Walt Whitman was born on May 31, 1819, and would be delighted to know that there are 222,000 results listed on Google when simply entering the words "Walt Whitman's birthday."
Below is an excerpt from his magnificent poem "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry:"
"4.
These and all else were to me the same as they are to you,
I loved well those cities, loved well the stately and rapid river,
The men and women I saw were all near to me,
Others the same--others who look back on me because I look'd
forward to them,
(The time will come, though I stop here to-day and to-night.)
5.
What is it then between us?
What is the count of the scores or hundreds of years between us?
Whatever it is, it avails not--distance avails not, and place avails
not,
I too lived, Brooklyn of ample hills was mine,
I too walk'd the streets of Manhattan island, and bathed in the
waters around it,
I too felt the curious abrupt questionings stir within me,
In the day among crowds of people sometimes they came upon me,
In my walks home late at night or as I lay in my bed they came
upon me,
I too had been struck from the float forever held in solution,
I too had receiv'd identity by my body,
That I was I knew was of my body, and what I should be I knew
I should be of my body."
and what a body of work you left, Walt, who quickly outgrew mortality even. Happy Birthday, my hero, and America's hero, too.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Elevator Dream
Last night, I had the strangest dream. I was in the apartment building where I live in a big city. It is laundry day, so I have a pile of clothes in a basket and am headed for the basement.
After putting the sheets, towels, etc. in the washing machine, I realize that I left the laundry detergent upstairs, so I leave the clothes in the machine, and race into an elevator. There are two sets of elevators, and I take the one on the left which is mainly used as a service elevator. The other elevator appears to be stuck.
I'm the only one in the elevator. I push the button for the third floor, top floor, where is where I want to get out. No sooner do I press 3, then the door closes hard behind me like a bank vault, and it's obvious that I'm not getting out of there any time soon.
The elevator takes off super fast like a rocket ship, and I can tell by its speed it's racing, and has a turbo engine. It rips through the ceiling, and the door opens a bit to reveal the clouds. I'm now high above the city. It was now clear that I was no longer in an elevator, but a space ship. Someone might even spot me from an office building below as an "unidentified flying object."
Oddly, the first thought that goes through my mind is how I left the laundry in the washer, and how I'd better get down to the laundry room before someone else takes it. I think, too, that I'd better get control of this thing, and bring it down to earth fast.
But, my better judgment tells me the last thing I need to worry about is stolen socks, and I manage to take control somehow, and bring the elevator back down to earth where it alights on a busy city street in a financial district. It's a one way street, and I quickly realize that I'm going in the wrong direction, so have to make a sharp right hand turn, which is not easy to do in an elevator, and I almost hit a pedestrian on the side of the road. She starts crying. What does she expect, I think? I'm driving an elevator. It's not like it has power steering.
Somehow, I end up on the right course, and find myself back in my apartment building where my dirty laundry still waits for me.
After putting the sheets, towels, etc. in the washing machine, I realize that I left the laundry detergent upstairs, so I leave the clothes in the machine, and race into an elevator. There are two sets of elevators, and I take the one on the left which is mainly used as a service elevator. The other elevator appears to be stuck.
I'm the only one in the elevator. I push the button for the third floor, top floor, where is where I want to get out. No sooner do I press 3, then the door closes hard behind me like a bank vault, and it's obvious that I'm not getting out of there any time soon.
The elevator takes off super fast like a rocket ship, and I can tell by its speed it's racing, and has a turbo engine. It rips through the ceiling, and the door opens a bit to reveal the clouds. I'm now high above the city. It was now clear that I was no longer in an elevator, but a space ship. Someone might even spot me from an office building below as an "unidentified flying object."
Oddly, the first thought that goes through my mind is how I left the laundry in the washer, and how I'd better get down to the laundry room before someone else takes it. I think, too, that I'd better get control of this thing, and bring it down to earth fast.
But, my better judgment tells me the last thing I need to worry about is stolen socks, and I manage to take control somehow, and bring the elevator back down to earth where it alights on a busy city street in a financial district. It's a one way street, and I quickly realize that I'm going in the wrong direction, so have to make a sharp right hand turn, which is not easy to do in an elevator, and I almost hit a pedestrian on the side of the road. She starts crying. What does she expect, I think? I'm driving an elevator. It's not like it has power steering.
Somehow, I end up on the right course, and find myself back in my apartment building where my dirty laundry still waits for me.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
And Still We Sing
(For Peter Orlovsky)
The light has passed us
and still we sing
the rain creeps through
the doorway
still we dream
the storm rages on
death’s driver
in an empty
bus still
we deliver
what is new and
reaches
beyond us.
(c) Jayne Lyn Stahl
all rights reserved
The light has passed us
and still we sing
the rain creeps through
the doorway
still we dream
the storm rages on
death’s driver
in an empty
bus still
we deliver
what is new and
reaches
beyond us.
(c) Jayne Lyn Stahl
all rights reserved
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Fellow Named Boa Constrictor
Recently, I met a fellow named Boa Constrictor at a neighborhood pub. He said he was in the garment industry and, before that, he was in the merchant marines.
He said, in his youth, he would often be mistaken for a movie star with his long, shaggy hair and translucent silken skin. He dated all tops of creatures, some reptiles, and some who were mostly bored.
Boa came to be known around town as a fellow who wore his heart on his sleeve. He cried at all the right spots, and was a painful listener--painful because he heard more than he could tell.
One day, while crawling on the border between 32nd and 33rd, on the upper west side, Boa came upon a garbage truck that mistook him for something that was flung from a tenement doorway. Boa found himself writhing in anquish from a hangar on the side of the sanitation van hoping someone would hear his pleas for mercy.
As luck would have it, a rabbit he met for brunch at a little dive off Broadway earlier that week happened by, took him in her mouth, and hobbled off.
The rest, as they say, is his story.
(any Freudians in the audience may now go back to sleep)
He said, in his youth, he would often be mistaken for a movie star with his long, shaggy hair and translucent silken skin. He dated all tops of creatures, some reptiles, and some who were mostly bored.
Boa came to be known around town as a fellow who wore his heart on his sleeve. He cried at all the right spots, and was a painful listener--painful because he heard more than he could tell.
One day, while crawling on the border between 32nd and 33rd, on the upper west side, Boa came upon a garbage truck that mistook him for something that was flung from a tenement doorway. Boa found himself writhing in anquish from a hangar on the side of the sanitation van hoping someone would hear his pleas for mercy.
As luck would have it, a rabbit he met for brunch at a little dive off Broadway earlier that week happened by, took him in her mouth, and hobbled off.
The rest, as they say, is his story.
(any Freudians in the audience may now go back to sleep)
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Katrina? Nah, Chernobyl
When all is said and done, and the oil leak is finally resolved, in a generation or so, what has been happening for the past month in the gulf of Mexico will someday come to be known as BP's Chernobyl.
But, you say, how can it be BP's Chernobyl? Chernobyl is the location of a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. Wouldn't it then be the U.S.'s Chernobyl?
Let me be clear: while no one will ultimately care about the fate of British Petroleum, what is happening in the gulf is of apocalyptic proportions to BP every bit as much as the gulf. It just hasn't sunk in yet with BP's executives who will soon be forced to hand in their resignations, and collect their gold watches, or face civil damages.
Indeed, there will be no one left standing who is exonerated. Halliburton and corporate America will be seen as every inch the culprit as BP, and the irony that 12,000 national guardsmen are being deployed to the border of Mexico, and not to the gulf, will be lost on no one.
This mess is larger than any president, or his administration. This mess is larger even than the creepy human race. It is as big as the monster we have become, and a race, frankly, that deserves to rot in hell for what
we're doing to the natural world, to wildlife, fish, plants, and the animal kingdom.
If there is a God, in some perverse way, he's up there licking his chops at the thought that, sooner or later, we'll blow ourselves up, and have another chance to start all over again.
But, you say, how can it be BP's Chernobyl? Chernobyl is the location of a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. Wouldn't it then be the U.S.'s Chernobyl?
Let me be clear: while no one will ultimately care about the fate of British Petroleum, what is happening in the gulf is of apocalyptic proportions to BP every bit as much as the gulf. It just hasn't sunk in yet with BP's executives who will soon be forced to hand in their resignations, and collect their gold watches, or face civil damages.
Indeed, there will be no one left standing who is exonerated. Halliburton and corporate America will be seen as every inch the culprit as BP, and the irony that 12,000 national guardsmen are being deployed to the border of Mexico, and not to the gulf, will be lost on no one.
This mess is larger than any president, or his administration. This mess is larger even than the creepy human race. It is as big as the monster we have become, and a race, frankly, that deserves to rot in hell for what
we're doing to the natural world, to wildlife, fish, plants, and the animal kingdom.
If there is a God, in some perverse way, he's up there licking his chops at the thought that, sooner or later, we'll blow ourselves up, and have another chance to start all over again.
Monday, May 24, 2010
I SEE AMERICA DANCING by Isadora Duncan
Isadora Duncan was born on May 26, 1877 in San Francisco. Her favorite poet was Walt Whitman. The following is from her book "The Art of the Dance:"
"In one of his moments of prophetic love for America, Walt Whitman said, "I hear America singing," and I can imagine the mighty song that Walt heard, from the surge of the Pacific, over the plains, the Voices rising of the vast Choral of children, youths, men and women singing Democracy.
