through guerrilla warfare) to make terror a sort of equalizer. Torture, according to my understanding of Elaine Scarry's book, is also a sort of equalizer. It strips the tortured of all ability to resist, of voice, of agency, of language. She explains in her book that torture (physical or mental) destroys the world of the tortured. The pain replaces memory, identity, cause. The torturer does not have to endure this pain (obviously) because it is not in his/her body nor necessarily in his/her consciousness. For example, in the film, the use of torture is "justified" as a means of gathering information. The tortured "confesses" to end his/her suffering. This confession betrays whomever they may name or whatever they may disclose. Scarry examines the role of the tortured/confessor in the light of such "betrayal" yet she argues that the torturer is less concerned with the question or the answer the confessor gives. The act of torture is not motivated by such. Instead it is to show the power the torturer has over his/her victim to ask the question and to expect/get the desired answer. To render the victim voiceless and assert complete power over their body? This is my understanding of Scarry's work thusfar. I'll post more on this later, after I've had time to get further through her book and to reflect upon both the film as well. Peace!

Initial response to Elaine Scarry's "The Body in Pain"

My first thoughts on the book are summed up in one word: wow.
I have never thought of torture as anything other than a tool of power exercised over others to assure/reaffirm that power. Scarry's book however, looks at the way that torture destroys the world of the tortured. To this effect she writes, "Torture is in its largest outlines the invariable and simultaneous occurance of three phenomena which, if isolated into separate and sequential steps, would occur in the following order. First, pain is inflicted on a person in ever-intensifying ways. Second, the pain, continually amplified within the person's body, is also amplified in the sense that it is objectified, made visible to those outside the person's body. Third, the objectified pain is denied as pain and read as power, a translation made possible by the obsessive mediation of agency" "The idea that the need for information is the motive for physical cruelty arises from the tone and form of the questioning rather from its content: the questions, no matter how contemptuously irrelevant their content, are announced, delivered, as though they motivated the cruelty, as if the answers to them were crucial" (28).

I'm only thirty pages into the book but I am wondering how she views/explains/explores the relationship is between the tortured and the torturer. More (obviously) on this later. peace!

Freud and trauma

There is so much going on in this little book "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" that I'm not sure where to begin, but I'll try by addressing the effects of trauma on the brain. According to Freud, (or at least my understanding from the essay) pleasure and "unpleasure" result from "excitation" to external or even internal stimuli. Trauma such as "war neuroses" and "traumatic neuroses" result from a breach in the brain's "protective shield" which is supposed to limit and control the exposure of all stimuli. The effects of this breach are twofold: first the trauma creates an over abundance of stimuli and then attempts to repress or bury the traumatic event which fuels the reaction to such stimuli. The role of the psychoanalyst then is to try and help the traumatized person both engage these repressed/buried memories while simultaneously trying to put them in their proper place as being part of the past. Thus removing the fear of repeated trauma by showing that there is no longer an imminent threat to the life and wellbeing of the traumatized. That is my understanding of the essay anyway.

