Amandla!

Atlas

2007-01-19T11:28:00.000-06:00

I am currently reading amoung other things "Weight" by Jeanette Winterson. It is a re-telling of the myth of Atlas and Heracles. It is beautifully written and I just want to share a slice of its prose which I found especially vivid. This is Atlas talking about his parents.

"My father was Poseidon. My Mother was the Earth. My father loved the strong outlines of my mother's body. He loved her demarcations and her boundaries. He knew where he stood with her. She was solid, certain, shaped and material.

My mother loved my father becaused he recognised no boundaries. His ambitions were tidal. he swept, he sank, he flooded, he re-formed. Poseidon was a deluge of a man. Power flowed off him. He was deep, sometimes calm, but never still.

When my father wooed my mother she lapped it up. He was playful, he was warm, he waited for her in the bright blue shallows and came a little closer, then drew back, and his pull was to leave her a little gift on the shore; a peice of coral, mother of pearl, a shell spiralled as a dream.

Sometimes he was a long way out and she missed him and the beached fishes gasped for breath. Then he was all over her again, and they were mermaids together, because there was always something feminine about my father, for all his power. Earth and water are the same kind, just as fire and air are thier opposites.

She loved him because he showed him to herself. He was her moving mirror. He took her around the world, the world that she was, and held it up for her to see, her beauty of forests and cliffs and coastlines and wild places. To him she was both paradise and fear and he loved both. Together they went where no human had ever been. Places only they could go, places only they could be. Wherever he went, she was there; a gentle restraint, a serious reminder. He knew though, that while he could not cover the whole of her, she underpinned the whole of him. For all his strength, she was strong."

If

2006-11-06T16:12:00.000-06:00

I have been having a bad day and am in need of some poetry. Thank god for Kipling.

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

--Rudyard Kipling

Plug of the Week.

2006-10-21T15:01:00.000-05:00

So while on my roadtrip last week to UNI and home I was of course listening to NPR. During "Talk of the Nation" they brought up the issue of the spinach epidemic and how scientist may have found strong evidence tracing the spread back to certain farms in central California. What is important is that they stressed 'may have', and by no means tried to express 100% causality. They then discussed the difficulty in securing a definite source, genetic mutations in the bacteria and so forth. After a while I lost the KC NPR station and was not quite close enough to Des Moines to receive theirs. This being so, I turned the dial to 1040 AM radio out of Des Moines. As a member of Clear Channel their news sections are produced by Fox News Radio; during Fox's radio segment they too mentioned the spinach epidemic. However, their story differed in that they anounced that scientist had found the source, not may have, not suspected. The reason I bring this up is not because I care all too much about where the source is or if they have found it or not. I care because it reminded me of how very important quality reporting is to staying informed, and by how easily it is to be misinformed by simple changes to syntax. Not that NPR is perfect, without bias, or even objective, I do however enjoy their commitment to in-depth reporting and to giving the listener as much information as possible during a broadcast.

Atlas Shrugged

2006-09-28T18:44:00.000-05:00

"Who is John Galt?" Well last week I finally fully found out. That's right I have finished reading Atlas Shrugged. It took me a little longer than I would have liked, I had a few breaks in-between and school didn't help. So what impression have I come away with? I will be honest that I went into this book absolutely expecting to hate every moment of it and take nothing out of it. But I really enjoyed it and I don't think you can spend 2 1/2 months and countless hours conversing with an author and not be impacted nor moved by the experience.

I won't give a summary of the book other than discussing the title and then I will spend just a few moments discussing some of the more interesting aspects of Ayn Rands philosophy. The title is an allusion to the mythical story of Atlas who lead the Titans in a revolt against the Olympians and after suffering defeat it forced to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders for all eternity. Two of the main characters Hank Rearden and Francisco are discussing the story early in the book and each provides insight into what they would do if they were Atlas. Francisco's response is, "I'd Shrug." In other-words we cannot allow others to place their weight upon us because of our ability and decision to follow what is in our rational self-interest.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is called objectivism, an egoist philosophy which believes that we should follow what is in our own self interest and not compromise our own value for others benefit nor should we allow ourselves to be coerced into sacrificing ourselves for the 'greater good'. Here are some of the more poignant quotations. "If any part of your uncertainty is a conflict between your heart and your mind--follow your mind." -pg. 802.

"My refusal to be born with original sin. I have never felt guilty of my ability. I have never felt guilty of my mind. I have never felt guilty of being a man. I accepted no unearned guilt and thus was free to earn and know my own value." John Galt pg. 745

"Contradictions do no exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -pg. 199

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality." - pg 414.

"Tell the bastard to look at me, then look in the mirror, then ask himself whether I would ever think that my moral stature is at the mercy of his actions." - John Galt pg 1114

"John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chainsÂand he withdrew his fireÂuntil the day when men withdraw their vultures."

Enjoy. Currently reading "The Satanic Verses" a novel by Salman Rushdie which is a semi-satire of the Quran. Currently listening to a lot of old metal: Lamb of God, Zao, and At the Gates. Mixed in with some Coltrane and Monk.

An Addition

2006-09-18T19:41:00.000-05:00

Alright, so snakes aren't the usual topic of this blog or for that matter the topic of much conversation unless it involves fear. However, I have kept snakes as pets for 2 years now and rather enjoy them: they are low maintenance, gorgeous, calming, and believe it or not have varying personalities. If you don't believe me ask my roommate the temperament of his Kingsnake Rico. This week I purchased my 3rd snake.

My first, Socrates, I only had for a few weeks before it learned to escape and for all I know is still living in Seymour Hall at Knox College. After getting a new lid I bought Plato, a Male Red Albino Corn Snake, whom I have had going on two years now. This week I bought Chanel, a Super Oketee Female Corn. That's right Plato now has a girlfriend.

Below is Plato: my juvenile male, currently a little over 2 feet, he should max out around 5-6 feet.

Chanel: only a few weeks old she is hard to photograph as she is very squirmy and about the size of a pencil. She will grow to about 4 feet, maybe 5.

They don't live together yet, but once Chanel gains some mass they will be roommates.

The Other Beirut ... The drowned out one

2006-08-22T22:11:00.000-05:00

Beirut has long been a scene of constant frustration. After a destructive civil war in the 80's it emerged in the 90's and into this century as a truly cosmopolitan, tolerant, and groundbreaking city. While the news may tell you of Hezbollah and assassinations in Lebanon. I believe this country has or now perhaps had, more potential than any other city in the region to develop itself as a truly International force and emergent power.

I was first drawn towards Lebanon about three years ago when I was presented with an opportunity to travel there for a month, but due to various reasons went to South Africa instead. But through talking to various individuals over the years and through various readings I have much respect for this overlooked nation. First, though the government structure needs much work at a systemic level; Lebanon has a strong tradition of being able to successfully balance radically diverse interests in a respectful manner. The population is mostly Arab with a small Armenian population. This then is split religiously between mutually large Christian and Muslim populations representing various sects therein. Further this is illustrated in their government whose executive forms what they call the troika: sharing power agmounst the religious sects. The presidency is reserved for a Maronite Christian; the prime minister, a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament, a Shi'a Muslim. Next the driving force of their economy has increasing been interaction through a free-market economy with foreign firms and a developed banking system creating an average of %5 annual real GDP growth.

If you get the chance the Travel Channel is currently running a documentary entitled "Bourdain in Beirut". It will not tell you much of the news or about the political events precipitating the war, however it will allow one to see the beauty of this marvelous city and the potential it had and how all of that has seemingly come crashing down in the past few weeks.

While I do not in any form condone the acts of Hezbollah, I do feel immense empathy for the people of Lebanon and all that they have lost due to the careless and malicious acts of people both inside and outside their country. With so much hope following the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon earlier this year, I have been truly crushed by the events of the past few weeks. As an International Studies major I make it my aim to follow most events around the world and to know general information about as many nations as possible and their political/economic situation. history, and potential. However, a few of these nations hold a special place with me--near the top is Lebanon. So I leave with this. The people of Beirut and Lebanon have overcome the Romans, Ottomans, British, and most recently the Syrians--still able to hold onto their distinct culture and way of life. Beirut may take 20 more years to regain its position but I have no doubt that it will do so.

Food and an Update

2006-08-11T19:45:00.000-05:00

Alright.... Wow, it has been a really long time since I have posted. So I am currently working on transitioning my blog so that I can create the pages on my new iMac. Anyhow, the summer is beginning to slow to a stop in less than a week as I continually grow more anxious for the start of a new school year. There is nothing like Fall: cooler days, excellent fashion, college football and the formation of new relationships. It should be a fairly challenging academic year but one of much growth as well, both in my maturity and intellect. I am always reminded of my days running cross country when I go into a new school year; your soul is filled with butterflies of anticipation and before you lay a challenge. I always halfway second guess myself but inside I know that I have prepared and will continue to move forward, advancing past each obstacle as I come to it and ultimately I will be successful. Yet there is always that challenge and few things are more exciting.

Also, I have been reading Atlas Shrugged and am about 2/3 the way done. It is much more provocative than I had origininally estimated and I think a part of me didn't want to like it at all, and though I do disagree with much Ayn Rand speaks on, when I am finished I expect to have gained several new insights. More on that when I have finished. For music this has been more than ever the summer of Jazz. I currently really like Blue Train by John Coltrane and Home Cookin by Jimmy Smith. Also thanks to Mr. Jones I have been overly impressed by Surprise by Paul Simon. Aesthetically the album is beautifully composed but it is the mature and reflective lyrics which truly define the recording.