When I read this poem of Whitman's I, too, had a Vision: the Vision of America dancing a dance that would be the worthy expression of the song Walt heard when he heard America singing. This music would have a rhythm as great as the undulation, the sing or curves, of the Rocky Mountains. It would have nothing to do with the sensual tilting of the Jazz rhythm: it would be the vibration of the American soul striving upward through labour to Harmonious life. No more would this dance that I visioned have any vestige of the Fox Trot or the Charleston--rather would it be the living leap of the child springing toward the heights, toward its future accomplishment, toward a new great vision of the life that would express America.
It has often caused me to smile, but somewheat bitterly, when people have called my dancing Greek. For I count its origin in the stories which my Irish Grandmother often told us of crossing the plains with Grandfather in '49 in a covered wagon...
I often wonder where is the American composer who will hear Walt's America singing, and who will compose the true music for the American Dance... I pray you, Young American Composer, create the music for the dance that shall express the America of Walt Whitman, the America of Abraham Lincoln."
Walt Whitman would turn 191 on May 31st. We must not disappoint either Isadora or Walt. We must find, and nourish, that music.
"In one of his moments of prophetic love for America, Walt Whitman said, "I hear America singing," and I can imagine the mighty song that Walt heard, from the surge of the Pacific, over the plains, the Voices rising of the vast Choral of children, youths, men and women singing Democracy.
When I read this poem of Whitman's I, too, had a Vision: the Vision of America dancing a dance that would be the worthy expression of the song Walt heard when he heard America singing. This music would have a rhythm as great as the undulation, the sing or curves, of the Rocky Mountains. It would have nothing to do with the sensual tilting of the Jazz rhythm: it would be the vibration of the American soul striving upward through labour to Harmonious life. No more would this dance that I visioned have any vestige of the Fox Trot or the Charleston--rather would it be the living leap of the child springing toward the heights, toward its future accomplishment, toward a new great vision of the life that would express America.
It has often caused me to smile, but somewheat bitterly, when people have called my dancing Greek. For I count its origin in the stories which my Irish Grandmother often told us of crossing the plains with Grandfather in '49 in a covered wagon...
I often wonder where is the American composer who will hear Walt's America singing, and who will compose the true music for the American Dance... I pray you, Young American Composer, create the music for the dance that shall express the America of Walt Whitman, the America of Abraham Lincoln."
Walt Whitman would turn 191 on May 31st. We must not disappoint either Isadora or Walt. We must find, and nourish, that music.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
the sun's not yellow
The sun’s not
yellow it’s
serious
the wind is
too easy
now that
we find ourselves
hog tied to
time
care to take a
dip in
the pool
and make
believe just for
a minute it’s
magic.
(c) jayne lyn stahl
yellow it’s
serious
the wind is
too easy
now that
we find ourselves
hog tied to
time
care to take a
dip in
the pool
and make
believe just for
a minute it’s
magic.
(c) jayne lyn stahl
Friday, May 21, 2010
Rand Paul Meet John F. Kennedy
Last week, when Rand Paul told Rachel Maddow he is virulently opposed to what he repeatedly called "institutionalized racism," and implied that segregation, under any circumstances, was acceptable, he was insulting the memory of our 35th president.
While Johnson gets credit for having passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was John Fitzgerald Kennedy who was the architect of that legislation. Listen to this riveting speech the young president gave on the topic of civil rights on June 11, 1963, and remember that, only two weeks before, in a nationally televised speech, Kennedy urged the nation to take action to guarantee equal rights to all Americans
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97
Let this be perfectly clear, when Rand Paul says he's opposed to "institutionalized racism," what he means is:
he doesn't have a problem with segregation as long as the government isn't involved with it
he doesn't have a problem with anti-Semitism as long as it's on private property
he doesn't have a problem with restaurants excluding Hispanics, or gays as long as they don't receive public funding
and if your child happens to go to a private school,
he won't object to his, or her exclusion based on race, religion, or ethnicity.
This is deplorable, and it goes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, while signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, was the brainchild of President John F. Kennedy.
In this June, 1963 speech, a young president doesn't mince his words when speaking about equal access, and equal opportunity, a speech that should embarrass any who still won't accept diversity: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcivilrights.htm
Make no mistake, so-called Tea Partiers, and their sympathizers, are not merely reactionary, but racist, too.
John F. Kennedy would have turned 93 on Saturday, May 29th. Somehow, we know he is resting with the angels while we've still got our work cut out for us.
While Johnson gets credit for having passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was John Fitzgerald Kennedy who was the architect of that legislation. Listen to this riveting speech the young president gave on the topic of civil rights on June 11, 1963, and remember that, only two weeks before, in a nationally televised speech, Kennedy urged the nation to take action to guarantee equal rights to all Americans
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97
Let this be perfectly clear, when Rand Paul says he's opposed to "institutionalized racism," what he means is:
he doesn't have a problem with segregation as long as the government isn't involved with it
he doesn't have a problem with anti-Semitism as long as it's on private property
he doesn't have a problem with restaurants excluding Hispanics, or gays as long as they don't receive public funding
and if your child happens to go to a private school,
he won't object to his, or her exclusion based on race, religion, or ethnicity.
This is deplorable, and it goes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, while signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, was the brainchild of President John F. Kennedy.
In this June, 1963 speech, a young president doesn't mince his words when speaking about equal access, and equal opportunity, a speech that should embarrass any who still won't accept diversity: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcivilrights.htm
Make no mistake, so-called Tea Partiers, and their sympathizers, are not merely reactionary, but racist, too.
John F. Kennedy would have turned 93 on Saturday, May 29th. Somehow, we know he is resting with the angels while we've still got our work cut out for us.
Michael Winship...
"Congress Gets a Kick in the... Pants"
By Michael Winship
There's a story about a member of the British House of Commons who was stopped in the halls of Parliament by a constituent, an elderly pensioner. The little old man had a specific concern about his fellow senior citizens that he hoped the politician could solve.
He made his case clearly and intelligently and when he was finished, the Member of Parliament promised to see what might be done. As the MP turned to leave, the old man hauled off and kicked him in the backside as hard as he could.
The astonished politician turned; the old man waggled a finger and cheerily said, "Now don't forget!"
Few American politicians will forget that a lot of incumbent backsides were kicked by frustrated voters in Tuesday's primaries: longtime Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a converted Democrat more from expedience than allegiance, lost renomination to Rep. Joe Sestak; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saw his handpicked Senate candidate go down in Kentucky, defeated by Tea Partier Rand Paul; and Arkansas Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff by
progressive Democrat Bill Halter.
Yet for all the talk of an anti-incumbent fever sweeping the land, the image of angry voters manning the tumbrels and throwing the rascals out, consider the special congressional election for the late Democratic Congressman John Murtha's seat in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Democrat Mark Critz handily defeated Republican Tea Partier Tim Burns and pundits declared it a big loss for the GOP, which had tried to play on anti-Obama and anti-Nancy Pelosi sentiment to defeat Critz.
Maybe the analysts are right, but it sure as hell wasn't a kick in the pants of incumbency. Mark Critz was an aide to Murtha for more than a decade and doubtless learned well at the trough of the master. Murtha, who famously declared, "If I'm corrupt it's because I take care of my district," used his many years as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to shower government munificence on the good
people of the Pennsylvania 12th - more than $2 billion worth, according to the group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
"While nobody can fill his shoes," Critz said of his mentor, "I have the honor of following in his footsteps." Be careful not to slip on all that pork grease, Congressman.
What does it all mean? The fact of the matter is that in Washington, as in Hollywood, nobody knows anything (to quote screenwriter William Goldman) about why things happen, although a great many people earn a decent living to huff and puff as if they do. But this seems clear: beyond the inchoate and diffuse anger of the Tea Party faction there is a real and reasoned discontent in the land and it's not so much against incumbents themselves as it is anti-establishment, protesting the games
played and the resulting inertia suffocating what's left of our democracy and our economy. If elected officials would just do what they're supposed to - or even just create the illusion of forward motion -- hearts would be a little lighter.
Instead, they produce tepid versions of reform - weak tea when strong doses of antibiotics are called for -- and engage in games of parliamentary gotcha, creating nothing and reducing what was once the loyal opposition to a bunch of sniggering schoolkids.
Take, for example, recent attempts to pass the House version of the America COMPETES Act. It is, as the Associated Press describes, legislation "that would have committed more than $40 billion... to boost funding for the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies involved in basic and applied science, provided loan guarantees to small businesses developing new technologies, and promoted science and math education.
"Congress enacted a first version of the legislation in 2007 with a large majority in the House and a unanimous vote in the Senate. But in this election year, with Republicans out to show their antispending credentials, things are different."
Last week, the legislation was pulled when Republicans stuck onto it an amendment not only cutting certain programs in the bill but cracking down on federal workers watching porn on their office computers - a move simply intended to embarrass Democrats. How could many of them vote against the cuts without fearing GOP campaign ads declaring, "Congressman XX supports smut?"
The bill's supporters tried again this week, restoring the cuts but reducing the measure's timeframe from five years to three - and including the anti-pornography provision. "But Democrats made a losing gamble by bringing the bill up under a procedure that prevented Republicans from offering more amendments but requiring a two-thirds majority for passage," AP reported. "The vote was 261 to 148 for
passage, short of the two-thirds needed. Every Democrat supported it, but only 15 of 163 voting Republicans backed it."