To take this further, (or bring Freud's BPP to the present understanding of PTSD), the brain's reaction to trauma can have several manifestations: an inability to separate the traumatic event from the present (as in flashbacks, nightmares, etc) as well as an attempt at numbing the anxiety, fear, anger and despair (helplessness?) that are associated with having been witness to such a traumatic event. For example, Spiegelman's book (in response to 9/11) shows Spiegelman not only in his present form but also in varying forms of dissociation and victimization, all of which is a result not only of the immediate trauma (9/11) but also the repetition of that trauma by the mainstream media and politicians. The open wound is not allowed to heal nor is the mind allowed to even process the incessant stream of propaganda born out of the ashes of the fallen towers. By keeping the American public unflinchingly and unblinkingly focused upon its own victimization, the government "terrorizes" and "traumatizes" them into submission through fear. Fear that if we do not act immediately, more attacks will come. Fear that if we do not show unity and unquestioning faith in "our values" the 'terrorists' have won. Fear. Fear. Fear. The terror warning chart in all of its rainbow vibrancy serves to both regulate the American public's pulse but also to quicken it, to make sure that people are constantly reminded of that day and of the violence/horror of it but also of how it haunts and remains a threat. Tying this then to Benjamin's essay on fascism's manipulation of public perception through mass produced images and art, 9/11 gave the Bush government the opportunity to curb civil liberties and human rights (as in Patriot Act and the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay), to bypass international law (as in preemptive war) and to significantly bolster the military-industrial complex: corporations, weapons manufacturing, forced expansion of foreign markets, etc. These actions are fascist. What is most ingenious though is the ability of the media to not only convince the American people that the lessening of freedom = security but also that questioning the necessity of which is unpatriotic or even treasonous. This was accomplished in many ways but perhaps none so clever as the use of repeated images of the planes hitting the twin towers and them collapsing and finally, the flag. Osama's face also graced the cover of countless magazines and cartoons all illustrating American might and Right. The flag became not only a way unifying the country in the face of such suffering and disbelief but also, a rallying cry for vengeance and war. Remembering and vowing to "never forget the sacrifice" (of those lost in the towers, in the planes, the rescue workers, the survivors, and now the soldiers) became not questioning the government's unilateral power in deciding exactly how best to "keep America safe." How does this relate to Freud? Well, he offers the story of a child who uses play to engage and gain control over the loss he feels when his mother is not spending all of her time tending to him. He explains that the child's game of lost and found is his way of entertaining and reassuring himself that the loss is not permanent. It is also his way, through engaging in the trauma of loss repeatedly, to gain some power over it. To control it. To make sense of it for himself. I think this is the same way we as a nation act with regard to 9/11. We want very much to gain some power over that feeling of powerlessness that the terrorist attacks left and so we not only accept the repetition of images and allusions to 9/11 that the media and politicians feed us, we look to them as a space of definition as if our nation was born again on that day, united, if only in the trauma of loss. The media says don't forget. We also say, we cannot forget. But why? What is to be gained by continuing to carry and reopen that wound over and over, to the point to which it defines us as "Americans"? Others have argued that this government needs its people to remain in a state of constant fear if it is to continue calling war, peace and imperialism, democracy. It is interesting to think about 9/11 in relation to the "war neuroses" or PTSD that Freud spoke of and how by recognizing the power of a traumatic event to continue dominating our inner landscape well after the event itself has occurred, is itself a path of being freed from such domination. Freud suggests that this has to come from being able to access the traumatic memories but also to put them in their proper context (as in that they are part of the past, not the present). So, the mass proliferation of flags and shirts and ceremonies promote fear not the freedom from that fear. Spiegelman's book explains this best when he finally turns away from the constant barrage of images and "terror" to old comics that returned to him the feeling of being safe. More on this later. Peace!

What is the power of a word?

Leftist. Liberal. Liberty. Libertarian. Lack. Lust. Love. Libel. Liberate. Liberation. Lift. Live. Life. Lie. Lied. Lying. Left. Longing. Licentious. Laughing. Listing. Lists. Listening. Lullaby. Lingering. Languishing. Lecture. Letyourimaginationgo. Letyourboundariesexplode. Well, rant rant rant. I'm tired. I hate this thing they call "debate" when really it feels like a show. It IS a show. A chance for you to think exactly what some commentator hopes you'll think and some speechwriter gets paid to convince you of. I want to know though what is the power of a word?
Why is it that we have words that are not in themselves bad but become such forces of detachment within our society and within our individual and group consciousness? Think about "good" and "evil" or "us" and "them" or even "you" and "I," "left" or "right." I thought a lot today about the idea and ideal of nonconformity and how do you truly nonconform? How free are you to truly nonconform when most people even in the most outrageous costume, discussion and situations still often conform to some level of what others perceive to be deviant behavior. Take the punk scene for example: how do we even know what "punk" represents or stands against/apart from/or is reacting to, if not be the reaction of others within the dominant group and within the punk scene itself. The mere fact that punk became fashionable (rather than simply "reprehensible" is telling of just how much you can deviate without being co-opted and controlled. This brings me back to my original rant about the power of a word. Who gives the word "liberal" such a negative meaning? Why does either extreme hold the power of definition in such a way that they can shape the public perception of a single word to mean everything from anything resembling communism to anything a hair left of center. Why? I hate it. I hate the fact that the manipulation of certain words (such as liberal but also "tough" "terrorism" and "leadership") shape this sideshow circus someone misnamed "debate" into something that prohibits true dialogue on very critical issues. Instead we are encouraged to think critically only about the gestures one candidate makes or the way his wife is dressed. Who gives a shit about the way his wife is dressed? I'm sorry, how does that relate to foreign or domestic policy exactly? It just amazes me that there is more energy spent in trying to create public myopia and channel it into a collapsed, consumption orbit where we are far too busy being entertained to stop and question where the actor stops and the real world begins. It irritates me that the "strong women" in these "candidates" lives are reduced to spectators for the sport of sedating minds. After all, it is far more important apparently, that we, the American public know that one of the Hilton sisters has just opened a new fashion line and may be in the process of annulling her marriage, than it is we see the reality of life in Palestine or even in Israel or in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is far more relevant to know (apparently) that parents are to "blame for childhood heart disease" than it is to question the pervasive media attention given to fast food industry AND prescription drug ads. It is far more worthy of our attention to contemplate the "justice" served on shows such as COPS and the political debate of FOX "news" than it is for the American public to be made aware of how teachers feel about "no child left behind" and just how "effective" these policies are that Bush has implemented and that Kerry has supported. I have a word that is in dire need of contemplation: reality.