Food. We all eat, for me it will change from 3 times a day in the summer to a solid 1 or lucky 2 as the school year starts, nonetheless food is about far more than food. American's have been accused of eating too much and placing perhaps too great an emphasis on social situations surrounding food. Perhaps rightfully so, yet I love a great dinner with a few friends. I am a decent cook and so when I go out to dinner I am hardly looking to eat a meal and go home. This is why places like buffets confuse me. I go out to eat (and I am talking now $10/15 up eating) firstly for original, freshly cooked food in an atmosphere where just as much thought has been placed in the service and setting as in the food itself. The restraunt and food should compliment each other. Secondly, on the topic of wine. I love wine with a meal, it so often provides that extra edge to the food that takes it to an entirely different level. But here are my two pet peeves. First far too often the red wine is too warm and white wine too cold. Next, 4-5 ounces please! in my glass and give me an appropriate glass for what I am drinking. More than anything this means at least a 12 ounce--preferably a 20 ounce glass. Sorry I needed to vent. A few of my favorite restraunts that I feel do it right are: Splash-Des Moines, Tremont-Marshalltown, Taki-Des Moines, Pachamama's-Lawrence, The Taj Mahal- KC, La Frou Frog - KC, Teller's -- Lawrence, The Eldridge - Lawrence, Jerusalem Cafe - KC, The Cafe - Ames, and 126 in Iowa City. Cheers. Go out and treat yourself to a good meal.

Gay Marriage

2006-06-05T21:11:00.000-05:00

Wow! Its been over a month since I have last posted and yes a post on globalization is in the works but until then I have a scab to pick. Today, June 5th, the Congress of the United States is debating a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. We have an exploding deficit, a failing war in Iraq, levee's to be rebuilt in New Orleans, and don't forget about the horrible state of affairs our health and educational system find themselves in--and our congress is wasting time by taking on the role of preacher. Why?? Simply put because Republicans have forgot what it means to be conservative and as such are losing their base. To rectify this they need a gimmick to mobilize social conservatives. A gimmick which will result in nothing tangible other than the re-enforcement of stigmas and prejudices against homosexuals in this country. Remember for this to pass it would require 2/3 support from the legislature and well as approval from 3/4 of the states in order to become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. And even then we would not be passing one amendment but two. *Refer to the 18th and 21st amendments.

This nation is not an atheist nation; nor is it a protestant, catholic, islamic, or universalist nation. We have a freedom of religion as well as a freedom from religion. This amendment, if passed, would change that. The Constitution of the United States is perhaps the most notable legal document in human history. This is so because of its flexibility, broad interpretations, and legacy for protecting the rights of individuals from governmental infringment as well as from infringement by their fellow neighbors. While some may disagree with marriage between homosexuals on moral grounds in this nation: others do not. And since gay marriage posses no tangible harm to any other person, though it may offend, to ban it within the confines of our constitution would be a disgrace to the very document and institutions it represents. The preamble of the constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States." To ban gay marriage would secure none of those aspirations for our nation and I would venture actually infinges upon many of them. Some of the most influential political writings that I have ever read were written by James Madison, our 4th president. He states time and time again that government must not be carried by the whims of the people, but by reason and moderation derived from the people so that the majority may never establish itself as despotic towards a minority. Just something to think about. Cheers.

Pillars of Salt

2006-04-24T17:23:00.000-05:00

Alright kido's, again sorry for the lengthy delay regarding a new post. Life is crazy but good right now, as such, nerdom gets placed on the back burner. So instead of my own words I thought I would provoke thought/debate by quoting Mill and some sexy Stoics. Enjoy and I promise to have my own post regarding Globalization up in a week, its currently in the works.

Timshel.

Mill regarding Christianity from On Liberty:

"Christian morality (so called)has all the characteristics of a reaction; it is, in great part, a protest against paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; innocence rather than nobleness; abstinence from evil rather than energetic pursuit of good; in its precepts (as has been well said) "thou shalt not" predominates unduly over "though shalt". In its horror of sensuality, it made an idol of asceticism which has been gradually compromised away into one of legality. It holds the hope of heaven and the threat of hell as the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life."

"I believe that other ethics than any which can be evolved from exclusivively Christian sources must exist side by side with Christian ethics [...] and that the Christian system is no exception to the rule that in an imperfect state of the human mind the interests of truth require a diversity of opinions."

Mill on Stoicism and Criticism On Liberty

"ninety nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition, even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true. But it might be false for anything they know; they have never thrown themselves into the mental posisiton of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and, consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess."

"If ever anyone possessed of power had grounds for thinking himself the best and most enlightened among his contemporaries, it was the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Absolute monarch of the whole civilized world, he perceived through life not only the most unblemished justice [...]but the tenderest heart. The few failings which are attributed to him were all on the side of indulgence, while his writings, the highest product of the ancient mind, differ scarcely perceptibly, if they differ at all, from the most characteristic teachings of Christ. This man, a better Christian in all but the dogmatic sense of the word than almost any of the ostensibly Christian sovereigns who have since reigned, persecuted Christianity. Placed at the summit of all the previous attainments of humanity, with an open, unfettered intellect, and a character which led him of himself to embody in his moral writings the Christian ideal, yet he failed to see that Christianity was to be a good and not an evil to the world, with his duties to which he was so deeply penetrated. Existing society he knew to be in a deplorable state. But such as it was, he saw, or thought he saw that it was held together, and prevented from being worse, by belief and reverence of the received divinities. As a ruler of mankind, he deemed it his duty not to suffer society to fall to pieces; and saw not how, if its existing ties were removed ,any others could be formed which could again knit it together. The new religion openly aimed at dissolving those ties; unless, therefore, it was his duty to adopt that religion, it seemed to be his duty to put it down. Inasmuch then as the theology of Christianity did not appear to him true or of divine origin, inasmuch as this strange history of a crucified God was not credible to him, and a system which purported to rest entirely upon a foundation to him so unbelievable, could not be foreseen by him to be that renovating agency which, after all abatesments, it has in fact proven to be; the gentlest and must amiable of philosophers and rulers, under a solemn sense of duty, authorized the persecution of Christianity. To my mind this is one of the most tragical facts in all history. [...] No Christian more firmly believes that atheism is false and tends to the dissolution of society than Marcus Aurelius believed the same things of Christianity; he who, of all men then living, might have been thought the most capable of appreciating it."

Here is a letter written by another Roman, Seneca, a stoic like Marcus Aurelius, which illustrates the similarities between the two philosophy's. Remember too that Seneca was a chief advisor to Nero and we all can remember how he treated Christians.

From Letter XLI
"you are persevering in your efforts to acquire a sound understanding. This is something it is foolish to pray for when you can win it from your own self; There is no need to raise our hands to heaven; there is no need to implore the temple warden to allow us close to the ear of some graven image, as though this increased the chances of our being heard. God is near you, is with you, is inside you. [...] No man, indeed, is good without God--is any one capable of rising above fortune unless he has the help of God? [...] And if you ever come across a man who is never alarmed by dangers, never affected by cravings, happy in adversity, calm in the midst of storm, viewing mankind from a higher level and the gods from their own, is it not likely that a feeling will find its way into you of veneration for him? Is it not likely that you will say in yourself "here is a thing which is too great, too sublime for anyone to regard it as being in the same sort of category as that puny body it inhabits". Into that body has descended a divine power. [...] A thing of that soul's height cannot stand without the prop of a deity. [...] a soul possessed of greatness and holiness, which has been sent down into this world in order that we may gain a nearer knowledge of the divine, associate with us, certainly, but never loses contact with its source. [...] Praise in him what can neither be given or snatched away."

Read... Please I beg You.

2006-03-26T23:26:00.000-06:00

Subject to Change, Unabashedly so:

Here are a few of my favorites if you need some inspiration or are watching too much TV

1. " A Short History of Nearly Everything" Bill Bryson
Essentially the tale of Modern Scientific Understanding. Very clever and insightful. Very well researched but placed in accessible language. I promise you will laugh.

2."The Lexus and the Olive Tree" Thomas Friedman
Okay so technically I am reading this one currently, however it goes on the list for its marvelous attempt at explaining Globalization. I highly, highly recommend this one for all, even if you are not politically motivated. Friedman demonstrates a wide breadth of knowledge and experience which will force you to think much more broadly about various international impacts upon your own life. Secretly I also hope this book converts some of you into IR majors.

3. "The Autobiography of Malcom X" Malcom X and Alex Haley
I promise you that you will throw this book across the room several times in the process of reading it, but ultimately it is worth it. Highlights not only race relations but the ability of man when faced with truth to change while still holding onto his integrity.

4. "An Unfinished Season" Ward Just
This one is a fiction folks and not really to much happens through the course of it. Essentially it is just the summer of one kid. No real beginning or ending, rather a slice of life. However that's the point and it demonstrates the beauty of the English language and is an excellent example of the art of storytelling.

5. "African's and Their History" Joseph Harris
Africa is not and was never the dark continent. This illustrates more concisely and clearly than any other book I have read on Africa it's history and the roots of today's issues which plague the continent.

6. "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Dr. King
Though not a book itself, its short and inspiring. Provides a great apology for Civil Disobedience but even more so is a great introduction and reminder of Dr. King's character.

Alright that's all for now, haha read those and get back to me. Also sorry I haven't posted much lately, the past few weeks have been hell for me, but we move on and get better right...

Currently on my list of books to read:
1. Blue like Jazz
2. The Hobbit
3. The Ragamuffin Gospel
4. Atlas Shrugged

Currently Reading:
1. The Lexus and the Olive Tree
2. "Frankenstien" Mary Shelly
3. "A Peoples History of the United States" Howard Zinn
4. "Twilight of the Idols and the Anti-Christ" Friedrich Nietzsche

P.S.
Question for Brandon, who is that fiction author you keep telling me to read? Perhaps that is too broad a question, so just list off a few of your favorites, I hear you mention him often.