Here is what's essentially a jobs bill, shot down by gameplaying and fiddling at a time when, as former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich notes, "Unemployment continues to haunt the middle class - the anxious class of America...
"The real lesson from the economy's first quarter is the recovery is so weak that the anxious class is likely to remain anxious through November."
So perhaps the most telling punchline of this week's primaries was the one used to devastating effect by Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania: "Arlen Specter switched parties to save one job. His own."
Contrary to conventional wisdom, once financial reform is done, if members of Congress think they can save their jobs by sitting out the rest of the session, doing nothing to make waves - or create jobs - they will find themselves kicked in the backside, and onto the pavement.
Michael Winship is senior writer for Public Affairs Television.
By Michael Winship
There's a story about a member of the British House of Commons who was stopped in the halls of Parliament by a constituent, an elderly pensioner. The little old man had a specific concern about his fellow senior citizens that he hoped the politician could solve.
He made his case clearly and intelligently and when he was finished, the Member of Parliament promised to see what might be done. As the MP turned to leave, the old man hauled off and kicked him in the backside as hard as he could.
The astonished politician turned; the old man waggled a finger and cheerily said, "Now don't forget!"
Few American politicians will forget that a lot of incumbent backsides were kicked by frustrated voters in Tuesday's primaries: longtime Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a converted Democrat more from expedience than allegiance, lost renomination to Rep. Joe Sestak; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saw his handpicked Senate candidate go down in Kentucky, defeated by Tea Partier Rand Paul; and Arkansas Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff by
progressive Democrat Bill Halter.
Yet for all the talk of an anti-incumbent fever sweeping the land, the image of angry voters manning the tumbrels and throwing the rascals out, consider the special congressional election for the late Democratic Congressman John Murtha's seat in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Democrat Mark Critz handily defeated Republican Tea Partier Tim Burns and pundits declared it a big loss for the GOP, which had tried to play on anti-Obama and anti-Nancy Pelosi sentiment to defeat Critz.
Maybe the analysts are right, but it sure as hell wasn't a kick in the pants of incumbency. Mark Critz was an aide to Murtha for more than a decade and doubtless learned well at the trough of the master. Murtha, who famously declared, "If I'm corrupt it's because I take care of my district," used his many years as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to shower government munificence on the good
people of the Pennsylvania 12th - more than $2 billion worth, according to the group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
"While nobody can fill his shoes," Critz said of his mentor, "I have the honor of following in his footsteps." Be careful not to slip on all that pork grease, Congressman.
What does it all mean? The fact of the matter is that in Washington, as in Hollywood, nobody knows anything (to quote screenwriter William Goldman) about why things happen, although a great many people earn a decent living to huff and puff as if they do. But this seems clear: beyond the inchoate and diffuse anger of the Tea Party faction there is a real and reasoned discontent in the land and it's not so much against incumbents themselves as it is anti-establishment, protesting the games
played and the resulting inertia suffocating what's left of our democracy and our economy. If elected officials would just do what they're supposed to - or even just create the illusion of forward motion -- hearts would be a little lighter.
Instead, they produce tepid versions of reform - weak tea when strong doses of antibiotics are called for -- and engage in games of parliamentary gotcha, creating nothing and reducing what was once the loyal opposition to a bunch of sniggering schoolkids.
Take, for example, recent attempts to pass the House version of the America COMPETES Act. It is, as the Associated Press describes, legislation "that would have committed more than $40 billion... to boost funding for the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies involved in basic and applied science, provided loan guarantees to small businesses developing new technologies, and promoted science and math education.
"Congress enacted a first version of the legislation in 2007 with a large majority in the House and a unanimous vote in the Senate. But in this election year, with Republicans out to show their antispending credentials, things are different."
Last week, the legislation was pulled when Republicans stuck onto it an amendment not only cutting certain programs in the bill but cracking down on federal workers watching porn on their office computers - a move simply intended to embarrass Democrats. How could many of them vote against the cuts without fearing GOP campaign ads declaring, "Congressman XX supports smut?"
The bill's supporters tried again this week, restoring the cuts but reducing the measure's timeframe from five years to three - and including the anti-pornography provision. "But Democrats made a losing gamble by bringing the bill up under a procedure that prevented Republicans from offering more amendments but requiring a two-thirds majority for passage," AP reported. "The vote was 261 to 148 for
passage, short of the two-thirds needed. Every Democrat supported it, but only 15 of 163 voting Republicans backed it."
Here is what's essentially a jobs bill, shot down by gameplaying and fiddling at a time when, as former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich notes, "Unemployment continues to haunt the middle class - the anxious class of America...
"The real lesson from the economy's first quarter is the recovery is so weak that the anxious class is likely to remain anxious through November."
So perhaps the most telling punchline of this week's primaries was the one used to devastating effect by Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania: "Arlen Specter switched parties to save one job. His own."
Contrary to conventional wisdom, once financial reform is done, if members of Congress think they can save their jobs by sitting out the rest of the session, doing nothing to make waves - or create jobs - they will find themselves kicked in the backside, and onto the pavement.
Michael Winship is senior writer for Public Affairs Television.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Another memoir...
Jan Brewer, Arizona's governor, is rumored to be writing her memoir which is tentatively entitled "How to Secede Without Trying."
Barry Goldwater Call Home
It may not seem all that significant at face value, but Rand Paul won the Republican Party nomination for the state of Kentucky in the Senate primary this week. Rand Paul is not your garden variety Republican. Aside from being the son of another prominent Republican, Ron Paul, he is a member of a growing flock of Tea Party followers.
Yes, Mr. Paul describes himself as a Libertarian (with a capital "L") and not as a Tea Partier, but that may be because there's no place on the ballot for Tea Partier. More importantly, the so-called Tea Party is closer to independent in that it is neither Republican nor Democrat. Make no mistake, Rand Paul wants to be the new face of the Republican Party as does Sarah Palin.
Combined with the miraculous victory of another who drew large support from the Tea Party, Scott Brown, who won the seat of legendary Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, this is further proof that the President must now forget any illusions he may previously have had about a spirit of bipartisanship. It's safe to say that, with Rand Paul's victory today, the myth of bipartisanship has been officially laid to rest.
Let me be perfectly clear for those unable to read closely. Bipartisanship in this country has never been anything more than a myth, but we're rapidly approaching the point of another civil war, only this time it will be about class more than race.
Should he choose to accept it, this is a chance for this President to grow his agenda in a direction that is not only more likely to win him reelection in two years but, more importantly, one that will protect and defend labor, as well as safeguard those constitutional protections we still have left like a woman's right to choose, the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantee due process, and suffrage.
Whatever you might say about Elena Kagan, pro or con, one thing is clear. Her nomination, and near certain confirmation, makes it clear that this administration still believes it is dealing with moderates on the other side of the aisle, but guess what, Mr. President, whatever moderates there are left in the Republican Party are now hiding under their desks in fear of what the radical right wingnuts might be cooking up next.
After all, it was another right winger, Barry Goldwater, who laid the groundwork for the insanity that is trying to pass itself off as law in Arizona, and everybody knows who Barry Goldwater's biggest fan was--George W. Bush. How many more Goldwater moments can this country afford, Mr. President?
By not appointing a boldfaced progressive with a strong environmental track record, someone who has been outspoken on climate change, human rights, and defending habeas corpus, and one who doesn't think the First Amendment applies only to corporations, the President has missed one opportunity in his nomination of Elena Kagan who has managed to be amorphous enough not to be pinned down.
The Senate primary in Kentucky victory can be seen as good news if it makes a strong enough impression on the White House, and this President decides to take control of the steering wheel away from McChrystal and Gates, and steer us out of the quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan in which he's allowed himself to sink deeper in the name of bipartisan cooperation.
Give it up, Mr. President. You can't win this one. You've got to stand up for the things people elected you to stand up for like accountability, transparency, restoring the rule of law, insuring equal opportunity for all Americans, and not just for bankers. You've got to win back the middle class by bailing out the working class, and not Wall Street.
There can be no negotiating with thosewho cling to their dogma and their shotguns at the same time.
This is yet another opportunity this presidency cannot afford to miss.
Yes, Mr. Paul describes himself as a Libertarian (with a capital "L") and not as a Tea Partier, but that may be because there's no place on the ballot for Tea Partier. More importantly, the so-called Tea Party is closer to independent in that it is neither Republican nor Democrat. Make no mistake, Rand Paul wants to be the new face of the Republican Party as does Sarah Palin.
Combined with the miraculous victory of another who drew large support from the Tea Party, Scott Brown, who won the seat of legendary Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, this is further proof that the President must now forget any illusions he may previously have had about a spirit of bipartisanship. It's safe to say that, with Rand Paul's victory today, the myth of bipartisanship has been officially laid to rest.
Let me be perfectly clear for those unable to read closely. Bipartisanship in this country has never been anything more than a myth, but we're rapidly approaching the point of another civil war, only this time it will be about class more than race.
Should he choose to accept it, this is a chance for this President to grow his agenda in a direction that is not only more likely to win him reelection in two years but, more importantly, one that will protect and defend labor, as well as safeguard those constitutional protections we still have left like a woman's right to choose, the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantee due process, and suffrage.
Whatever you might say about Elena Kagan, pro or con, one thing is clear. Her nomination, and near certain confirmation, makes it clear that this administration still believes it is dealing with moderates on the other side of the aisle, but guess what, Mr. President, whatever moderates there are left in the Republican Party are now hiding under their desks in fear of what the radical right wingnuts might be cooking up next.