Peace!


"You can say what you want propaganda television
But all bombing is terrorism"
--Michael Franti/Spearhead "Bomb the world" (Armageddon version)

an open letter to John Kerry

Last night I went to a wonderful party where the hosts were trying to raise money for MoveOn.org in support of the Kerry campaign. After the "debate" last night, I want to say to Mr. Kerry, that if you, through the generousity and hardwork of others, do indeed get the "priviledge" to be President, you must hold yourself accountable to the American people and to the world. My concerns are not that you might be a "liberal" or "flip-flopping" as the right-wingers would like to portray you, but that you rarely tell us in these debates what YOU will do differently. YOU spend so much time responding to the petty things that Bush says to you, that you leave no room to tell us what we WANT to hear: "I, John Kerry, will think before I act. I will remember that I once fought for and gave voice to the oppressed masses on both sides of a war (not unlike the present "peace" our troops and Iraqi civilians are dying in) and I promise to fight such oppression for the duration of my term. I want to see America be great, not in terms of destructive military might but in respect to human rights, diplomacy and equality. I vow to remember what the words democracy, freedom, and liberty stand for and to protect those who cannot protect themselves, including those within our nation and those who have, in the past, been victimized or are currently being victimized by our nation. I will undo the damage done by the current administration, to the environment, to our economy, to global alliances and to international law. This is what America needs. This is the only "leadership" the world WANTS from America."

Please Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards, please refrain from toeing the line. Please refrain from the same macho rhetoric that the current administration wants to you to say about "hunting and killing terrorists" and about being "strong and tough" because everyone has heard those lines until we are sick of them. Fight terrorism in ways that address the causes of terrorism and tell us how you will do this. Lay that out on the table. Tell us how you will bring our troops home and stop using them as an occupying force. Tell us how you will fight oppression in Palestine in order to make life safer for both Palestinians and Israelis. Tell us how you will improve the quality, availability, and affordability of health care in America. Tell us how you will fight the corporate monopoly on everything from healthcare to outsourcing to living wages and worker rights. Please tell us what you WILL do differently and stop reacting to the mudslinging of your opposition. Talk to us about inclusiveness rather than hegemony. Please don't point us to your website as most of us have read from there exactly where you stand on these issues. We want to hear from YOU right now. Your words will define you only to a point and none of us who are listening to you, actually CARE what your opponent says about your votes in the Senate or whether or not, you've "shown up" to vote on issues. We want to know now what you will do as President. Stop playing by the rules of ego and framing and start leveling with us. We will hold you to your promises so make them count.

Best.
A voting American citizen (who is also a citizen of the world)

What I love about the U.S.

I feel it necessary to write a positive post about what I love about this country, to counter any negative misconceptions about the purpose of the blog or any of the posts in it.

First, I'll reacquaint any new readers with the post that inspired the blog title:
Howard Zinn wrote, "I suggest that a patriotic American who cares for his country might act on behalf of a different vision. Instead of being feared for our military prowess, we should want to be respected for our dedication to human rights." (from "My country: The World, by Howard Zinn--Tanbou/Tambour, Summer 2003: http://www.tanbou.com/2003/summer/MyCountryHowardZinn.htm)

So, my top ten list of what I love about this country:
1. I admire and respect due process, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and I love the organizations and people who fight to protect those rights, such as the ACLU.
2. I am so grateful for Higher education (I love college and the fact that college offers an intellectual safe-zone where differing opinions can be heard, debated and discussed respectfully) 3. I love the promise of civil and human rights and the long wonderful history we have in the U.S. of people who have continually fought and died in progressive social movements that give me the very freedom I enjoy today as a citizen, as a woman, as a worker and as a student.
4. I love the fact that I live in a country where I am free to walk down the street without fear of bullets, imprisonment, torture, bombs or even police dogs, firing squads and secret police.
5. I love how diverse our nation is, with countless other races, religions, ethnicities and experiences
6. I love the promise of our nation's power when it respects and promotes international law, particularly human rights law and when it becomes a refuge to survivors of genocide, torture, rape and political oppression
7. I love that my child can have a dissenting opinion and feel free to express that opinion and that he is free from torture, oppression, imprisonment, bullets, bombs etc.
8. I am proud of my own military service, my family's military service and I very much respect those who have served and are serving. It must be extremely tough to leave a family and everything you love and know to fight and possibly die in a foreign land. I only had to leave my family for training, recruit training and my service was in "peace time" so I didn't have to experience that. I question the "Department of Defense" only in that it seems to wage more war than it does "defend" against aggression. That said, I was and still am proud of having been part of the military and I do not think that a differing opinion automatically equals un-Americanism, as someone like Bill O'Reily likes to argue. This country was made on differences of opinion, not on a monopoly or consensus.
9. I love the promise of elected office, voting, labor laws, and all of the parts of our quirky, half-baked political system.
10. I love the promise of refuge and of pioneering a different vision of power. I believe we can and have and should try to live up to the "different vision" Zinn spoke of. That is the purpose of this blog. The issues I raise here are issues I struggle with as well, to understand, to contemplate, to dilate. Cultural myopia is harmful and war is an example of just how harmful it can be. So, I love my country. I believe in our potential to truly be great, to use our "power" in a way that can help heal and foster a greater humanity in the world. I realize that our President feels very much that he is doing exactly this. What I wish more than anything is that he could see that war brings about an "equality" that does not translate into a greater humanity. If anything, it only translates into a greater deathtoll. I do not question his stated desire to make the world a better place. I do question his methods and his expectation of the end result. That, I think, is the hallmark of patriotism. To question. To learn. To love.
On that note, I respect the John Kerry just back from Vietnam and wish he would find again the strength and voice he once had, to fight for what is just in the world and to speak on behalf of those on the receiving end of war, as well as those ordered to fight it.