Speak for the Voiceless

2006-03-08T07:09:00.000-06:00

The following is a journal entry I wrote this summer:

There can be no others, be for life--all life--no matter its manifest. To become a voice for the voiceless it is easy to speak loudly and act idly of far away lands. True, social justice must aid the Africans in Dafur, it must have a voice in ending environmental racism, and must raise the status of Women in Southwest Asia. But if we are to introduce a new era of equality it's beginnings must take root in our hearts and lives today. True social justice must occur daily in our lives: in acting towards our neighbors with love and not self-serving manipulations. It will express itself by acknowledging the humanity of the uniformed cleaner at the mall and by aiding an elderly woman unto a train. For Social Justice is the mere recognition of dignity that all humans are inalienably endowed with.

Nothing More

2006-02-20T12:17:00.000-06:00

We have three things to do to lead us towards that consummation [completeness]: Trust steadily in God, hope unswervingly, love extravagantly. And the best of the three is love.

-Taken from The Message-

"Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seeks its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; do not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails."

-1 Corinthians 13:4-8-

"May all things be in moderation except for love."
-Brennan Manning-

Two Essay's on Palestine

2006-01-30T18:56:00.000-06:00

The following two essays are written responses to the recent election in Palestine. This first is by myself and the second by my good friend Tom. Instead of having one of us write the initial essay and the other responding we decieded to each write our own essay without consulting the other person and then post them together. Anyhow enjoy, I know we both put alot of thought and effort into their creation.

The Failure of Democracy:

As a testament to the tumultuous nature and unpredictability of International Politics; Palestinians, last week, elected a Hamas majority to head their new government. The question the international community is now wrestling with is what does one do with a democratically elected terrorist organization in perhaps the world’s most volatile region?

Hamas, perhaps the most powerful Palestinian terrorist organization, first arrived on the scene in the early 1990’s as a reaction to the Oslo Accords and played a heavy role in the first Intifada. Based in Gaza, the organization has two divisions of operation: a social welfare program responsible for building several schools, hospitals, and providing essentials to the poor. The second arm of Hamas, and more infamous, is the militant wing, also known as the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, which has sponsored hundreds of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israel. Further, Hamas has failed to recognize the sovereignty of Israel and even now sticks by their call for its destruction.

What makes the Hamas victory particularly disheartening is that this year has laid witness to several strides of moderation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. With the election of moderate Mahmoud Abbas as President of the Palestinian Authority coupled with an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and a potential upcoming victory of the new Israeli party Kadima, which seeks a two state solution while emphasizing a tough security strategy, hope for the Middle East seemed tangible and in the near future.

But now with Mr. Sharon out-of-commission and with the potential for a militant led Palestinian state becoming a real possibility—does any hope remain?

First: The United States, European Union, and Israel have all stated that they cannot and will not appropriate funds to a government that (1) does not recognize Israel and (2) seeks its destruction. Secondly: we have yet to see what government and cabinet Hamas will create. The two most pertinent questions are; will they seek to form a coalition government with Fatah and will they denounce their militant past and moderate?

It is my hope that Hamas will indeed seek to form a coalition with Fatah. To be pragmatic, an alliance amongst the PLO, Hamas, and Fatah could prove to be a powerful force, with Hamas leading a social reconstruction program and Fatah leading the diplomatic effort. Next I pray Hamas elect’s as Prime Minister, a non-Hamas candidate with strong leadership credentials and a more mainline approach towards Israel.

If instead Hamas fails to moderate, Fatah then should not join a coalition government and take up the position as an opposition party. Further, Israel, the United States, and the EU should stop all negotiations with Hamas and take a serious look at funding cuts to the Palestinian Authority.

The failure of democracy: No. One cannot be an advocate of democracy contingent only upon the results of the elections. The process in Palestine is to be celebrated. However, actions have consequences and pressure must be applied to a rogue state inconsistent with those values celebrated the world over. Isolating a rogue but legitimate Hamas will render it effectively useless; unable to push forward its agenda and meet the domestic needs of the Palestinian people, thus in the long-run may they see the error and consequence of voting for an extremist government. Yes, this will render the peace process ineffective for some time. Though, at times it is necessary for a party to have time pursing a more radical line of action to see that a more moderated response will yield more effective results.

The days ahead will require much discernment and wisdom on the part of not only Israel and Palestine but International leaders the world over. -Bryan-

Failed Democracy? Not yet.

The recent elections in Palestine worry me. Not because of voter fraud or a lack of small –“d” democratic influence; Jimmy Carter and Senator Biden were on hand to ensure a fair and free election: "I have just returned from observing yesterday’s Palestinian legislative elections. The process was free and fair. But the apparent results – a victory by the terrorist organization Hamas – are very sobering.” (Sen. Biden) Rather, I share Senator Biden’s concern about what the ramifications of the elections could turn out to be.

Democracy internationale

The problem (for those of us with opinions) with democracy is that the results are not pre-determined (my side doesn’t always win). Prior to the adoption of the US Constitution the Federalists fought the Anti-federalists over the future of our nation. They had to argue because the adoption of the Constitution was not a done-deal; a super-majority of the states would have to agree to the terms. Similarly, the Canadians took a right turn earlier this week when they ousted a Liberal government and replaced Paul Martin with Stephen Harper, a Conservative. For the first time in 12 years, Conservatives will lead the Canadian government.

The Bush administration has been rightly touting international democracy since gaining power in 2001. Democracies are less likely to wage war with fellow democracies (though the Palestinian case-study could break the mold), so it would make sense that spreading democracy throughout the world would make the world a more peaceful place to live. And who is against peace? Not a democracy.

Until now.

The Palestinian case-study

Until the recent elections, Hamas had never had official representation in the Palestinian parliament; that wasn’t their “thing.” Now, however, they not only have seats at the table, but they will make up a pure majority of the Parliament, having won 76 out of 132 seats. The Palestinian government will be purely Hamas-led, especially as Fatah members have chosen to not attempt a coalition government. Fatah gunmen even stormed Palestinian parliament buildings on Saturday in protest to the election results.

Many people argue that the recent elections are what democracy is all about and say they are a good thing to be supported. Hamas is, indeed, popular among many Palestinians. The Economist recently estimated, however, that the core support of Hamas among the general population should be put nearer to one-quarter of all Palestinians than the majority of seats they earned. Regardless, Palestine—and, indeed, the entire world—must deal with a Hamas-centered government.

A problematic Hamas

If international democracy is to be heralded, why does this election sober politicians? Indeed, Iraq and Afghanistan held (truly free) democratic elections for the first time in a while, but it is not democracy, rather the victory of Hamas, that makes this election different.

Hamas is labeled by Europe and the United States as a terrorist organization, so a Hamas-led government could be problematic (governments usually reject terrorism). Two tenets on which Hamas stands are a non-recognition of Israel and the imposition of Islamic law. While the second might be acceptable under democratic principles—a people may choose the laws under which they live—the first, however, should give much of the world pause.

If Europe and the United States are truly interested in furthering the peace process, how can they support a group whose charter calls on Islam to “obliterate” Israel? They must realize that they cannot. Reports mention that, if Hamas were to denounce the radical portions of their charter, they could be internationally recognized by Europe and the United States. According to Reuters, however, Hamas leaders rejected as “blackmail” Western demands that it renounce violence against Israel. It is not democracy, but Hamas that could fail this election.

What to do

I won’t claim to be a scholar of international politics—I am even less an expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This election, however, worries me. It sobers Senator Biden, but it worries me. Was it a failure of democracy? Maybe. However, I won’t jump to that conclusion so quickly. Perhaps a Hamas-led Palestine will be unsustainable for domestic reasons (the parliament faces a very tight budget, and Hamas has little experience governing); perhaps it won’t. This, however, belongs on the back-burner compared to the international consequences. Domestic issues may have won Hamas the election, but they will not constitute the Hamas legacy.

America, Europe, and, indeed, the rest of the world is currently pondering whether or not they should recognize (and support) a Hamas-led Palestine. At this point, they should not.

The Middle East peace process (beyond Israel-Palestine) is too fragile and valuable to throw out over this election; the consequences are too severe. Note that Hamas isn’t simply rejecting the peace process with Israel, rather at this point it is rejecting the existence of Israel. The peace process did not just one step back, but it left the stadium. The runner isn’t quitting the race, he is rejecting the notion that the race exists.

Hamas should not be supported until they not only renounce their abhorrence for Israel, but for the peace process as well.

In his article on the topic, James Phillips suggests that Hamas should not be recognized because they do not pass a series of tests. “A truly democratic party must reject violence, intimidation, and terrorism, not only against its own people but also against other nations, even if they are historic enemies.” Hamas does not do this. Additionally, “Political parties must also pass a values test: they must not advocate racial or religious discrimination.” Hamas does not do this.

Whether or not these are (the only) legitimate tests for a democratic government, it should be clear that the United States (and the rest of the world) must not recognize a Hamas-led Palestine until they renounce their abhorrence to Israel’s existence and should not support a Hamas-led Palestine until they throw their weight behind the peace process.

President Clinton supported this view earlier when he noted about Hamas, “I don’t see how they can expect the support of the rest of us” as long as they stay committed to the destruction of Israel. Similarly, the United States and Europe seem to agree as well. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization, and neither America nor the Europeans support a terrorist organization.

While Hamas hasn’t employed terrorist means in the past six months and, certainly, hasn’t used its position in the government to carry out attacks (yet), that does not mean that they should be trusted or supported. If they are truly going to turn from their past of violent means of advancing their agenda, then they should renounce said means. If they are not willing to renounce them, then we are to assume that they still support such violence.

If Hamas chooses to continue supporting these actions I fear the worst.