After all, it was another right winger, Barry Goldwater, who laid the groundwork for the insanity that is trying to pass itself off as law in Arizona, and everybody knows who Barry Goldwater's biggest fan was--George W. Bush. How many more Goldwater moments can this country afford, Mr. President?
By not appointing a boldfaced progressive with a strong environmental track record, someone who has been outspoken on climate change, human rights, and defending habeas corpus, and one who doesn't think the First Amendment applies only to corporations, the President has missed one opportunity in his nomination of Elena Kagan who has managed to be amorphous enough not to be pinned down.
The Senate primary in Kentucky victory can be seen as good news if it makes a strong enough impression on the White House, and this President decides to take control of the steering wheel away from McChrystal and Gates, and steer us out of the quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan in which he's allowed himself to sink deeper in the name of bipartisan cooperation.
Give it up, Mr. President. You can't win this one. You've got to stand up for the things people elected you to stand up for like accountability, transparency, restoring the rule of law, insuring equal opportunity for all Americans, and not just for bankers. You've got to win back the middle class by bailing out the working class, and not Wall Street.
There can be no negotiating with thosewho cling to their dogma and their shotguns at the same time.
This is yet another opportunity this presidency cannot afford to miss.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The beginning of the end of the myth of bipartisanship
It may not seem all that significant, at face value, but Rand Paul won the Republican Party nomination for the state of Kentucky in the Senate primary today. Rand Paul is not your garden variety Republican. Aside from being the son of another prominent Republican, Ron Paul, he is a member of a growing flock of Tea Party followers.
Combined with the miraculous victory of another Tea Partier, Scott Brown, who won the seat of legendary Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, this is further proof that the President must now forget any illusions he may previously have had about a spirit of bipartisanship. It's safe to say that, with Rand Paul's victory today, the myth of bipartisanship has been officially laid to rest.
Should he choose to accept it, this is a chance for this President to grow his agenda in a direction that is not only more likely to win him reelection in two years but, more importantly, one that will safeguard those constitutional protections we still have left like a woman's right to choose, and affirmative action.
Whatever you might say about Elena Kagan, pro or con, one thing is clear. Her nomination, and near certain confirmation, makes it clear that this administration still believes it is dealing with moderates on the other side of the aisle, but guess what, Mr. President, whatever moderates there are left in the Republican Party are now hiding under their desks in fear of what the radical right wingnuts might be cooking up next.
After all, it was another right wingnut, Barry Goldwater, who laid the groundwork for the insanity that is trying to pass itself off as law in Arizona, and everybody knows who Barry Goldwater's biggest fan was--George W. Bush. How many more Goldwater moments can this country afford, Mr. President?
By not appointing a boldfaced progressive with a strong environmental track record, someone who has been outspoken on human rights, and defending habeas corpus, and one who doesn't think the First Amendment applies only to corporations, the President has missed one opportunity in his nomination of Elena Kagan who has managed to be amorphous enough not to be pinned down..
Today's Senate primary in Kentucky victory can be seen as good news if it makes a strong enough impression, and this President decides to take control of the steering wheel away from McChrystal and Gates, and steer us out of the quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan in which he's allowed himself to sink deeper in the name of bipartisan cooperation.
Give it up, Mr. President. You can't win this one. You've got to stand up for the things people elected you to stand up for like accountability, transparency, restoring the rule of law, insuring equal opportunity for all Americans, and not just for bankers. You've got to win back the middle class by bailing out the working class, and not Wall Street.
There can be no negotiating with thosewho cling to their dogma and their shotguns at the same time.
This is yet another opportunity this presidency cannot afford to miss.
Combined with the miraculous victory of another Tea Partier, Scott Brown, who won the seat of legendary Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, this is further proof that the President must now forget any illusions he may previously have had about a spirit of bipartisanship. It's safe to say that, with Rand Paul's victory today, the myth of bipartisanship has been officially laid to rest.
Should he choose to accept it, this is a chance for this President to grow his agenda in a direction that is not only more likely to win him reelection in two years but, more importantly, one that will safeguard those constitutional protections we still have left like a woman's right to choose, and affirmative action.
Whatever you might say about Elena Kagan, pro or con, one thing is clear. Her nomination, and near certain confirmation, makes it clear that this administration still believes it is dealing with moderates on the other side of the aisle, but guess what, Mr. President, whatever moderates there are left in the Republican Party are now hiding under their desks in fear of what the radical right wingnuts might be cooking up next.
After all, it was another right wingnut, Barry Goldwater, who laid the groundwork for the insanity that is trying to pass itself off as law in Arizona, and everybody knows who Barry Goldwater's biggest fan was--George W. Bush. How many more Goldwater moments can this country afford, Mr. President?
By not appointing a boldfaced progressive with a strong environmental track record, someone who has been outspoken on human rights, and defending habeas corpus, and one who doesn't think the First Amendment applies only to corporations, the President has missed one opportunity in his nomination of Elena Kagan who has managed to be amorphous enough not to be pinned down..
Today's Senate primary in Kentucky victory can be seen as good news if it makes a strong enough impression, and this President decides to take control of the steering wheel away from McChrystal and Gates, and steer us out of the quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan in which he's allowed himself to sink deeper in the name of bipartisan cooperation.
Give it up, Mr. President. You can't win this one. You've got to stand up for the things people elected you to stand up for like accountability, transparency, restoring the rule of law, insuring equal opportunity for all Americans, and not just for bankers. You've got to win back the middle class by bailing out the working class, and not Wall Street.
There can be no negotiating with thosewho cling to their dogma and their shotguns at the same time.
This is yet another opportunity this presidency cannot afford to miss.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
a video of Cornelia Street Cafe poetry reading ...
available at this link: http://vimeo.com/11757094
(if link doesn't open, cut and paste it in your web browser)
(if link doesn't open, cut and paste it in your web browser)
Friday, May 14, 2010
From Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Chevron's "Crude" Attempt to Suppress Free Speech
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Even as headlines and broadcast news are dominated by BP's fire-ravaged, sunken offshore rig and the ruptured well gushing a reported 210,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico, there's another important story involving Big Oil and pollution - one that shatters not only the environment but the essential First Amendment right of journalists to tell truth and shame the devil.
(Have you read, by the way, that after the surviving, dazed and frightened workers were evacuated from that burning platform, they were met by lawyers from the drilling giant Transocean with forms to sign stating they had not been injured and had no first-hand knowledge of what had happened?! So much for the corporate soul.)
But our story is about another petrochemical giant - Chevron - and a major threat to independent journalism. In New York last Thursday, Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered documentary producer and director Joe Berlinger to turn over to Chevron more than 600 hours of raw footage used to create a film titled "Crude: The Real Price of Oil."
Released last year, it's the story of how 30,000 Ecuadorians rose up to challenge the pollution of their bodies, livestock, rivers and wells from Texaco's drilling for oil there, a rainforest disaster that has been described as the Amazon's Chernobyl. When Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001 and attempted to dismiss claims that it was now responsible, the indigenous people and their lawyers fought back in court.
Some of the issues and nuances of Berlinger's case are admittedly complex, but they all boil down to this: Chevron is trying to avoid responsibility and hopes to find in the unused footage - material the filmmaker did not utilize in the final version of his documentary - evidence helpful to the company in fending off potential damages of $27.3 billion.
This is a serious matter for reporters, filmmakers and frankly, everyone else. Tough, investigative reporting without fear or favor - already under siege by severe cutbacks and the shutdown of newspapers and other media outlets - is vital to the public awareness and understanding essential to a democracy. As Michael Moore put it, "The chilling effect of this is, [to] someone like me, if something like this is upheld, the next whistleblower at the next corporation is going to think twice about showing me some documents if that information has to be turned over to the corporation that they're working for."
In an open letter on Joe Berlinger's behalf, signed by many in the non-fiction film business (including the two of us), the Independent Documentary Association described Chevron's case as a "fishing expedition" and wrote that, "At the heart of journalism lies the trust between the interviewer and his or her subject. Individuals who agree to be interviewed by the news media are often putting themselves at great risk, especially in the case of television news and documentary film where the subject's identity and voice are presented in the final report.
"If witnesses sense that their entire interviews will be scrutinized by attorneys and examined in courtrooms they will undoubtedly speak less freely. This ruling surely will have a crippling effect on the work of investigative journalists everywhere, should it stand."
Just so. With certain exceptions, the courts have considered outtakes of a film to be the equivalent of a reporter's notebook, to be shielded from the scrutiny of others. If we - reporters, journalists, filmmakers - are required to turn research, transcripts and outtakes over to a government or a corporation - or to one party in a lawsuit - the whole integrity of the process of journalism is in jeopardy; no one will talk to us.
In his decision, Judge Kaplan wrote that, "Review of Berlinger's outtakes will contribute to the goal of seeing not only that justice is done, but that it appears to be done." He also quoted former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis' famous maxim that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."
There is an irony to this, noted by Frank Smyth of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Brandeis "made his famous sunlight statement about the need to expose bankers and investors who controlled 'money trusts' to stifle competition, and he later railed against not only powerful corporations but the lawyers and other members of the bar who worked to perpetuate their power."
In a 1905 speech before the Harvard Ethical Society, Brandeis said, "Instead of holding a position of independence, between the wealthy and the people, prepared to curb the excesses of either, able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people."