Peace!

Intravenous (i.v.) propaganda (just plug in for your daily dose of "reality" t.v.)

I'm sorry. The title of this post sounds a bit Matrix-y but, hey, don't you feel just a little like Alice down the rabbit hole, when the "news" is more "reality t.v." than reality t.v. and war is more "Hollywood" than Hollywood? What's next, i.v. propaganda in the form of red, white, and blue flag shaped anti-depressants? All should, of course, come packaged with the disclaimer that these products are not addictive, therefore not part of the "drugs" we are also at war with.
Perhaps they could make them bullet shaped. Or cluster bomb shaped. FOX could make even more money advertising them, with the U.S. flag waiving in the background of happy, Patriotic, television-watching, shopping, McDonaldites. Hell, the drug companies could call them the WMD's we couldn't find in Iraq. Weapons of Mass Distraction/Diversion/Dupidity. Okay, Dupidity isn't a word but stranger things have happened. We have a non-elected president holding an elected office, waging preemptive war, and holding photo-ops on aircraft carriers.
We waged a war on the basis of...well I can't remember, there's been SO many reasons and each changes as the "election" approaches. I personally think the idea behind a staged reality show must make the Pentagon proud. If we can stage reality, we can do anything. Including convincing Alice that in the rabbit hole, down is up, and up is down. Where's Morpheus when you need him?

peace!

"But I think, like the puppets, each of us is pulled upon invisible strings, until the night comes, and we are put away."
From (my absolute favorite writer/creator of a graphic novel) Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman Endless Nights" Chapter 1: Death and Venice


p.s. this post is meant as comic relief, nothing more. peace!

Walter Benjamin's "The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

Walter Benjamin’s essay explores the loss of originality in the mass, mechanical reproduction of art but also (most importantly) how easily art is manipulated by Fascism into an aesthetic of war. He writes, “The growing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two aspects of the same process. Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees as its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves” (241).

It is not clear from this excerpt what way that Fascism allows the masses self-expression. Perhaps it is through the cult of the leader, the adoration fostered by Fascist propaganda that both raises someone like Hitler to the point of public worship and yet, still paints him as being a servant of the German people? A father? The father? I don’t know.
Anyhow, what I really loved about Benjamin’s essay is his exploration of the relationship between fascism and an “art” of war. He writes, “All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. …Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today’s technical resources while maintaining the property system” (241).

I took this from a Marxist perspective. Perpetual war, would be necessary in a fascist state to justify the extreme spending and expropriation of resources (labor, lives, natural resources, money for health, education, social needs) to feed the military machine, which in turn preserves the status quo. How? By ensuring that those who go to fight/die are always the poor or the lower middle class or at the very least, those who do not control the means of production (officers notwithstanding). How would you convince people that perpetual war is necessary or even good for the state? This is, where creating the aesthetic of war becomes relevant. Benjamin’s essay made me think of all of the U.S. propaganda posters from WWII that glorified the nation and the role of the soldier in defending the nation. These posters conveyed a society in which the effort of every ‘citizen’ was needed to support the nation. To defend democracy and freedom. To defend ‘American values.’ What is ingenious about those posters is how, when mass-produced, they diverted the war-weary American public’s attention from the promises made by Wilson to keep us out of Europe’s war. In a way, these images coupled with the attack on Pearl Harbor channeled the anger of the American public into a readiness for war. Today, we also have mass-produced images that serve to divert our attention as quickly as they divert our tax dollars. We have the repeated references to and haunting images of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers on September 11th. We have those little yellow flags and now bumper sticker yellow flags and bumper sticker American flags and Wal-Mart five-dollar American flags (often mass produced in China) to rally us, once again, as a nation around war. Or as Bush & Co. like to say, around the troops. I want to quote here, Benjamin’s quote of Marinetti who wrote a manifesto about the Ethiopian colonial war. Marinetti argues, “…War is beautiful because it establishes man’s dominion over the subjugated machinery by means of gas masks, terrifying megaphones, flame throwers, and small tanks. War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamt-of metalization of the human body. War is beautiful because it enriches a flowering meadow with the fiery orchids of machine guns. War is beautiful because it combines the gunfire, the cannonades, the cease-fire, the scents, and the stench of putrefaction into a symphony. War is beautiful because it creates new architecture, like that of the big tanks, the geometrical formation flights, the smoke spirals from burning villages, and many others…Poets and artists of Futurism! …remember these principles of an aesthetics of war so that your struggle for a new literature and a new graphic art … may be illumined by them!” (242)