One chance

This does not mean, however, that Hamas, as some argue, should not be given a chance to govern and renounce its old ways. Until Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist their government should not be recognized, and until they support the Middle East peace process they should not be supported.

Aggenda:

The Palestinian elections—like any other election—did not take place in a vacuum. Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in Gaza does not stay in Gaza. Rather, it has international consequences.

Flat denial

Last Saturday the AP reported this:

“Following their resounding election victory, the Islamic militants of Hamas met the question of whether they will change their stripes with a loud ‘no’: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations, no renunciation of terror. … [B]ut the consequences of failing to do so are likely to be catastrophic: loss of life-sustaining aid, international isolation and a profound setback to their statehood aspirations.”

Additionally, members of the Fatah party don’t seem to be taking it well either. Many members have denounced their leaders for refusing to join in a coalition (as mentioned above).

It is the catastrophic consequences that worry me: the loss of aid and international isolation, sure, but more the loss of life (at the hand of terrorists and the inevitable military conflict that will result from a Palestine seeking to “obliterate” its neighbor).

A myriad of issues

Just to throw a few things out in the air, I wonder if this election will give traction to a larger conflict. The president of Iran has, over the past few months, called for the wiping of Israel off the face of the earth, has denied the holocaust ever took place, has suggested that Israel be moved to land within Europe or the United States, has asserted his country’s right to possess nuclear weapons, has started diverting Iranian funds from banks in Europe, and has continued to pursue nuclear weapons. France, on the other hand, has shown its rationality by declaring that if it were attacked by a terrorist it would not only consider conventional weapons when it retaliates. With another Islamic state declaring its opposition to the existence of Israel could this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back?
-Tom

Out on a Limb

2006-01-24T16:57:00.000-06:00

Abortion.

No issue within American Politics is able to elicit a more impassioned response or divide the electorate more than abortion. For many it has become the single most decisive issue regulating their voting patterns. In my own experience, particularly when in the company of Christians, when I tell others I hold a liberal political philosophy I am automatically asked how I feel about abortion and how I can reconcile that with my aggregate views.

Firstly, yes I do tend towards a pro-life stance. I place immense value and respect upon human life and it is my hope that this value transcends my entire life not just pocket issues. Yet I am frustrated. Frustrated because abortion has become such a powerful force within our system. A recent article by The Economist, which I believe I sent to many of you, evaluated abortion in the United States and how powerfully it works in favor for the GOP and is in turn so detrimental to the Democratic Party. Detrimental because it is the burden of Democrats to defend abortion and in favor of the GOP because by attacking it they can collect the religious right as a constituency but have to offer no true pragmatic solutions. It was The Economist's view and my own, that abortion will not be made illegal because the vast majority of the electorate wishes to see it in some form or another as a legal option. Thus, huge reserves of human resources and labor are being used to achieve nothing concrete other than a more bipartisan atmosphere.

Now I recognize and respect people's legal right to lobby for those issues deemed important by them. Further, I understand how abortion, since dealing with the lives of children, has become such a poignant issue and causes such distress on both sides. And finally I recognize the bias of this essay and how it may come to be viewed as nothing more than a way to strengthen the Democratic Party. However, my frustration lies not within hopes for the DNC but rather that there is such a multiplicity of issues out that, where resources are not being devoted, yet with a little effort very real and pragmatic solution's are within easy reach. I seek conclusion that is all. Let the people decide.

Union Jack

2006-01-15T19:56:00.000-06:00

No, There are no Murders in Africa
Only Regrettable Deaths
And from those Deaths
We Derive the Benefits of Civilization
Benefits we can afford so easily
Because those Lives were bought so cheaply

-The Constant Gardener

2005

2006-01-01T21:54:00.000-06:00

Year in Review according to Bryan:

Top Film: The Constant Gardener
Worst Film: Chicken Little
Best Song: Will Smith, "Switch"
Worst Song: Weezer, "Beverly Hills"
Best New Artist: Sufjan Stevens
Most Honorable Senator: John McCain R-Arizona
Most Nerdy Blogger on High: Brandon I have sexy pants Jones
Moment that caught our attention: New Orleans
What left us hope: Reduction of debt in Africa by the G8
Most Dishonorable Moment: Passage of Intelligent Design Provision by the Kansas School Board
Why We Woke Up in the Morning: After not being seen since 1944 the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was found alive and sexy as ever in Arkansas:in celebration Sufjan sang us a song about it.
Best Source for News: PBS Newshour with Jim Lerher

Bring on 2006 playa's!!!

The Other Monkey

2005-12-23T11:10:00.000-06:00

Last Sunday night President George W. Bush, addressed the nation regarding Iraq. You can find a transcript for that speech here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051218-2.html

Again, though I feel awkward saying so, I find myself supporting the President. I was against invading Iraq. However, the choice to engage and the choice on what to do once in Iraq are two very separate questions. We are in Iraq and to leave without establishing stability would be a greater offense than entering was in the first place. I agree with the President that there is no room for defeatist mentality or for an exit timeline. It takes a great effort to establish a democracy--government is difficult and government by the people is the most difficult. We need pragmatic solutions in Iraq not partisan politics.

Iraq currently faces a great difficulty in uniting Sunni, Shia, and Kurd into a national identity of Iraqi. The Sunni who have traditional held power in Iraq and have thought themselves to be the majority are now realizing that power will now lay with the true majority the Shia. Fearing that a Shia led government would be heavily influenced by Shia dominated Iran next door, Sunni's came out in full force in the election last week. This highlights the greatest fear surrounding democracy: Tyranny of the Majority over the Minority. (I would suggest that you will find sufficient evidence of this struggle in our own history.) This becomes especially cumbersome when attempting to unite groups with strong ethnic or religious identities that trump a national identity.

So here is my suggestion to Mr. Bush: read or hopefully re-read my favorite advocate of democracy, James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Skim past all the parts about large states vs. Small states; leap over the obvious that men are not angels hence the need for government; and land, Mr. Bush, on the need for a multitude of factions. In other words, for Iraq to function smoothly as a democracy we cannot have a government led by Shia's dominating over the Sunni and Kurdish minority's that certainly will, as we have all feared, lead to a civil war. No, we need to push a strong market economy within Iraq. This in turn will weaken ethnic identities as well as induce real one on one relations between groups. Further, as most importantly it will produce lobbies or factions. No longer will it be Kurd v. Sunni v. Shia but rather Oil Interest v. Religious v. Poor v. Small Business v. Academia. In otherwords create an environment where factions are developed and then protected. The multitude thus requires coalition building to gain power and finally the greatest word within government--moderation.

Monkey See Monkey Do

2005-12-03T16:26:00.000-06:00

First of all, sorry it has been awhile since I have posted. Life has been crazy as we are now entering into the Holiday Season. Secondly, though its not often that I give praise to a member of the Bush cabinet, a big well done to Dr. Rice for her superb performance in peace talks last week. Her insight in pushing forward a plan giving Palestinians control over their own border in Gaza was a wise one and it is my hope that it will continue the progress seen over this past year.

And finally, I have some exciting information to share with you all. Or maybe this will just highlight my nerdyness. As of last week, I have been corresponding with a Professor out of Cambridge regarding work he has been doing with Capuchin monkeys in Brazil. Though anomalous of my typical studies, I find these little guys delightfully interesting. When faced with arid climates and food sources are scarce they engage in a peculiar activity. Climbing trees, they knock down nuts that shells are far too thick for them to break. Trying to access the nut they fail and throw them aside. Well only seemingly so; they place the nuts in piles and leave them out in the sun for several days to dry. They then bring rocks up from streambeds, sometimes miles away, that often have the same mass as the monkeys themselves. Placing the nut on a boulder Capuchins proceed to lift the rock over their heads and thrust it into the nut, thereby cracking its shell and gaining access to the nut inside. Ladies and Gentlemen, basic agrarian practice in a simple monkey and further the monkeys have to be taught how to do this by older members of the clan. Scarcity promotes innovation.

A Spider

2005-11-16T17:06:00.000-06:00

I believe in the power of stories.

To become an effective leader I thoroughly believe one must collect and morph him/herself after those fables which model truth. If someone wanted to get to know me without doing so directly I would, without hesitation, first direct them to my bookself. Some of my stories are encapsled in literature--John Stienbeck's recklessness, Ward Just's insight, and Dr. King's Justice--others are wrapped in my dreams, my heroes, my deceptions(art), my experience. Some were forged out of location and others were given by a wise old dog. I look back upon my life and I see stories. Some that are, some that will come to pass, and others that will never be. Perhaps here I agree with the post-modernist view that all reality is constructed, for I am living the story I want to become. Some may have reality and other not, yet it is ultimately the story--the fiction, the art--that grips us. And so if I may, I would like to step aside from all else and tell a story. It is not long nor will it win me a laureate. In fact, many of you have heard this story before and yet I continually come back to it. And so, I will tell it again.

A few years ago, as every year, I was up in the northern spine of Minnesota for a week of fishing. My family and I, along with cousins and stragglers, take the eight hour trip by car to Bass lake, north of Grand Rapids. Though called Bass lake, I have not once caught a bass there. However, this is not enough to deter me, and so that year, just as the last, I for one week became a morning person and woke up at the wreckless hour of 5 am. Climbing into a flimsy John boat I cross the glassy lake to the lily-pads on the other side, and with more faith than all the saints of old combined I cast my ambitions into the water and pray my precision will find a friend that day. Yet morning after morning my hopes lay unanswered. Thus seeking to prove my merit as a sportman I move on to others and hope that before the sun falls I can boast of 12 in order that I too may have illustrious tales of a fight while sitting around the fire.