Now, more than a century later, Chevron, the third largest corporation in America, according to Forbes magazine, has hauled out their lawyers in a case that would undermine the right of journalists to protect the people by telling them the truth. Joe Berlinger and his legal team have asked Judge Kaplan to suspend his order pending an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
As the Independent Documentary Association asserts, "This case offers a clear and compelling argument for more vigorous federal shield laws to protect journalists and their work, better federal laws to protect confidential sources, and stronger standards to prevent entities from piercing the journalists' privilege. We urge the higher courts to overturn this ruling to help ensure the safety and protection of journalists and their subjects, and to promote a free and vital press in our nation and around the world."
Bill Moyers is president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.
Michael Winship is president of the Writers Guild of America, East.
Rebecca Wharton conducted original research for this article.
btw, Writers-at-Large, an organization I founded back in 2005 with the assistance of a California Arts Council grant, was created to address precisely this issue--harassment of the press, and the need for a federal shield law. Arguably, we may be closer to federal protection for confidentiality of sources today than we were five years ago, but we're still not there.
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Even as headlines and broadcast news are dominated by BP's fire-ravaged, sunken offshore rig and the ruptured well gushing a reported 210,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico, there's another important story involving Big Oil and pollution - one that shatters not only the environment but the essential First Amendment right of journalists to tell truth and shame the devil.
(Have you read, by the way, that after the surviving, dazed and frightened workers were evacuated from that burning platform, they were met by lawyers from the drilling giant Transocean with forms to sign stating they had not been injured and had no first-hand knowledge of what had happened?! So much for the corporate soul.)
But our story is about another petrochemical giant - Chevron - and a major threat to independent journalism. In New York last Thursday, Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered documentary producer and director Joe Berlinger to turn over to Chevron more than 600 hours of raw footage used to create a film titled "Crude: The Real Price of Oil."
Released last year, it's the story of how 30,000 Ecuadorians rose up to challenge the pollution of their bodies, livestock, rivers and wells from Texaco's drilling for oil there, a rainforest disaster that has been described as the Amazon's Chernobyl. When Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001 and attempted to dismiss claims that it was now responsible, the indigenous people and their lawyers fought back in court.
Some of the issues and nuances of Berlinger's case are admittedly complex, but they all boil down to this: Chevron is trying to avoid responsibility and hopes to find in the unused footage - material the filmmaker did not utilize in the final version of his documentary - evidence helpful to the company in fending off potential damages of $27.3 billion.
This is a serious matter for reporters, filmmakers and frankly, everyone else. Tough, investigative reporting without fear or favor - already under siege by severe cutbacks and the shutdown of newspapers and other media outlets - is vital to the public awareness and understanding essential to a democracy. As Michael Moore put it, "The chilling effect of this is, [to] someone like me, if something like this is upheld, the next whistleblower at the next corporation is going to think twice about showing me some documents if that information has to be turned over to the corporation that they're working for."
In an open letter on Joe Berlinger's behalf, signed by many in the non-fiction film business (including the two of us), the Independent Documentary Association described Chevron's case as a "fishing expedition" and wrote that, "At the heart of journalism lies the trust between the interviewer and his or her subject. Individuals who agree to be interviewed by the news media are often putting themselves at great risk, especially in the case of television news and documentary film where the subject's identity and voice are presented in the final report.
"If witnesses sense that their entire interviews will be scrutinized by attorneys and examined in courtrooms they will undoubtedly speak less freely. This ruling surely will have a crippling effect on the work of investigative journalists everywhere, should it stand."
Just so. With certain exceptions, the courts have considered outtakes of a film to be the equivalent of a reporter's notebook, to be shielded from the scrutiny of others. If we - reporters, journalists, filmmakers - are required to turn research, transcripts and outtakes over to a government or a corporation - or to one party in a lawsuit - the whole integrity of the process of journalism is in jeopardy; no one will talk to us.
In his decision, Judge Kaplan wrote that, "Review of Berlinger's outtakes will contribute to the goal of seeing not only that justice is done, but that it appears to be done." He also quoted former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis' famous maxim that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."
There is an irony to this, noted by Frank Smyth of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Brandeis "made his famous sunlight statement about the need to expose bankers and investors who controlled 'money trusts' to stifle competition, and he later railed against
In a 1905 speech before the Harvard Ethical Society, Brandeis said, "Instead of holding a position of independence, between the wealthy and the people, prepared to curb the excesses of either, able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people."
Now, more than a century later, Chevron, the third largest corporation in America, according to Forbes magazine, has hauled out their lawyers in a case that would undermine the right of journalists to protect the people by telling them the truth. Joe Berlinger and his legal team have asked Judge Kaplan to suspend his order pending an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
As the Independent Documentary Association asserts, "This case offers a clear and compelling argument for more vigorous federal shield laws to protect journalists and their work, better federal laws to protect confidential sources, and stronger standards to prevent entities from piercing the journalists' privilege. We urge the higher courts to overturn this ruling to help ensure the safety and protection of journalists and their subjects, and to promote a free and vital press in our nation and around the world."
Bill Moyers is president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.
Michael Winship is president of the Writers Guild of America, East.
Rebecca Wharton conducted original research for this article.
btw, Writers-at-Large, an organization I founded back in 2005 with the assistance of a California Arts Council grant, was created to address precisely this issue--harassment of the press, and the need for a federal shield law. Arguably, we may be closer to federal protection for confidentiality of sources today than we were five years ago, but we're still not there.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
No Papers Required for CIA Hit List
You may have to show your papers when pulled over by Arizona law enforcement under the rubric of "reasonable suspicion," but don't worry about being asked for I.D. if you happen to be in a safe house, or tribal belt along the Pakistani border. Under a secret program, you can now be killed by a CIA drone attack even if the agency can't verify you by name, or attest to your participation in extremism.
According to Blacklisted News, the CIA is now permitted to continue its program of ever widening drone attacks, an operation that was begun at the tail end of the Bush administration, and continues with the consent of President Obama.
Only, there is this important different: in the past, the CIA was limited to taking out only those on an approved list, but now anyone "deemed to pose a threat to the U.S." is fair game, even if their identity is unknown.
To repeat, the CIA used to have a hit list of those they knew by name, and on whom they had collected intelligence. The agency is now allowed to kill those whose names they don't know, and by virtue of targeting an entire hiding place even those who may be innocent.
Apart from the obvious, and egregious ethical considerations, think about the hypocrisy here. In Arizona, a person getting pulled over on a routine traffic stop can now be arrested if he can't produce proper documentation attesting to his citizenship, but there is no longer any requirement to be identified before being the subject of a missile strike overseas.
One official reportedly said "We might not always have their names but...these are people whose actions over time have made it obvious that they are a threat." How is it possible to tell, during an air strike, who exactly is being struck? Does law enforcement randomly fire into a concert hall because there's a mass murderer inside? Does that not make us the mass murderer?
Some might argue that this is the theatre of war, that these extremists are the enemy, and that we are firing based on good intelligence. Understood, the folks doing the firing are working from intelligence, but is intelligence infallible? Was it not "intelligence" that provoked U.S. forces to invade, and pummel Iraq based on illusory weapons of mass destruction.
Also, can anyone making the argument that this is standard operating procedure on the battlefield come up with even one shred of evidence that the enemy is striking back? Has there been even one Pakistani or Afghan drone, or missile attack on U.S. forces in the region, or any other region? This might be a bit old fashioned, but is it combat if only one side is killing the other? Don't at least two parties have to be involved for it to be a battle?
Some might say, too, this is a "war on terror," a duel against an adversarial ideology; these are the folks who bombed the World Trade Center, and we need to attack at the root. If that's the case, why not bombard Pakistan with the King James bible instead of using drones?
Here's yet another minor detail: don't we supposedly already have the guys responsible for 9/11 in custody? And, doesn't their complicity in the World Trade Center bombings need to be proven in a court of law before we can willy nilly bomb their training camps, and hiding places to smithereens? What about a military tribunal? Aren't they entitled to a trail of some kind? If not, why not quit spending $10 million each to build a drone, and bring back the firing squad.
More to the point: is it okay to simply open fire on those who are reasonably suspicious of involvement, or implementation of the mayhem that was 9/11? Whatever happened to a little thing called the Declaration of War.
However stunning word of the CIA now being able to kill extremists in Pakistan without being able to identify them is, there is about as much focus on this by the mainstream media as there is attention being paid to Congress considering extending unlimited detention. While many express concern about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's position on habeas corpus, few are speaking up about legislation currently being reviewed that will continue the controversial practice of limitless confinement indefinitely.
When credible allegations were made about Dick Cheney's secret death squads, the general response was horror, a Joseph Conrad kind of horror, too, but hardly a word has been heard on the subject since.
Can it be that we, as a nation, have become so hardened, and desensitized that even our horror has been neutralized with our distinguished mainstream media acting as a silencer for the high crimes, misdemeanors, and continued transgressions of a government that left this country disgraced, and in disarray.
Moreover, this ongoing, technically illegal war in Pakistan not only permits intelligence agents to fire on anonymous targets with impunity, but it turns the clock back 800 years to a time when there was no Magna Carta, and no accountability for war crimes.
For any member of a U.S. intelligence agency to fire randomly at targets that don't fire back, to plan and execute airstrikes against civilians who may be extremists, or may just be innocent victims, and to do so with the blessing of their commander-in-chief can only arouse unspeakable outrage.