Marinetti’s words are incredible. I never thought of war as anything beautiful and I don’t think most people do. Yet this quote made me think about those who design the latest greatest weapons, those tanks, those fighter planes, those “smart weapons” and even those who lay out battle plans and carve up cities and entire nations with a delicate passionate precision. I think that they probably do see a beauty in warfare. If not, how could they send countless people to die and feed their need for war? What about others who turn war into a cause by and through their art and poetry, as Marinetti suggests?
What about the artists who drew up the first drafts for those mass-produced propaganda posters? How must they feel knowing that their work inspired people across the nation to enlist in a service that they may not live through? What about those who use their art to resist the lure of the twin towers of feverish nationalism and hyper-militarism? Are they, as Fox News might suggest, just as guilty as those who turned planes and passengers into giant bombs? I am fascinated by this quote because I am not sure if Marinetti was serious or being sarcastic. However, I do see in his words, how people can and do enjoy war as an art and not just some dirty necessity to “protect/defend/promote” the values of the status quo. There might well be a beauty in the way a bomb explosion cuts the sky until it bleeds such awesome, unthinkable color. There probably is an admirable craftsmanship to be found in the imagination that designs even stealthier fighter planes and even more strategically effective missiles. This isn’t too hard to fathom. What is interesting about the quote is that Marinetti tells the poets and artists to let their work be “illumined” by war. So are they creating this aesthetic of war or simply building upon or adding to it? Benjamin suggests that the aesthetics of war stems from the need to justify its destructive nature as being necessary, when really, he sees war as resulting from society’s inability to “incorporate technology” and “cope with the elemental forces of society” (242). He explains that our mass-production leads us to produce more than we can consume, leading in turn to imperialism and imperialist wars. He writes, “Imperialistic war is a rebellion of technology which collects, in the form of “human material,” the claims to which society has denied its natural material. Instead of draining rivers, society directs a human stream into a bed of trenches; instead of dropping seeds from airplanes, it drops incendiary bombs over cities; and through gas warfare the aura is abolished in a new way”(242). What is fascinating about this argument is not that he is right, but the way in which imperialistic war has evolved through capitalism and mass-produced propaganda masquerading as public “art.” Or has capitalism evolved through imperialistic war? My friend today was speaking about “the lessons of Vietnam” to which I replied, “The only lessons our government has learned from Vietnam is how to avoid and/or ignore mass protest by 1. Not reinstating the draft but rather creating a perpetual surplus of soldiers through the ingenious “stop-loss policy” and 2. Keeping an even tighter control over the U.S. mainstream media. Thus ensuring no pervading images of flag-draped coffins, maimed bodies (military and civilian) and deciding what makes the news and what does not.” So, I return to my question, has capitalism evolved thanks to imperialistic war or has imperialistic war transformed capitalism to the point to which people are hesitant to call a war imperialistic?

I also like Benjamin’s image of society directing “a human stream into a bed of trenches.” That is such a powerful image of, what would seem, the final transformation of man into a commodity, a human being into a war machine or a machine of/for war.
Is a soldier separate from the mechanized killing of war or is he or she transformed by virtue of a military occupation into the working heart of that machine? Art then, as Benjamin defines it (film and photography especially) would make up the blood of that machine as it (along with economics, tradition and education) helps ensure a constant supply of new soldiers into the war machine. So I wonder, does Fascism depend upon imperialist war to perpetuate the strong State and the “need” for an ever expensive and expansive military or does imperialist war require Fascism? What is the relationship between the two? What is the relationship between imperialism, fascism and capitalism? Are the three forever mutually entwined with war the central binding knot? I have to admit, I HATED the entire essay between the prologue and the epilogue. Having said that, the epilogue offers so much to consider, that I wonder why he didn’t reduce this essay to the first and last parts. I am curious, are the aesthetics of war Fascism’s ability to mass-produce a consumable image of war that dissolves within it all doubt and questioning to the necessity of war or are they found in the instruments of war and the mechanization of war, the ability of the war machine to turn human beings into a for-profit assembly line of death and destruction, that gives it a distinction of being an art or Art?