And so one evening, as all evenings in the woods are, I took my gear from the boat to the cabin in order to fine tune my strategy for the next day. But I was stopped, I was stopped by the sight of a large grotesque eight-legged demon of a creature--a spider--the cause of my unrest as a child and the worst of all God's creature's, plus a pinch more for measure by its arrogance. There it was and I wanted nothing to do with it. The movement of its conniving legs filled me with fear and anger at its very existence shot at my heart. I wanted to kill it. It was a threat and I endowed with the greater sovereignty wished its demise. There, in that moment I stopped.

Alarmed by my emotions I was able to engage in Mans greatest tool and think critically of the moment. Why did I fear it? Why did I want to kill it? I asked myself. I wanted to kill it because it was foreign and unkown. So often what man doesn't understand we destroy. Yet there is another response though one that is more difficult. We can work towards understanding and take a disciplined look at life through a variety of lenses. We can if you will, learn a new dance.

In Honor

2005-11-07T12:01:00.000-06:00

An observer from PBS recently speculated to what Rosa Parks is looking at in the above photograph. After several ideas he ended by saying that Ms Parks was looking at a white male, any white male: young, old, bigoted, progressive, poor, or affluent it need not matter. And as she looked at him, she thought of how her actions as the catalyst to the Civil Rights movement would ultimately free him to think rightly of African Americans. For that I say thank you Rosa Parks, your legacy will be honored.

Damn! I Do Have Sexy Legs

2005-11-01T14:00:00.000-06:00

That's right! Amandla has been rock'n for one year kids. So what better way to celebrate then to go with a new look. Hopefully you all like it, the dark and dismal is gone. So tell me, What have you liked? What do I need to improve on? Again my philosophy for this blog is that it is first and foremost not mine, but collectively ours. I may be the administrator but ultimately I want Amandla to be a forum of all things politics, faith, art, environment and any of the other critical issues that affect our lives. All opinions are welcomed, and you are all free to create your own posts and I encourage you to do so. Also I have tried to make this a resource with some helpful links to help us all remain informed. If you know of any websites that would be useful, tell me and I will put them up, or of anyone that should join tell me their e-mail address and we will see if we can round them up. And finally, in case you are wondering what Amandla means its the Xhosa word meaning power of the people used particularly by Nelson Mandela to encourage the anti-apartheid movement. Cheers.

Its not EVILution

2005-10-22T14:00:00.000-05:00

Regardless of what circles you find yourself in, the controversy surrounding the teaching of Evolution in schools is bound to surface. Currently in Pennsylvania, Kansas and other states it is being proposed that intelligent Design be taught alongside Evolution as an alternative. And when Evolution is taught a disclaimer must be read stating that Evolution is a theory and not inconclusive in its findings. In fact, according to the Economist 65% of Americans feel that Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution in our public school systems. This however is erroneous and is placing our children at a disadvantage academically. Simply put, the theory of Evolution along with Cell Theory is the foundation of modern Biology.

First, yes Evolution is a Scientific Theory. But it is a Scientific Theory not theory as we colloquially use the word. The dictionary defines Scientific Theory as a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Versus meaning a conjecture as we use it in everyday speech. Most of Science is 'Theory', Einstein Theory of Special Relativity, Quantum Theory and so forth. To say we cannot teach Evolution because of a misunderstanding of a word sets a dangerous precedent that threatens all of science.

Secondly, science is based upon the scientific method. Intelligent Design is not. To teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom defies the principles necessary to maintain that discipline. In fact every major and esteemed American Scientific Institute rejects its teaching. Not because they are crazy atheists trying to debunk God. No, they are scientists and require things to be based in observation, experimentation, and reproducible results. Let science teach science, and if you want to debate origins reserve that for a literature or philosophy course.

And finally, I see no reason as a Christian that the two ideas are incompatible. Religion relies upon faith, Science on the scientific method. I enjoy the analogy of Mr. Haught, a Theologian, on the issue of evolution. He asks the question, "What causes a kettle to boil?" One could answer, he said that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is "because I want a cup of tea." None of these explanations conflict with one another. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have very easily created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

Take Me Downtown to the Ball Game???

2005-10-13T16:43:00.000-05:00

Most of you who read this are from Kansas City or have lived there for some portion of your life. So I ask for your opinion. The Kansas City Royals are considering moving their stadium to Downtown Kansas City. Is it a good idea? Will it bring life to the downtown district? Or is it just a bunch of humbojumbo? You deciede.

2005-10-11T08:45:00.000-05:00

Shot shot shot in the dark or even the Light,
It has not mattered for even our souls are shrouded by those who have died!
Cling to the cloud hovering about, that awful fog of war wrapping about our heads so tight;
Like a black blindfold clasping our eyes shut!
Keep keep keep those eyes shut: the cities gates chained and sealed!
It has mattered all the more to protect the cities citizens from the messengers getting through,
Fire in the night the guns go off but the people can't see the victims dying in the field.
The guards speak up in the morning hour and report "Oh citizens stay in doors!
The enemy has come in the night, it is as we all have feared
Look look look a boy who has seen out side our wall!
"It is a matter that must cease and desist! This child must not be allowed to peek."
Explosions at night did not let him sleep, curiosity and compassion to the screams sent him to an innocent fall!
The magistrate executing his sentence: to debilitate the boys ability to speak.
"What did you see?" I didn't see a generation left out in the cold and I didn't see a truth: this the boy might reply.
"Oh, I saw the enemy oh so clear standing alone in utter fear!"

The Matter of Iraq

2005-10-04T00:19:00.000-05:00

As most of you I am sure are aware, I was from the beginning against this war in Iraq. I found the pretenses upon which we were supposed to be going in there as questionable and further am hesitant when one nation imposes a system on another. The foundation of any Democracy rests within its people. And Democracy is no easy process, I feel it must be wanted and built by those who will maintain it. And so to impose democracy on Iraq to me was questionable, I would have favored a support role in a Iraqi led insurgency. Alas, Bush didn't ask me, and in 96' when the people did rise we failed them and so here we are. Its 2005 in Iraq with a rising trend of terrorism and support for the war failing on the domestic scene. What now?

Do we leave? No. We went into Iraq for better or worse and took over their government. As a result we have a responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq to restore order and maintain sensibility over there until either we are asked to leave or a stable and competent government is established by the Iraqis themselves. Nation building and citizenship are not easy and I worry that the people of Iraq were not yet ready or perhaps lack the leadership to tackle the problem, and yet they must. There is no other alternative, we cannot leave--Iraq would only degenerate until another despot took control or would remain a place of endless strife for years to come, further complicating the Mideast. War is not to be played around with and even more so is nation building. It took the United States from 1776 until 1791 to form the basis of the government we have today and even then, we were not able to achieve recognition internationally until 1812, and not until after a Civil War did we come to a unified understanding of Federalism. All issues the public seems to be expecting Iraq to iron out in the matter of months. I repeat: politics and governing are advanced and complex issues, complicated by Democracy which requires some form of efficacy on the sort of the people. It may be the most noble form of Government, but it also is the most frustrating and lengthy. We must be in for the long haul--there is no other responsible alternative.

A Wise Stoic

2005-09-24T10:50:00.000-05:00

This week I read Seneca's "Letters from a Stoic" and was taken back by how close his doctrine seems at times to Christianity. Seneca was born in 4 B.C. Rome, a well known philosopher and statesmen; rising in prominence to become one of the Chief Advisors to Nero.

Here is a selection from Letter XLI,

"...you are perservering in your efforts to acquire a sound understanding. This is something it is foolish to pray for when you can win it from your own self. There is no need to raise our hands to heaven; there is no need to implore the temple warden to allow us close to the ear of some graven image, as though this increased the chances of our being heard. God is near you, is with you, is inside you. [...] No man, indeed is good without God--is anyone capable of rising above fortune unless he has the help of God? [...] if you come across a man who s never alarmed by dangers, never affected by cravings, happy in adversity, calm in the midst of storm, viewing mankind from a higher level and the gods for their own, is it not likely that a feeling will find its way into you of veneration for him? Is it not likely that you will say to yourself, 'Here is a thing which is too great, too sublime for anyone to regard it as being in the same sort of category as that puny body it inhabits' Into that body there has descended a divine power. A thing of that souls height cannot stand without the prop of the deity. [...] a soul possessed of greatness and holiness, which has been sent down into this world in order that we may gain a nearer knowledge of the divine, associates with us, certainly, but never loses contact with its source."

I must admit that the following moved me severely, and I could not help but think of the greatness of God, all from a non-Christian author. The parallelism between it and our faith are compounded between the fact that Seneca was born the same year as Jesus. Not that it is doctrine but interesting non the less.

The Constant Gardener

2005-09-05T12:45:00.000-05:00

I continue to maintain that film, when done correctly, is one of the higher art forms available towards human expression. The ability to blend the visual, audible, and written arts into one--creates a highly poignant medium able to pierce the emotional barrier and cause intellectual affect. The list of such films is bound to vary from critic to critic, however I am certain that "The Constant Gardener", will have a secure listing. Directed by Fernando Meirelles, the director of the Internationally acclaimed "City of God" (2002), and starring Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz: The Constant Gardener follows a British Diplomat who seeks to uncover the truth behind his wife's brutal murder and in the process discovers her secret yet admirable life, and a wider brutality towards Africa she worked to stop. Beautiful cinemotography and a bending plotline capture the emotional energy behind the characters and I assure you that it is a film that you will be thinking about for days thereafter. And following a few months after "Hotel Rwanda", "The Constant Gardener" continues the work of raising awareness of the fragility and beauty of Africa, and how so often the West's meddlings are its greatest problems.

a bit perplexed

2005-08-31T14:53:00.000-05:00

As I watch the TV coverage of the Katrina aftermath I feel that things are being severely downplayed. Am I the only one?
When 9/11 occurred our nation was in a state of shock. I don't get that same feeling when I watch the Katrina aftermath news coverage. I don't get that same feeling when I go to work and the recent news out of the south is talked about like a Mondday Night Football game; "Man, did you see that shot of the looters stealing things out of stores all over New Orleans."
The final death toll of the 9/11 incident was 2,752. I just checked cnn.com and the lead story title is 'New Orleans Mayor Fears Thousands Dead.' That's only in New Orleans. 25,000 refugees from the New Orleans area will be shipped to Houston as they evacuate New Orleans. I would be shocked if there were only 25,000 people stayed behind prior to Katria hitting shore. My point is, the death toll from those that chose to stay behind could be staggering.
A whole city evacuated, yet you can turn to any major TV channel right now (3:00 in the afternoon) and see a soap opera instead of coverage.
Maybe as time passes and bodies are found in attics, garages, pinned under heavy materials under the waters surface, and body count tallies come in we'll be in shock and devastation. I am just disturbed at how most of America seems to be moving on with "business as usual (myself not exempt)." An entire city has been devastated and EVACUATED, and many other towns have been ravaged.
Are we fed a diet so high in reality television that we are looking at this with reality television lenses and reality television hearts?