We need to see the same kind of high octane response to this administration's policy going along for the ride and allowing random drone attacks on unidentified targets in Pakistan as we recently witnessed in response to the actions of the state of Arizona. As, in the end, a nation that has lost its sense of outrage is one that has lost its moral compass.
According to Blacklisted News, the CIA is now permitted to continue its program of ever widening drone attacks, an operation that was begun at the tail end of the Bush administration, and continues with the consent of President Obama.
Only, there is this important different: in the past, the CIA was limited to taking out only those on an approved list, but now anyone "deemed to pose a threat to the U.S." is fair game, even if their identity is unknown.
To repeat, the CIA used to have a hit list of those they knew by name, and on whom they had collected intelligence. The agency is now allowed to kill those whose names they don't know, and by virtue of targeting an entire hiding place even those who may be innocent.
Apart from the obvious, and egregious ethical considerations, think about the hypocrisy here. In Arizona, a person getting pulled over on a routine traffic stop can now be arrested if he can't produce proper documentation attesting to his citizenship, but there is no longer any requirement to be identified before being the subject of a missile strike overseas.
One official reportedly said "We might not always have their names but...these are people whose actions over time have made it obvious that they are a threat." How is it possible to tell, during an air strike, who exactly is being struck? Does law enforcement randomly fire into a concert hall because there's a mass murderer inside? Does that not make us the mass murderer?
Some might argue that this is the theatre of war, that these extremists are the enemy, and that we are firing based on good intelligence. Understood, the folks doing the firing are working from intelligence, but is intelligence infallible? Was it not "intelligence" that provoked U.S. forces to invade, and pummel Iraq based on illusory weapons of mass destruction.
Also, can anyone making the argument that this is standard operating procedure on the battlefield come up with even one shred of evidence that the enemy is striking back? Has there been even one Pakistani or Afghan drone, or missile attack on U.S. forces in the region, or any other region? This might be a bit old fashioned, but is it combat if only one side is killing the other? Don't at least two parties have to be involved for it to be a battle?
Some might say, too, this is a "war on terror," a duel against an adversarial ideology; these are the folks who bombed the World Trade Center, and we need to attack at the root. If that's the case, why not bombard Pakistan with the King James bible instead of using drones?
Here's yet another minor detail: don't we supposedly already have the guys responsible for 9/11 in custody? And, doesn't their complicity in the World Trade Center bombings need to be proven in a court of law before we can willy nilly bomb their training camps, and hiding places to smithereens? What about a military tribunal? Aren't they entitled to a trail of some kind? If not, why not quit spending $10 million each to build a drone, and bring back the firing squad.
More to the point: is it okay to simply open fire on those who are reasonably suspicious of involvement, or implementation of the mayhem that was 9/11? Whatever happened to a little thing called the Declaration of War.
However stunning word of the CIA now being able to kill extremists in Pakistan without being able to identify them is, there is about as much focus on this by the mainstream media as there is attention being paid to Congress considering extending unlimited detention. While many express concern about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's position on habeas corpus, few are speaking up about legislation currently being reviewed that will continue the controversial practice of limitless confinement indefinitely.
When credible allegations were made about Dick Cheney's secret death squads, the general response was horror, a Joseph Conrad kind of horror, too, but hardly a word has been heard on the subject since.
Can it be that we, as a nation, have become so hardened, and desensitized that even our horror has been neutralized with our distinguished mainstream media acting as a silencer for the high crimes, misdemeanors, and continued transgressions of a government that left this country disgraced, and in disarray.
Moreover, this ongoing, technically illegal war in Pakistan not only permits intelligence agents to fire on anonymous targets with impunity, but it turns the clock back 800 years to a time when there was no Magna Carta, and no accountability for war crimes.
For any member of a U.S. intelligence agency to fire randomly at targets that don't fire back, to plan and execute airstrikes against civilians who may be extremists, or may just be innocent victims, and to do so with the blessing of their commander-in-chief can only arouse unspeakable outrage.
We need to see the same kind of high octane response to this administration's policy going along for the ride and allowing random drone attacks on unidentified targets in Pakistan as we recently witnessed in response to the actions of the state of Arizona. As, in the end, a nation that has lost its sense of outrage is one that has lost its moral compass.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
When asked...
When asked what she will bring to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan reportedly said: "my best china."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Flashback to 2000: U.K. Prime Minister Steps Down
I couldn't help but think back to the 2000 presidential election when hearing that U.K. Prime Minister Brown was asked to resign, and surrender control to the Tories.
As you know, Buckingham Palace was instrumental in the decision by the prime minister step down whereas, in the U.S., it was the Supreme Court that got to decide our contested presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.
Why is this flashback, and decision especially poignant now? Just a few days ago, President Obama nominated another justice to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. One must consider just how important the Supreme Court is, after all, inasmuch as it filled a parallel role to that of the British monarchy.
When the founders spoke of checks and balances, they weren't thinking of a bank statement. Thomas Jefferson was doubtless rolling over in his grave when the Supreme Court decided an American presidential election. That sets a dangerous precedent, and sets the stage for judicial overreach. When then-President George W. Bush said he was "the decider," he was overcompensating a bit for what was essentially the surrender of executive power to the Supreme Court.
While concern about judicial activism was Bush's mantra, and has been a centerpiece of the Republican platform for the past decade, and many Democrats have expressed dismay about the notion of a unitary executive, not much is being said about judicial overreach which, courtesy of the 2000 election, ought to be an issue.
We must be wary of substituting one monarch for another whether it be a throne, or nine justices in judicial robes. George W. Bush was not inaugurated; he was coronated.
The Supreme Court, or any other court, must never again get to choose who our next commander-in-chief will be.
As you know, Buckingham Palace was instrumental in the decision by the prime minister step down whereas, in the U.S., it was the Supreme Court that got to decide our contested presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.
Why is this flashback, and decision especially poignant now? Just a few days ago, President Obama nominated another justice to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. One must consider just how important the Supreme Court is, after all, inasmuch as it filled a parallel role to that of the British monarchy.
When the founders spoke of checks and balances, they weren't thinking of a bank statement. Thomas Jefferson was doubtless rolling over in his grave when the Supreme Court decided an American presidential election. That sets a dangerous precedent, and sets the stage for judicial overreach. When then-President George W. Bush said he was "the decider," he was overcompensating a bit for what was essentially the surrender of executive power to the Supreme Court.
While concern about judicial activism was Bush's mantra, and has been a centerpiece of the Republican platform for the past decade, and many Democrats have expressed dismay about the notion of a unitary executive, not much is being said about judicial overreach which, courtesy of the 2000 election, ought to be an issue.
We must be wary of substituting one monarch for another whether it be a throne, or nine justices in judicial robes. George W. Bush was not inaugurated; he was coronated.
The Supreme Court, or any other court, must never again get to choose who our next commander-in-chief will be.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Westbeth poetry reading...
Here's some footage of reading at Westbeth Commmunity Center on April 18th which is kindly provided by photographer, and videographer, Philip Horowitz..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW6RgiesjaQ
http://www.photoshop.com/accounts/6450c98ecfa3411989073849124874f2/px-assets/64edcd16e961474795b7184f93efe1f5
(if the links don't work, cut and paste in your browser)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW6RgiesjaQ
http://www.photoshop.com/accounts/6450c98ecfa3411989073849124874f2/px-assets/64edcd16e961474795b7184f93efe1f5
(if the links don't work, cut and paste in your browser)
Friday, May 07, 2010
"Kent State and the Frisbee Revolution" by Michael Winship
Courtesy of Bill Moyers Journal, and The Moyers Blog a link to which you will find at the end of the below article:
Kent State and the Frisbee Revolution
By Michael Winship
I was a freshman at Georgetown University when it happened, 40 years ago on May 4. Most of us didn't know what had taken place until late in the day. We were in class or studying for finals, so hours went by until my friends and I heard the news. On that warm spring Monday, the Ohio National Guard had opened fire on an anti-war demonstration at Kent State University and four students lay dead. Nine others were wounded.
It took a while to sink in. This was the sort of thing that happened in South American dictatorships - student protestors gunned down for speaking out against the government. Not here. Then I remembered that some of my high school classmates were at Kent State, a campus fewer than 250 miles from my western New York hometown. But I had no phone numbers for them; there was no immediate way to find out if they were safe (they were).
In those faraway days before 24-hour cable news, the details were hazy and slow in coming. That night, friends huddled around the tiny TV I had in my room - one of those early Sony tummy tubes with a fuzzy, black and white picture the size of your palm. With each sketchy report, anger and frustration grew in the room but didn't start to go over the top until, believe it or not, The Tonight Show came on after the 11 o'clock news. Johnny Carson's guest was Bob Hope, and when the sexagenarian comedian launched into what was his standard routine those days - lots of jokes about long-haired hippies and smelly anti-war protesters - the kids crowded into my tiny dorm room were furious. On this of all nights how could he be so crass as to trot out those tired one-liners about, well, us?
By the next morning, groups of students gathered around the campus taking about Kent State and the events leading up to the killings. A few days before, President Nixon had announced the invasion of Cambodia, justifying the so-called "incursion" as necessary to protect our troops in Vietnam. Protests had broken out at schools all over America. With the Kent State deaths, we wondered what to do - and what would happen - next.
A crowded meeting in the school's main assembly hall lasted late into the night, filled with the earnest bombast of callow youth and plans of action that ranged from Do Nothing 101 to Advanced Anarchy. The bookstore's stock of Georgetown t-shirts sold out as kids scooped them up and stenciled defiant red fists on the backs. My friend Romolo Martemucci trimmed his red fist in green, a gesture of Italian-American solidarity.