Benjamin's ending of the essay is also a perfect end to this post. He explains of mankind, "Its self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art" (242).

I do not think you could find greater proof to support Benjamin's (seemingly pessimistic) view of mankind as he depicts here, than the prelude to the latest Iraq war. Think about the televised bloodless war invented by the Pentagon and delivered straight and hot to your television from the "frontlines" by "embedded journalists" and NBC, CNN, FOX, and the like. Why didn't anyone stop to ask, how can a war have no blood, short of the wonderfully televised rescue of Jessica Lynch? That is the best war movie I have ever seen, far outweighing anything Hollywood filmakers could have produced. We got to watch war (and war strategy!) played out live, right before our very eyes, and you didn't even have to have cable to take part. It was on almost every channel, almost every hour of almost every day. I sought refuge from the visual onslaught of reality t.v. recruiter style in the internet indy media sources. There, you'd see the reality of the video game war that NBC and CBS woudn't show. Who needs a recruiting poster propaganda campaign like that waged in WWII when you have a live feed propaganda campain that can magically depict a war as being virtually bloodless and damn near always victorious. It felt more like watching one of those John Wayne films with the clearly distinguishable good guys and bad guys, where the good always win and the bad are always punished. Hell, it even came complete with the cowboy (president) riding off into the sunset on an aircraft carrier, with a thumbs up, "Mission Accomplished," smirk and speech that drove the crowds wild.
I wonder what Hitler would think of America now.

Peace!

The War Within the Home

What is the biggest threat to “the family” and yet the one thing you rarely hear on the frontline of any presidential campaign, especially the current one? Domestic violence.
So many of our tax dollars are spent on waging wars abroad and ineffectual wars (against poverty, pre-marital sex, drugs, cancer, etc.) but what about the war within the home? What about the war zone that children wade through every day wondering if their father will kill them/himself /or their mother or if their mother will kill them/herself/or their father? What if we took even a fraction of the “tax break” for the rich to devote to ensuring social safety nets to not only treat victims and survivors of domestic violence but also to prevent it entirely? Can you imagine how many families would be protected and thriving with some intelligent and compassionate policy making? Yes I know that feminists have had a long history of working to change policies around domestic violence but this is not just a “women’s issue.” So please, don’t try to dance around it just because some call it a “liberal” or “feminist” issue with a demeaning, accusatory tone.

This is personal and political. The Clothesline Project is an amazing testament to the ability and will of victims to survive. What so many people forget is that domestic violence also deeply affects those who witness it most, the children. I spent many years of my childhood watching my mother being beaten, humiliated, and called every cruel, dehumanizing name imaginable. She was often forced to beg her husband, on her hands and knees, for money to feed her children. I remember being very young and small but putting myself between them to try and keep her from being killed. I truly believed she would be killed at any moment. Though I was never hit by my stepfather, the reality of living like that, in a war zone in my own home, meant that I was always afraid. We lived in a perpetual climate of fear. Would he come home tonight in a good mood? Would he force her to have sex with him? Would he beat her into the floor again? Would he demean her for being “an ugly, stupid bitch” before or after she did some "stupid thing to piss him off"? Why didn’t she just leave? Why did she go back when she finally managed to get away? He didn’t physically force her to stay, unless of course you consider force, the threat of death, should she leave.
***
I thought things would change after I left home. I thought that I was the primary source of their tension, being that their tension was primarily the economic strain of having to support three people on minimum wage. When I returned five years later, I found my mother anorexic and an alcoholic. My stepfather had become even more brutal. Now he beat her no matter who was standing there. The last straw for me was when he threatened to hurt my son, my two-year old son, because he had the audacity to scream at him “Grandpa, please stop hurting my grandma!” I remember my mother crying to us to “run, to leave now, before he hurts us.” We ran. It took years before I’d stop running.

I have not gone back. I am, however, politely numb when he speaks to me on the phone. My mother says, “He is so proud of you. He considers you his daughter, you know. He loves you and your family.” Only recently did I find the courage to say tactfully, I really don’t care what he thinks he loves. I said, “I do not remember him ever being kind to you. I do not recall him ever touching you lovingly, except when you left him and he was afraid and wanted you back. When your son (and his son) died, he was not there. He used to call him “Crip” short for crippled when he was in a bad mood. Your son only lived to reach 1st grade, but I remember when you were pregnant, how he tried to beat the baby out of you. I remember how he kicked your belly until you bled, trying to force your body to abort your child. When I think of these things, I want to hate him. The fact that I want to hate him hurts me more and more.”

The images fall in silence.

“I’m sorry.” I say. Still afraid, I’ll hurt your feelings. Still afraid that all you had left to make you feel human was my silence and reassurance.