A New Day?

2005-08-22T20:57:00.000-05:00

Much controversy and debate has been circling the past few months as Israel announced that it would be pulling all settlements out of the Gaza strip and a few out of the West Bank, transferring power to the Palestinian Authority. The settlements--which are the result of 1967 war where-by Israeli forces gained control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Hieghts for nieghboring Arab's--have technically been an infrigement of International Law and have been the cause of many Palestianians worries, fearing less autonomy and land for themselves. The settlers on the other hand have heldfast that the land was given them by God, and that they must settle in order to restore the borders of historical Israel.

The Israeli-Palestianian Conflict is a complex and noble one if ever there was. Both groups have been the brunt of a diaspora and historical oppression. Since the creation of Israel, the region has been plaqued by violence and a horrid cycle of revenge and attack resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent individuals. Yet as this latest intifada cools off and settlements are removed from the Gaza Strip my hopes rise. Despite concerns that the pullout may be taken as a victory for Islamic extremist groups, I view it as mature, bold, and much needed decision by Israel. Long have I been critical towards Sharon and his bulldoze first ask questions later policy towards Palestian, so this move caught me by surprise. Yet as the soveriegn state, I welcome Israel's ability to provide strong leadership, I only hope this sets the tone for the future and instills confidence in Abbas who has spoken widely and positively but failed to muster the tenacity reguired to pull his fellow Palestinians into line.

Amandla has a Mascot

2005-08-06T17:27:00.000-05:00

Bam Bizzle! For those of you out there who don't know yet, Paul B-daddy has a new cat. His parents in their ever continuing tenderness, brought in a stray that was living under a car in his neighborhood. This tough mo-fo though he acclaims to be 10 months appears 10 weeks. However, don't let his size fool you. This guy his packed full of love and has been appropriately named Amandla. For this reason, and just because he is a jazzin dude, I make Amandla the cat the official mascot of Amandla. Take care and pictures of the bloke sometime.

Viva Zapata! Amigo de los Avacados

2005-07-28T13:39:00.000-05:00

Alright kids, I thought I would share some information that I have regarding US and World politics, in order to help you circumnavigate the enormity of information in the world of politics and still be able to think straight. So enjoy, print and share it; and remember we here at Amandla salute Ferris Bueller.

The G8
--------
Italy The United States
Japan Canada
Germany Russia
France Britian

Constitutional Protections
--------------------------
1. Ex Post Facto Law
Any law that makes an act a crime that was not a crime at the time it was commited, or that increases penalties or renders conviction easier after the face, is illegal.

2. Writ of Habeas Corpus
A check against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment, it is a legal order requiring that a person in custody be brought to court in order that just cause can be shown for the person's detention. Habeas Corpus can be suspended only under emergency conditions such as martial law.

3. Bill of Attainder
Any act of a legislature that declares a person guilty and sets the punishment without benefit of a judicial trial is illegal.

Bill of Rights
----------------
Amendment 1
Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

Amendment 2
Right to bear arms.

Amendment 3
Troops may not be quartered in homes in peacetime.

Amendment 4
No unreasonable searches or siezures.

Amendment 5
No double jeopardy, no forced testimony against oneself, grand jury indictment required to prosecute a person for serious offense, no loss of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Amendment 6
Right to a speedy trial and defense counsel.

Amendment 7
Jury trial in suits where value exceeds $20.

Amendment 8
No cruel or unusual punisment.

Amendment 9
Unlisted rights are not nessacarily denied.

Amendment 10
Powers not delegated to the United States or denied to states are reserved to the states.

President Bush's Cabinet
-------------------------
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta
Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael O. Leavitt
Secretary of The Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
The Vice President Richard B. Cheney
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr.
Office of Management and Budget Joshua B. Bolten
United States Trade Representative Ambassador Rob Portman
Office of National Drug Control Policy John Walters
Environmental Protection Agency Stephen Johnson

The Supreme Court
-------------------
William Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
David Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Ginsburg
Stepen Breyer
Sandra Day O'Conner (recently retired)

International Organizations and Leaders
----------------------------------------
United Nations www.un.org, Secretary General Kofi Annan

The World Bank www.worldbank.org, President Paul Wolfowitz

International Monetary Fund www.imf.org, Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato y Figaredo

The European Union, http://europa.eu.int/, President of European Parliment Josep Borrell Fontelles

The World Trade Organization, www.wto.org, Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi

The North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/

The World Court, http://www.icj-cij.org/

World Leaders
---------------
The United Kingdom, Prime Minister Tony Blair

Afganistan, President Hamid Karzai

Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, President-elect Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad

Iraq, President Jalal Talabani

Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder

France, President Jacques Chirac

Japan, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi

Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

South Africa, Prime Minister Thabo Mbeki

Russia, President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

China, President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao

India, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

Mexico, President Vicente Fox

Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin

Proud of Me Roots

2005-07-07T20:11:00.000-05:00

Perhaps, all to often I fall into the trap of becoming overly critical of our government and to some it may seem that I am unappreciated of the privileges and rights this nation affords us. However this is not my stance. I am, infact, very aware of the liberties that we are allowed in this nation, respectful of them, and their honorable and deliberate origins in making a nation that allows man to flourish while still restraining him against the self-interest of the few. I am proud of the constitution, I am proud of our very unique judiciary, I am proud of our system of checks and balances and the moderation it allows. Furthermore I am proud to come from a nation that places value on dialogue as seen in the framework of the senate, I hold enormous respect for the principles in establishing restrictions of the government, put in place by the government. America has an excellent foundation and I don't ever wish to be pooled with those who criticize the nation out of contempt, ignorance, and laziness. I criticize with an understanding of where we came from and a concern with were we are going. I am critical not to degrade but to reinforce and to innovate. This nation was established by the people, to serve the people, to be criticized by the people, to be amended by the people, and finally if necessary to be disassembled by the people in a peaceful manner. We have a rich heritage--full of both human triumph and failure--but we have pressed on and we have learned and innovated. We still have a long ways to go, but I am proud of what we have.

For those of you who may wish to gain insight into some of the great thought that went into this nation I suggest the book, Forming of the Democratic Republic by Diamond and any of the Federalist Papers by Madison in particular number 51.

Conquer the Conservatives

2005-06-28T14:43:00.000-05:00

Alright so I apologize for not posting for so long. So much has been going on in my personal life currently that I haven't thought much about the blogging world. So if you haven't heard the news I am transferring from Knox College to KU. Its not that Knox is a poor institution or that I did poorly there, quite the inverse actually. I admire Knox and it has much to offer and I did well there. I am leaving mostly because socially it was difficult and reminiscent of high school with just a lot more drugs and sex. That and I expected Knox to be much more academic, I expected it to be a place were academic dialogue was engendered throughout the campus and a place where we would save the world from the conservatives. Oh well, it didn't happen so now I move on.

At KU I will be living in an apartment across from the stadium so come all to visit. I will be majoring in Economics with a second major in either International Relations or African Studies. I am also hoping to get into their Honors program and maybe have a minor in Studio Art still, its a lot--well see what happens. Anyhow that's all for now, take care and I will post again soon.

The Labor Class

2005-04-28T03:55:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking about some of Brian's comments on economics and now that I'm working the night shift at a warehouse some questions have come up. The company I work for is a worldwide corporation that deals with office supplies. And like it or not I'm somewhat of an office supply dweeb. My thoughts from working this job and having just completed my student-teaching semester at a largely blue collar public high school have led me to wonder about the way economics have affected (or created) a class system in America.

The branch of the company I work for deals office supplies to businesses and our job as the night shift is to fill orders and get them in the trucks ready to deliver the next day. There are just under twenty of us and though I try not to play into stereo types, Nascar and country music are staples (there are probably about three meanings to that word being used here). Everyone is employed full time and many have families.

My problem is that though many of these folks work incredibly hard and long nights five days a week for an average of about $22,000 a year. I don't know that anyone besides the lone manager makes more than twelve dollars an hour. I thought a teacher's salary could be rough but how are people supposed to support families on this much money? Child care alone would consume more than half of that salary. Also because of this wage most of them will be forced to work until their bodies can no longer withstand it. Of course the turnover rate is astronomical. The company offers no shift differential pay like most companies do for employees that work odd hours. But there are those who really have no other options and so they stay and work harder and harder, hoping for a promotion which rarely comes along for those without any form of higher education, and skills are hard to obtain when you're nocturnal. Management likes to milk these folks for all they have, and why not, they have the control in the slim job market of this blue collar city. Frequently when someone decides they are not going to come to work anymore they will not replace that position for a long time in order to save money. Anyway, you get the picture. These people have been stamped with a label so they can be cheap labor.