By mid-week, two parallel strategies emerged: a national strike that would shut down the country's colleges and universities - both as a protest and to give students the freedom to devote all their time to mobilizing against the war - and a massive rally in Washington, DC on Saturday, May 9.
As did approximately 450 American schools, the Georgetown administration yielded to the strike. We were given the option to finish finals or take the grades we already had for the semester. We went to Capitol Hill and tried to see our hometown members of Congress to let our opposition to the war be known, then turned our attention to the big Saturday rally. Because we were already in DC, much of the logistics fell to us and the other colleges in town.
I volunteered to be a rally marshal, directing crowds and hoping to prevent violence. On the main campus lawn, we were given a crash medical course in how to cope with dehydration, tear gas attacks and gunshot wounds.
At breakfast Saturday morning, with macho-laced concern, we told our girlfriends to stay away from the rally; there might be trouble. Instead, we suggested they go to the protest headquarters to help out. As it turned out, they wound up more in danger than we were - a small group of neo-Nazis attacked the rally offices. Luckily, no one was seriously hurt.
As for me, I was given a powder blue armband and stood with other marshals on the periphery of the 100,000 person rally, enjoying a lovely sunny day. For its protection, the White House had been ringed with DC Transit buses parked nose to tail.
Nothing happened until late in the day, when an army water truck came barreling toward us and we linked hands, as if that somehow would ward it off. In fact, the truck veered away just before it reached our paltry line of defense. In the next day's paper, I read that the vehicle had been hijacked by Yippies and was last seen barreling across a Potomac River bridge into the wilds of Virginia.
And then it was over. That night, rumors spread that police were going to clear out groups of out-of-town demonstrators who were camped out in Potomac Park near the monuments and that they would flee to the college campuses. We stayed up all night waiting to take them in but it never happened.
On May 15, two more students were killed and 12 wounded at Jackson State University in Mississippi, with nowhere near the attention Kent State received. The Jackson State students were African-American. The mobilization that was supposed to continue with the close of school fizzled out. Most Georgetown students took advantage of the early end of the semester to bask in the sun and play on the lawn or simply go home.
A friend wrote an editorial in one of the campus newspapers headlined, "The Frisbee Revolution." Those of us who were trying to keep the protests alive were annoyed at the time, but he was right. Once the impetus of the big rally was over, motivation vanished and kids went back to being kids. The war retreated, out of sight, out of mind. But it went on for another five, bloody, futile years.
Despite all the anger and worry today: an economy in shambles; the loss of jobs and security; wars continuing in Afghanistan and Iraq; and a dysfunctional government hobbled by the stranglehold of campaign cash and political hackery, there's a similar lack of interest afflicting many of those of those who rallied to the cause of Barack Obama in 2008, knocking on doors, contributing money - voting.
With that exciting and historic election over and done, the attention of many of them wandered elsewhere, consumed by self-interest or distracted by media's oxymoron, reality TV, where ex-astronauts dance with chorus girls and parents juggle eight children under the omniscient gaze of the camera.
Friday's edition of the Financial Times was headlined, "US shares tumble amid fears over debt," but also featured a glossy magazine insert titled, "How to spend it." Options include a Kevlar racing kayak, a game darting safari in Kenya and a white gold lace bracelet with diamonds and rubies, a steal at $220,000. On the same day came word that US unemployment for April hit 9.9 percent, despite a reported 290,000 new jobs.
Last week, thousands marched on Wall Street to protest the cynical abuse for profit perpetrated by banks and corporate America. On May 17, others will march on Washington's K Street, where lobbyists roam, not free, but in pursuit of princely paychecks from those who seek influence and clout.
All well and good. But in the great American elsewhere, the Frisbees are flying.
Michael Winship is senior writer of PBS' Bill Moyers Journal.
Watch online or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.
Kent State and the Frisbee Revolution
By Michael Winship
I was a freshman at Georgetown University when it happened, 40 years ago on May 4. Most of us didn't know what had taken place until late in the day. We were in class or studying for finals, so hours went by until my friends and I heard the news. On that warm spring Monday, the Ohio National Guard had opened fire on an anti-war demonstration at Kent State University and four students lay dead. Nine others were wounded.
It took a while to sink in. This was the sort of thing that happened in South American dictatorships - student protestors gunned down for speaking out against the government. Not here. Then I remembered that some of my high school classmates were at Kent State, a campus fewer than 250 miles from my western New York hometown. But I had no phone numbers for them; there was no immediate way to find out if they were safe (they were).
In those faraway days before 24-hour cable news, the details were hazy and slow in coming. That night, friends huddled around the tiny TV I had in my room - one of those early Sony tummy tubes with a fuzzy, black and white picture the size of your palm. With each sketchy report, anger and frustration grew in the room but didn't start to go over the top until, believe it or not, The Tonight Show came on after the 11 o'clock news. Johnny Carson's guest was Bob Hope, and when the sexagenarian comedian launched into what was his standard routine those days - lots of jokes about long-haired hippies and smelly anti-war protesters - the kids crowded into my tiny dorm room were furious. On this of all nights how could he be so crass as to trot out those tired one-liners about, well, us?
By the next morning, groups of students gathered around the campus taking about Kent State and the events leading up to the killings. A few days before, President Nixon had announced the invasion of Cambodia, justifying the so-called "incursion" as necessary to protect our troops in Vietnam. Protests had broken out at schools all over America. With the Kent State deaths, we wondered what to do - and what would happen - next.
A crowded meeting in the school's main assembly hall lasted late into the night, filled with the earnest bombast of callow youth and plans of action that ranged from Do Nothing 101 to Advanced Anarchy. The bookstore's stock of Georgetown t-shirts sold out as kids scooped them up and stenciled defiant red fists on the backs. My friend Romolo Martemucci trimmed his red fist in green, a gesture of Italian-American solidarity.
By mid-week, two parallel strategies emerged: a national strike that would shut down the country's colleges and universities - both as a protest and to give students the freedom to devote all their time to mobilizing against the war - and a massive rally in Washington, DC on Saturday, May 9.
As did approximately 450 American schools, the Georgetown administration yielded to the strike. We were given the option to finish finals or take the grades we already had for the semester. We went to Capitol Hill and tried to see our hometown members of Congress to let our opposition to the war be known, then turned our attention to the big Saturday rally. Because we were already in DC, much of the logistics fell to us and the other colleges in town.
I volunteered to be a rally marshal, directing crowds and hoping to prevent violence. On the main campus lawn, we were given a crash medical course in how to cope with dehydration, tear gas attacks and gunshot wounds.
At breakfast Saturday morning, with macho-laced concern, we told our girlfriends to stay away from the rally; there might be trouble. Instead, we suggested they go to the protest headquarters to help out. As it turned out, they wound up more in danger than we were - a small group of neo-Nazis attacked the rally offices. Luckily, no one was seriously hurt.
As for me, I was given a powder blue armband and stood with other marshals on the periphery of the 100,000 person rally, enjoying a lovely sunny day. For its protection, the White House had been ringed with DC Transit buses parked nose to tail.
Nothing happened until late in the day, when an army water truck came barreling toward us and we linked hands, as if that somehow would ward it off. In fact, the truck veered away just before it reached our paltry line of defense. In the next day's paper, I read that the vehicle had been hijacked by Yippies and was last seen barreling across a Potomac River bridge into the wilds of Virginia.
And then it was over. That night, rumors spread that police were going to clear out groups of out-of-town demonstrators who were camped out in Potomac Park near the monuments and that they would flee to the college campuses. We stayed up all night waiting to take them in but it never happened.
On May 15, two more students were killed and 12 wounded at Jackson State University in Mississippi, with nowhere near the attention Kent State received. The Jackson State students were African-American. The mobilization that was supposed to continue with the close of school fizzled out. Most Georgetown students took advantage of the early end of the semester to bask in the sun and play on the lawn or simply go home.
A friend wrote an editorial in one of the campus newspapers headlined, "The Frisbee Revolution." Those of us who were trying to keep the protests alive were annoyed at the time, but he was right. Once the impetus of the big rally was over, motivation vanished and kids went back to being kids. The war retreated, out of sight, out of mind. But it went on for another five, bloody, futile years.
Despite all the anger and worry today: an economy in shambles; the loss of jobs and security; wars continuing in Afghanistan and Iraq; and a dysfunctional government hobbled by the stranglehold of campaign cash and political hackery, there's a similar lack of interest afflicting many of those of those who rallied to the cause of Barack Obama in 2008, knocking on doors, contributing money - voting.
With that exciting and historic election over and done, the attention of many of them wandered elsewhere, consumed by self-interest or distracted by media's oxymoron, reality TV, where ex-astronauts dance with chorus girls and parents juggle eight children under the omniscient gaze of the camera.
Friday's edition of the Financial Times was headlined, "US shares tumble amid fears over debt," but also featured a glossy magazine insert titled, "How to spend it." Options include a Kevlar racing kayak, a game darting safari in Kenya and a white gold lace bracelet with diamonds and rubies, a steal at $220,000. On the same day came word that US unemployment for April hit 9.9 percent, despite a reported 290,000 new jobs.
Last week, thousands marched on Wall Street to protest the cynical abuse for profit perpetrated by banks and corporate America. On May 17, others will march on Washington's K Street, where lobbyists roam, not free, but in pursuit of princely paychecks from those who seek influence and clout.