“I don’t know how yet. I haven’t learned yet how to forgive him for all of the years he has and continues to hurt everyone he is supposed to love.”

***
I am grateful for the Clothesline project because it is an undeniably visible expression of the suffering that so many have endured in silence. Whenever I see one of the shirts that a child has painted I want to cry, for my brother, for my mother, for myself. Most of all I want to take that shirt and hang it on the wall of every political office so that every legislator and every candidate can think of those who desperately need sane policies. I want them to consider every tax dollar sent to finance the military-industrial complex or to build “smarter” weapons, as each of these diverted dollars takes resources away from families. So you say you want to protect the family, I want you to prove it. Prove it to that child whose red palm prints on the white t-shirt drip beneath the words, Why is Daddy hurting Mommy? Prove it to those of us who are adults now and who will stand in your doorway and not go away or go quietly. We ask you to please think about those who have no voice politically and whom your policies will affect most. After all, we can wage wars on every damn continent if we choose, but we can only ignore this war for so long before the social costs tear this nation apart.

Peace!

"They gotta war for me They gotta war for you!!!"

"We Don't Stop"-- Michael Franti/Spearhead

fear, terror and anger as prisons

Today was the first time in awhile that I let myself slow down enough to feel how angry
I have been about the myriad of suffering, (unnecessary, pointless suffering) in the world.
What is more striking than that, is to ask why now? Why the urgency now? Why the outrage now? What is so different? So compelling? I find it interesting that the current president of the U.S. has managed to unite more people in anger than any other leader in recent memory. Yes, Hitler managed to unite people as well...but I think more in disbelief and fear than in anger.
No, I'm not comparing the two. What I wish to reflect upon here is why? Is it because he waged a preemptive war and called Iraq an imminent threat? Is it because people are waking up to the understanding the bombing, no matter how "smart" or "precise" the bombs, still results in the civilian deaths? Is the world tired of war? If so, how can we as entire nations stop the arms trade? That, to me, seems a more worthwhile place to begin to end war, rather than simply ousting one leader in favor of another (who, by the way, hasn't publicly denounced war since Vietnam).

All of that rambling aside, I think the best place to start to change things is to realize how we feed ourselves on fear, terror, and anger and how these are really toxic to us as individuals and as members of the human race. I always find that phrase funny "human race" and how true, that we are always running. Most of us in the "modern world" carve up our every waking moment with alarm clocks and deadlines and gadgets and gasoline and caffeine at the expense of spending time in nature and with those we love, doing what we truly enjoy. I am personally envious of my cats and their ability to laze around so much of the day. I watch my son struggle with his homework and realize I am pushing him to hurry because of deadlines...bedtime, bathtime, homeworktime, my time to do my homework, housework, sleep. There never seems to be enough hours in the day but when you have time, what do you do with it? Run? Fill the silence with someone else's words? My husband (for the first time in our five year relationship) actually skipped out on work today to spend time with me. I didn't ask him to. He simply decided that we needed to have a "mental health day." Now, usually I'm the one advocating that and he's usually far more willing to suffer begrudgingly through work or schoolwork or chores than to take time off. Today, we slept in. I slept because I was sick (because I hadn't allowed myself any downtime since, oh, last spring) and he slept because he wanted to. We watched a movie. We rented two more (both comedies, because, quite honestly you can only handle so much current events before you really start to hate reality) and we each had a slice of chocolate cake and ordered pizza for dinner. It was incredibly nice just to do nothing, yet the idea of doing nothing is so hard for me because when I look around I think: oh, this needs dusting, this needs vaccuuming, this needs to be washed/dried/put away. I hate it when there's traffic, I hate it when the tree I park under leaves a film I can't seem to completely clear my windshield of. I hate the rising gas prices. I hate the war in Iraq. I hate fox news. I hate hate. I hate seeing people suffer. I hate thinking about people being killed every time a bomb falls or bombing intensifies or in "retaliation." I hate headaches/stomachaches/illness in general. I hate the idea of selling my labor for any price if that means that someone else has to go without for me to be able to afford to rent dvd's. I hate insomnia but I get alot done that way. I hate categories and yet I tend to categorize. I hate the fact that I once had semi-decent health coverage that cost me $200 a paycheck (a paycheck!) but I could never afford the co-pay and now I have pitiful student insurance so I'm praying not be seriously sick or to need dental care for the next 9 months. I hate that people who signed up to serve in the military are now dying and killing and risking prison terms (by going awol or deserting) to fatten the wallets of certain corporations and certain politicians. I hate the fact that "debate" has come to replace dialogue and weapons have come to replace diplomacy.