In my student teaching semester I experienced insurmountable amounts of mediocrity. And when you think about it that is exactly what the name No Child Left Behind says it will do. I had students every few weeks would come into class and ask "Mr. Jones, am I getting a D-?" And if so they felt justified in sitting there and not particaping that day. Not only that but the school was so overrun with programs and prosals for getting test scores up that it seemed I rarely actually had an entire class period to do nothing but teach. The English teachers were so burned out that they did whatever they could to limit the amount of grading they had to do of student writing. Naturally then, the students practically refused to write much of anything at all. I've come to find out now that of the three high schools in the district, ten English teachers have resigned. After a particularly difficult day I thought to myself that the mission statement for the school should have a included something abobut "preparing students for mediocrity."

But then I thought, perhaps this is what America really wants or needs. These kids I taught will become construction workers and factory laborers. And because they didn't succeed all that well in the system they won't have much else a choice. But this perpetuates America's consumerism because with a cheap labor force we can products at a cheaper price. But is there a great price we pay? I wonder to what degree do we also cheapen the human soul.

I have already begun to find work so tedious that tonight I thought of memorizing poetry and reciting it while I worked to inject some degree of interest or soul into the hours we spend in silence performing these mindless tasks. I know this has sounded somewhat like a leftist rant but it is difficult not to get emotional when I'm dealing with people I care about. As little as I have in common with my coworkers I do care about them and wish them the best. As with my students because one reason I got into teaching is that I wanted to develop people and not material products. But these and other things lead me to believe that this capatilist nation purposely wants to create a labor force. When public education was expanding in the early twentieth century, leaders thought nothing of being quite obvious about this when modeling school administratin after successful business models for productivity. My problem with that is that we are dealing humans not lifeless material goods. I wonder are we simply more sublte about it now? Is there really an American dream or are those success stories the exceptions? Have we built America on success stories or on the backs of those striving to be that story?

E-11

2005-04-23T20:47:00.000-05:00

Tonight I went to a guest speaker, here at Knox College, speaking on the effects of chemical toxins on the body. She spoke specifically on how many of the thresholds established to protect humans from unsafe levels of toxins are established using the assumption the consumer is an average healthy adult. However obviously not every person drinking water, or using a PVC pipe is an average healthy adult. The most susceptible to such chemicals are then the young, the elderly, and the sick. Paying particularly close attention to infants the speaker noted that much of what keeps toxins out of the brain is a membrane called the brain blood barrier. This membrane is not fully developed in fetus and infants and thus trace amounts of a toxin that would not otherwise affect an adult because of the blood brain membrane, are able to penetrate infants brain and cause damage.

All to often it seems that we fail to take into account the affects of agents we are releasing into the environment and unfortunately the powerless have to pay for the sins of the perpetrators. This results in a human rights violation as noted above. Another such case would be global warming. The IPCC in its latest report (the IPCC is considered the expert organization on global warming and is fancied by several nations and is registered under the authority of the United Nations)noted that due to the increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it is expected that the earth will warm an additional 1.6*C over the next 50 years causing sea levels to rise by as much as 10 meters. Now the main contributors to this are of course industrialized developed nations, they are often the ones doing the least to prevent it. Most notably the United States and Australia, both of whom abstained from the Kyoto Treaty. The IPCC report notes that such a change in the climate of the earth will be devastating to those living along the coasts in particular. Due to both the rise in sea levels and the increased frequency of extreme weather events. It also notes that developed nations will be the best equipped to adapt to such changes and that underdeveloped nations such as Bangladesh, the Maldives and other nations with significant portions of the population living along the coast will be most affected and possibly devastated--due to their lack of resources that would enable them the innovation necessary to adapt. In other words developed nations are changing the climate, gaining the benefits, refusing to fix it, and the developing world, which is already in a state of oppression from us will be forced to pay the greater debt. Again these things are not only environmental issues but human rights issues.

I will leave you with one final thought. What will cause us to change? All to often I confront an apathy regarding environmental issues in public that make me sick. We have erroneously separated ourselves from the natural world and fail to see the vital connection that still remains. Maybe we need an E-11, that is an environmental disaster of some scale to wake people up to this reality. It is unfortunate but may be true. Whether that is another unfortunate tsunami, or rising sea levels. An enviromental disaster would force people to deal with in a real way the ways in which we are corrupting this planet.

Truly American

2005-04-16T09:18:00.000-05:00

Jazz embodies America. Our hope and the American dream can be found in its rolling cadence of beat and blues. The music provides a framework from which the artist aspires to acomplish thier own dreams and make a name. Much like the American dream which states that our own determination will yield us our potential. Jazz is a group effort, but when it the light shines on you--perform as an idividual or bust. Jazz promotes the individual because America does. It is a truly American art form reflective of our culture.

A Word from Mr. Keynes

2005-03-31T14:06:00.000-06:00

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back"

-John Maynard Keynes-

I choose to post this quote not only because Keynes is my favorite economist, but also because I am an International Relations major and am considering a second major in Economics. My aim is such to become the 'academic scribbler' Keynes is discussing. I agree with him, in that I too see the world directed largely by economic & political theory. I study with the hope that someday I may be in a position where I may have a large affect in empowering the oppressed, motivated by my heart of social justice. Hotel Rwanda reminded me why I am in school, and why I am an IR major, because honestly I could care less about the Republicans or Democrats, or the new face of the DNC. I mean its all fine and fun at times, but the reality is there is alot of oppression left in this world and I hope that I may, to whatever degree is possible, follow in the footsteps of such great figures as Mandela and King and add a grain of hope to this world.

Hotel Rwanda

2005-03-23T21:56:00.000-06:00

So I am back from Spring Break, it was really nice, anyhow... Over the course of it I saw Hotel Rwanda, and it affected me deeply, I honestly cannot remember the last time I was so upset. I was upset because this atrocity is one of the worst genocides in human history, it occured only 11 years ago, and yet the West understands so very little of it. I was angry because it is still going on, with the RAF hunting down former Hutu fighters and militia. I was angry because the world ignored the conflict and let it happen, why because they were Africans. I was angry because I could see the direct influence of colonialism as acting as a catalyst in the conflict. The west interest in Africa too often seems to exploit it for personal advantage, and ignore it when it despritly needs our help. I am tired of Africa being eclipsed, and misunderstood and that is why I am angry. I highly recommend the movie, and if anyone is interested there is a book, Shake Hands with the Devil, that came out last year that deals with the UN general who tried to keep the peace. He plays a large role in the film, and the book just came out. I have not read it, but heard excellent reviews from NPR.

A Question of Reconciliation

2005-03-09T10:46:00.000-06:00

So I have been thinking alot about Christianity's legacy tying itself with Colonialism. I was researching for a paper, on colonialism in Africa and I came across this.

Onward Christian Soilders
Into Heathen Lands
Prayer Books in you Pockets
Rifels in Hands
Take the Happy Tidings
Where Trade can be Done
Spread the Peaceful Gospel
With the Gattling Gun

How do we as Christians reconcile our past. It seems like for too long we have just ignored this aspect and said, "oh well I didnt do it". Well I am sorry but, this is an issue we must address. Being at Knox the number one thing you hear about Christians is the atrocities associated in the name of God. It is an obstacle to the Gospel, and something needs to be done.

Illuminate.

2005-03-06T00:33:00.000-06:00

"A European village priest in medieval times once gathered his church for a special service. 'Come tonight,' he told them, 'for a special sermon on Jesus.' And they did. They came. To their surprise, however, no candles illuminated the sanctuary. They groped their way to the pews and took their seats. The priest was nowhere to be seen. But soon he was heard walking through the church toward the front. When he reached the crucifix that hung on the wall, he lit a candle. Saying nothing, he illuminated the pierced feet of Christ, then the side, then one hand, and then the other. Lifting the candle, he shed light on the blood-masked face and the crown of thorns. With a puff, he blew out the candle and dismissed the church. May we do nothing more. May we do nothing less."

- An excerpt from "It's Not About Me; Rescue from the Life We Thought Would Make Us Happy" by Max Lucado.

BAN PROPOSAL

2005-03-04T14:24:00.000-06:00

I propose that we ban Mr. Adam Jefferson Cox from Amandla. No participation means no admittance.

I wish I knew Mr. Peck

2005-03-04T14:03:00.000-06:00

Bring it on!...

"That which is false is unreal. The more clearly we see the reality of the world, the better equipped we are to deal with the world. The less clearly we see the reality of the world- the more our minds are befuddled by falsehood, misperceptions and illusion- the less we will be able to determine correct courses of action and make wise decisions...

Truth or reality is avoided when it is painful. We can revise our maps {i.e. our own course of action} only when we have the discipline to overcome that pain. To have such discipline we must be totally dedicated to truth. That is to say that we must always hold truth, as best we can determine it, to be more important, more vital to one's self-interest than our comfort (BAM!, YES!)... A life of total dedication to truth also means a life of willingness to be personally challenged... but the tendency to avoid challenge is so omnipresent in human beings that it can properly be considered as a characteristic of human nature."

Thank you Mr. Scott Peck.

Currently listening to: My Music on Yahoo (where you rate the music they throw at you, according to your preferences). Something horrible is on right now (Matt Nathanson)- it's going to get the 'never play again' vote.

Acceptance of the Unacceptable

2005-03-02T10:49:00.000-06:00

So over the past few days I have been throwing down thoughts surrounding the oppression of women with my friend Ana. While doing so, many questions have arisen in my mind surrounding cultures at large and how to deal with the inequality present in a foreign culture while still respecting its sovereignty. So let me first highlight some assumptions that will be used in formulating this argument against the oppression women in a foreign culture. I would assume these are givens, for all who read this but none-the-less let me articulate them. First women are of equal status to men. They hold the same value, and thus deserve equal respect, protection under the law, and reimbursement for services. To attain these goals they then must also be afforded equal opportunities for self-advancement. Secondly, culture is the totality or aggregate behavior, ethos, beliefs, expressions, and overall tone of a society. Given these values and assuming the universal application of them--it is my argument that oppression of a person based on gender is wrong, regardless of culture.