All well and good. But in the great American elsewhere, the Frisbees are flying.
Michael Winship is senior writer of PBS' Bill Moyers Journal.
Watch online or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Faisal McBomber
If, as the New York Times now reports, Faisal Shahzad, the 30 year old who allegedly planted a car bomb in the back of an SUV in Times Square over the weekend, was trained by the Pakistani Taliban, then the U.S. has nothing to fear from the Taliban in Pakistan. At this rate, we might even have to go back to fighting the Russians.
What is haunting is not just the facility with which this fiasco was carried out, but the lingering image of a good looking, clean-shaven, smiling young man in sunglasses beaming as he's being hauled off in a police car. Clearly, he was having his 15 seconds of fame. I don't know about you, but if I were just charged with an act of terror, I'm not sure I'd be smiling like Faisal was. It was as if he was posing for the cover of GQ.
The alacrity with which he gave it all up, with or without a side order of Miranda, is also a bit baffling. Did part of his reported training by Pakistani extremists inspire him to have a loose tongue?
More chilling, though, is the idea that what was to be a weapon of mass destruction was so easily acquired in a Connecticut parking lot for such a paltry sum, $1800, and in such a benign way by responding to an ad on Craigslist.
But, let's not forget that Shahzad is a card carrying American citizen who went to school for his MBA here, owned a house an hour and a half away from New York City, even went into debt to the tune of $200,000 here. He's as American as the guy operating the hotdog stand on Eighth Avenue only blocks away from where the Nissan Path finder was parked.
Chilling, no doubt, for his father, too, a retired Air Force officer in Pakistan, who must be glad for one thing. At least he didn't encourage his son to train to be a rocket scientist because a rocket scientist he is not.
A rocket scientist would not pile a bunch of explosives into a car, set a detonator to go off, and then leave the keys in the car. A rocket scientist would have hid his tracks better. A rocket scientist might even have used a drone to accomplish the dastardly deed.
I guess it's not called an act of terrorism to blow up a house full of civilians in Karachi with a remote control bombing machine, and all in the name of fighting a war on terror. Drones have been active in Pakistan for months now.
The past eight years, if nothing else, have shown that not only have we taught the world a thing or two about fast food, big Macs, and McMansions; not only have we shown the world that bigger is better, but we've shown them that bad is better, too. When we conduct a secret war in a country that we say is training terrorists, we have abandoned the moral high ground.
We have abandoned the moral high ground, too, the day a U.S. interrogator decided to immerse a detainee's head under water to simulate drowning in defiance of international law; the moral high ground was surrendered, too, the day elected officials were immunized from war crimes charges by the Military Commissions Act; the day we decided to bypass habeas corpus, and tweak the public discourse such that Miranda is now optional with the vehicle.
Bill Maher recently told CNN that it's not that terrorists hate the U.S. that makes them want to destroy us, but that they like us too much. How right he is. We've taught them too well.
What is haunting is not just the facility with which this fiasco was carried out, but the lingering image of a good looking, clean-shaven, smiling young man in sunglasses beaming as he's being hauled off in a police car. Clearly, he was having his 15 seconds of fame. I don't know about you, but if I were just charged with an act of terror, I'm not sure I'd be smiling like Faisal was. It was as if he was posing for the cover of GQ.
The alacrity with which he gave it all up, with or without a side order of Miranda, is also a bit baffling. Did part of his reported training by Pakistani extremists inspire him to have a loose tongue?
More chilling, though, is the idea that what was to be a weapon of mass destruction was so easily acquired in a Connecticut parking lot for such a paltry sum, $1800, and in such a benign way by responding to an ad on Craigslist.
But, let's not forget that Shahzad is a card carrying American citizen who went to school for his MBA here, owned a house an hour and a half away from New York City, even went into debt to the tune of $200,000 here. He's as American as the guy operating the hotdog stand on Eighth Avenue only blocks away from where the Nissan Path finder was parked.
Chilling, no doubt, for his father, too, a retired Air Force officer in Pakistan, who must be glad for one thing. At least he didn't encourage his son to train to be a rocket scientist because a rocket scientist he is not.
A rocket scientist would not pile a bunch of explosives into a car, set a detonator to go off, and then leave the keys in the car. A rocket scientist would have hid his tracks better. A rocket scientist might even have used a drone to accomplish the dastardly deed.
I guess it's not called an act of terrorism to blow up a house full of civilians in Karachi with a remote control bombing machine, and all in the name of fighting a war on terror. Drones have been active in Pakistan for months now.
The past eight years, if nothing else, have shown that not only have we taught the world a thing or two about fast food, big Macs, and McMansions; not only have we shown the world that bigger is better, but we've shown them that bad is better, too. When we conduct a secret war in a country that we say is training terrorists, we have abandoned the moral high ground.
We have abandoned the moral high ground, too, the day a U.S. interrogator decided to immerse a detainee's head under water to simulate drowning in defiance of international law; the moral high ground was surrendered, too, the day elected officials were immunized from war crimes charges by the Military Commissions Act; the day we decided to bypass habeas corpus, and tweak the public discourse such that Miranda is now optional with the vehicle.
Bill Maher recently told CNN that it's not that terrorists hate the U.S. that makes them want to destroy us, but that they like us too much. How right he is. We've taught them too well.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Chipping Away at a Woman's Right to Choose
South Dakota banned abortion back in 2006, but it is only one of several states, including Arkansas, that has tried to severely restrict a woman's access to legal abortion. Indeed, the Roe v. Wade deconstructionists have been chipping away at a woman's legal access to a clinically safe abortion around the country.
While the South Dakota ban was quickly overturned, there is only one authorized abortion clinic in the state which means that women often have to travel hundreds of miles to terminate an unwanted, or disabling pregnancy.
In Texas and Mississippi, women must undergo counseling and get parental consent before they can obtain an abortion if they're underage. Arkansas, you'll recall, passed a partial birth abortion ban back in February, 2009. But, what's happening now in Oklahoma takes the cake.
Oklahoma's most recent abortion bill, HB 2656, recently passed by a wide margin and, among other things, it immunizes doctors from litigation should they decline to inform their patients that the fetus they are carrying has a known birth defect.
Under the new law, a doctor may totally misrepresent the health of the fetus, and withhold results of fetal tests if they are concerned that a woman might seek an abortion, or for any reason. Indeed, a doctor may lie to a patient, and tell her that her pregnancy is a normal one even when there is abundant evidence that either the health of the fetus, or the life of the mother is at risk.
The new state law also mandates that pregnant women to undergo a vaginal probe, in addition to an ultrasound, before having an abortion. The probe enables the patient to witness the size, and cardiac activity before the procedure. Doctors, in Oklahoma, will now be required to enable the woman to see ultrasound images of the fetus, according to the Associated Press. Forcing a woman to go through the probe, and detailed description of the embryo after she has already made up her mind to have the procedure can only viewed as unconstitutional in that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."
Over the past week, the anti-immigration law passed by Arizona has eclipsed media coverage of this important ruling. To compromise the integrity of a woman's control over her own body is as much a civil rights issue as to demand papers that prove legal citizenship.
Earlier Monday, Oklahoma's attorney general reportedly agreed to temporarily stop enforcement of the new law. A temporary block is not good enough. Roe v. Wade grants a woman the right to self-determination over her own body, a right that is as sacrosanct as the right to vote. The Oklahoma law must be thrown out, and denounced as unconstitutional before it is allowed to replicate, and and spread virally.
While the South Dakota ban was quickly overturned, there is only one authorized abortion clinic in the state which means that women often have to travel hundreds of miles to terminate an unwanted, or disabling pregnancy.
In Texas and Mississippi, women must undergo counseling and get parental consent before they can obtain an abortion if they're underage. Arkansas, you'll recall, passed a partial birth abortion ban back in February, 2009. But, what's happening now in Oklahoma takes the cake.
Oklahoma's most recent abortion bill, HB 2656, recently passed by a wide margin and, among other things, it immunizes doctors from litigation should they decline to inform their patients that the fetus they are carrying has a known birth defect.
Under the new law, a doctor may totally misrepresent the health of the fetus, and withhold results of fetal tests if they are concerned that a woman might seek an abortion, or for any reason. Indeed, a doctor may lie to a patient, and tell her that her pregnancy is a normal one even when there is abundant evidence that either the health of the fetus, or the life of the mother is at risk.
The new state law also mandates that pregnant women to undergo a vaginal probe, in addition to an ultrasound, before having an abortion. The probe enables the patient to witness the size, and cardiac activity before the procedure. Doctors, in Oklahoma, will now be required to enable the woman to see ultrasound images of the fetus, according to the Associated Press. Forcing a woman to go through the probe, and detailed description of the embryo after she has already made up her mind to have the procedure can only viewed as unconstitutional in that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."
Over the past week, the anti-immigration law passed by Arizona has eclipsed media coverage of this important ruling. To compromise the integrity of a woman's control over her own body is as much a civil rights issue as to demand papers that prove legal citizenship.
Earlier Monday, Oklahoma's attorney general reportedly agreed to temporarily stop enforcement of the new law. A temporary block is not good enough. Roe v. Wade grants a woman the right to self-determination over her own body, a right that is as sacrosanct as the right to vote. The Oklahoma law must be thrown out, and denounced as unconstitutional before it is allowed to replicate, and and spread virally.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