Okay so I just spent how many lines complaining? Well, it's not really complaining as much as it is to see how thoughts cycle around the same stupid circles until I find myself in knots.
(Or is it "nots"?) The truth is, (as I understand it) I don't like hating anything but it's easy and habitual. So we throw around a word like hate (or love) until it loses meaning. Until it is meaningless. It was already meaningless but now we've made it into a useless commodity. What's next? We trade it to others. You surround yourself with those who feel like you do, who hate what you do, who love what you do, who, in doing so, validate you. What I love most about my husband is his unwillingness to compromise himself to validate my fears or my anger or my little hangups about the house being dusty or my endless grocery shopping sprees. One of our biggest tiffs as of late is my compulsive organic vegetarian food shopping. My cabinets overflow with food and yet, I (make the excuse that I) always buy with sharing in mind. Fortunately for us, we try to use disagreements as opportunities for dialogue. We are always reminding one another that it is more important to laugh than it is to yell or complain. My husband laughed at me once when I asked him "Isn't this soup beautiful?" I remember being a bit offended because apparently he never thought of Minestrone as being particulary beautiful. To me, it was a gorgeous mosaic of color, of sustanence, of effort. In one bowl I could see the people in the kitchen working hard to make the soup quickly and before them the people who had to work to make the soup possible, to grow the vegetables and beans and pasta, to pick/harvest them etc. So to me that soup wasn't just food, but a realization that all I had to do was pay for the bowl, while others pay for my privilege in eating what isn't even available to most people living on this planet. I don't think most of us even begin to reflect upon the hard work for wages (that do not support individuals yet alone families) that others do every day and sometimes almost every minute of every day, so that we can eat, consume, complain, diet, and throw away. I always remember this one Oprah show where one of her guests had walked for so long he walked the skin off the bottom of his feet and he said that he was amazed to learn in America people's cats ate better than most people in the world. Anyway, long story short, it is only in learning how to honestly relate to these two people in my life that I figure out how I cage myself in negativity and expectation.

As the election nears, I am constantly reminding myself of the necessity in staying grounded and humble. I sometimes dream up shirts that say "Fuck war" and the one I saw recently that reads "Fascism sucks." I think though, there is a greater need for nonviolent communication than ever before. If you can't listen to someone without arguing and fighting and hating then you are in some respects creating a bomb within yourself, a bomb that must either be defused or will explode. You also create/fuel/feed the desperation of those who will turn to bombs to be heard.
I don't want to do that. I'd like to believe that no one really wants to do that. So, while all of this hatred of Bush is understandable (and I've been quite guilty of it too) I think that even that is misdirected. If we do not challenge and change the structural inequality that allows one man such power, then we leave everything up to human fallability. What if every person who has someone they love serving in "harm's way" (be it Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever) decided to say, hey, I will not give you one more dollar or one more second of my loved one's life for your war or your arms trade or your destruction of the earth or your free trade capitalism. What do you think would happen? Those in power surely couldn't retain power if everyone refused them.
It is remarkable to think about the global unity against war, against imperialism, against unilateralism. But does being against something imply that you are for the opposite? I think such implicit support is not enough, we must actively push for the alternative: nonviolence, diplomacy, humanity, collectivity, interdependence, sane policies, humane politics, inclusiveness, honesty, responsibility, compassion, social justice. Think though for a moment, how even those words (as beautiful as they sound) can be manipulated into weapons. They have been, you know.

There is a real need to recognize how we imprison ourselves (by allowing ourselves to be pushed by) fear, terror and anger. That is my latest personal goal, anyway. I'm going off a quote from Aung San Suu Kyi who once said, "The only prison is fear, and the only real freedom is freedom from fear." It is such a funny quote to reflect upon given the way that we are being told repeatedly that prisons, military force and power politics which curb civil liberties and human rights are the only means of security, the only way we as a nation can be kept safe. The terror alert may work some sort of weird magic on "consumer confidence" and certainly causing people to rush out and buy duct tape and plastic but it does little to make people feel safe. Or to make them trust that they are safe. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could learn to see international relations as windows that open out to the world, rather than as ideologies of fear, terror, power and anger that form mental cages around nations and individuals as well.

As a footnote, I am most grateful to the latest Tricycle (Buddhist) magazine (fall 2004 edition) on politics and citizenship from a Buddhist perspective. Also, the Sun Magazine has put out some remarkable issues as of late. All of these have helped remind me continuously of the importance of nonviolent communication in working for change. I am eternally grateful to the words, wisdom and work of the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hahn, as well as the ever inspiring art of Mayumi Oda. It is important to challenge the injustice and negativity and suffering in this world but it is also important to take a mental health day. Take refuge in that which truly nourishes you and nuture that in others. I am lucky. I have many in my life who are far more adept at this than I am and they always inspire me and remind me that nonviolence also means nonviolence to yourself, as well as the world. Namaste.

Peace!