To remain somewhat unbiased let us assume for the moment that we have in country Y a society who's overall tone is oppressive to women. Our goal is the change this and create equality. My first challenge is that there seems to be a liberal value that many of us have which respects and seeks to respect a society, and to not interfere with its course or belief system. However, in doing so do we tolerate the intolerant? In other words, do we have a certain set of values for human rights that we hold as a measure in our own society, yet lower these principles and standards when looking internationally. I believe that this is wrong because I do believe in the idea that all people have certain inalieable rights, and that these rights are universal to the human experience. All people are equal, one does not hold more or less value than another. So if we hold equality of women as applicable only to our society, yet believe in the universalism of it, then our silence towards another cultures practices is both hypocritical and malignate to the human race.

It is possible to throw out a section of a society without disenfranchising it. Culture is an apparatus of human formation, it contains both good and bad elements. Thus if country Y were manifested as a human, we could say that their are certain elements of that persons character which are well, and others which could be improved or altered in order for them to become a better person. And yet they would remain the same person, just in a more developed state. Likewise in a society we see the same thing. A great example from our own history is the civil rights movement, and the issue of civil disobedience. King and others in the movement rejected the subjugation that minorities dealt with, and sought to bring about equality. They did not reject the United States, merely the oppression within it. They worked within the system, disobeying certain statutes yet recognized the authority and value of the society overall. They felt a deep love and commitment for this culture and sought to bring about its development, not destruction. So in throwing out a portion of our culture that was cancerous they in effect made us better, and we are still distinctly American.

Finally, how do we respect the sovereignty of a nation while still invoking this sort of change. For me it is a simple answer. We find women and men inside the society who are already working towards equality, and we align ourselves with them. We give them our support and aid them as possible, yet it remains their's. We don't live in their society, nor do we understand the specificities of it and as outsiders we don't have to live with the consequences of the actions. I feel this principle can be applied to a multitude of issues, and is one of the reason I was against the invasion of Iraq. We were invading and imposing our will. We should have been there in 96' supporting the popular uprising...Anyhow I digress. If people themselves don't propagate a movement I worry about its effectiveness. Without ownership a movement is less likely to penetrate a society and/or have lasting influence. Remember its passionate people who affect and change society, not ideas.

In closing, I would not like to summarize the above but rather to comment on two more personal points. First of all, as a man in this society I find the objectification of women disheartening. The propagation of this, largely by pop culture, I fear reverses many of the advances in equality since the 1920's. Granted women have received much more equality and opportunity, yet the idea that outside the professional setting they are material is disturbing and wrong. Secondly since this is Womens appreciation Month, I would like to recognize the many strong and capable women who have given me such respect for women. First of all my brilliant and loving Mother for raising and investing in me, my grandmother the worlds best listener, the Barrett-clan sister--whom I consider my own--for being strong and independent, Erin for not taking crap and having a voice, to Brenda Rindels for not being afraid to put me in my place, and most recently to Ana for spurring the thought that led to this essay, helping me formulate ideas, and for being such a strong and great friend.

Progressive Politics

2005-02-26T16:41:00.000-06:00

So must people who visit this site would identify themselves as progressive, liberal, moderate, old left....whatever. But my question today is what does this mean. What differentiates us from conservatives, not in idealogy but in behavior. Because if we are just another faction pushing our own agenda at the exprense of someone else's because we subjectivly say we are right, then if thats the case--I want nothing to do with it. Because here is the thing, as progressive's there are certain things we claim to adhere to. We claim to accept the opinion of everyone as valid and value academic discourse as a means to find the truth in an argument. We claim to care about those people who are the shit of the earth, and work towards thier empowerment. We value diversity and work to protect it. We see need to restrain humans in order to protect the enviroment. And these amoung others a good, but if we seek to do nothing but influence government to do these then we are wrong. Yes that is a step, but is how we are living reflecting these values. And if it is, then I think that sets us a great deal more different than conservatives. And yes finally I am proud to be a moderate liberal, after years of feeling ashamed of it because for some reason a Christian is supposed to be conservative, well thats bull crap. Its who I am, and it always has been. When I was young I was going around my nieghborhood knocking on doors and telling people to save to whales, well now I am doing the some thing, just using a different medium. So yes I am a bleeding heart liberal, fuck the rest (in the nicest way possible and only in love) and I am proud of it.

P.S. I apologize for my language, and for anything that may be offensive to a conservative reader, however I am excited and sometimes you gotta grasp your roots.

College is more dangerous than Heroin

2005-02-19T17:38:00.000-06:00

Now what is Bryan talking about here. College and Heroin on the same field of dangerousness. If that indeed is a word. Anyhow what I am talking about here is an important concept that I feel is crucial to ones academic carreer. If you go through college sucking up information, opinions, and ideas. It is indeed just as dangerous as heroin in altering your thought patterns. College should not be a time to assimulate knowledge into your self, but instead should be a time to do battle with it. When reading something, the first thing one should do is find out a bit about the author and what thier background is. This helps you understand the perspective the author may be conveying. Then while reading it dont, please dont take what is said at face value but please oh please think, yes think while reading. Wrestle with the concepts. In most of the reading I do I accept large portions of the material as truth or valuable, and discount other portions. So please shift through material and dont take academic work at face value, the very process of shifting is the core of becoming an academic.

Sorry if this all came out a bit confusing I was at a part till 7 this morning and a bit tired. Peace and I have another of more depth on the way.

Once again...

2005-02-12T20:23:00.000-06:00

I am broken, emptied like at attic.
Full of waste, i'm an consumed,
the king of holes, the sovereign addict.
Two times, my charms up ahead?
My lady, my dear,
my love, my friend.
No more, not anymore,
my hope is dead.
A simple desire,
turned gradual demise,
I thought it was my life for yours,
but it's your life taking mine.




Well well, here I am again. Returned to the same boat I escaped from a
year ago. It must be january. I hope this doesn't turn into an annual
happenstance. Hey, at least I'm growing up. Pain does indeed hurt, but
it doesn't kill, unless you let it. I've decided not to let it, and so
I've decided to turn my pain into passion. A very general word and
idea, I know - but also all inclusive. I'm writing a record, a book -
and pouring my heart out onto paper and prayers every day. If it was
only myself in this mess, I wouldn't make it. But, gladly there's
Something I can lean on. I can't trust myself, and I can't trust those
I deemed the closest to me and trustable. I can't trust to human love,
because it is faulty, it is selfish, it is fickle, it turns on a dime,
and it is not loyal. There is something bigger, purer, and more satisfying
that I can trust and surrender my
heart to, with perfect knowledge that I won't be forsaken. Don't get me
wrong, I hate the generalized word
"Christians" as much as everyone else does. I don't even call myself
one - I am simply a believer. I choose to believe, of my own
free will in Something Other. Not because I can't face reality, but
because I choose to. Not because of my faith, but despite it. Despite
my lack. Despite the fact that - as a human - it is impossible for me
to represent Christ on earth without tarnishing His Perfect Image. Yet
still I try, yet still I live. If it turns out I was wrong, at least i
lived for a Purpose, at least I lived with a Hope. If it turns out I
was right, there is unfathomable reward. It's a win-win. I know how
dark and desperate this world is: consumerism, money-grubbing
evangelists, greed, pride...I know our culture, our world has no hope
in and of itself. Our whole culture suffers from the ruining effect of
gradualism, and yet i buy into it.
That itself is a reason why i believe there's a God,
because
without hope there is nothing, and I won't choose to believe in a life
that consists of nothing. Sure, judge me - call me whatever you want; a
dreamer, someone who won't face the truth, tell me that I'm a weakling
that has to believe in something. I'll tell you that they're all true.
I am nothing, I have nothing good to offer, I am filthy with sin and
hypocrisy. At least I'm honest. But I believe in redemption. I believe
that truth overcomes. I believe that those few beautiful moments I see
of human compassion and forgiveness are worth all the murder, rape and
deceit I see, and point to a higher human destiny that we are called to, but
few venture in. I choose to love a God, I choose to be loved by God, I
choose to believe in a God, I choose to be redeemded by a God,
and I choose not to compromise my beliefs. I choose to
give myself completely over to the pursuit of my beliefs, and He in whom I believe.
This is passion, this is love. Despite the fact that my heart
is in thousands of shattered pieces, despite the fact that I am
abandoned and forgotten by those closest to me, despite the fact that I
am feeling overwhelming pain in an overwhelming situation, still I
cling. I cling to Hope, to Mercy, to Justice and Redemption, Love and
Forgiveness. I cling to the only thing I have left. There is nothing
else.

dope

2005-01-31T09:02:00.000-06:00

How flippin' dope. On Saturday I scored tickets to see U2 in Chicago this May. Amazing band, whose concerts I have heard are two hours of goosebumps. Can't wait. Just had to share the news.
Hope all is well to the rest of you in blogland. Not many people have been coming around here since the holidays.

Assimilation versus Integration

2005-01-17T22:32:00.000-06:00

Today was a national holiday commemerating the life and ideals of Dr. Martin Luther King. Knox sponsered a convecation in honor of the event, where speakers came and spoke on various issues relating therein. The speaches were on God and Social Movements, Knox's legacy, multicultural education, and the last was selected poems on Dr. King. It was all quite moving. I was nearly brought to tears on the God and Social Movements speach. So much of it rang true with me, and it was surprising to hear a message in such a form at a very left-of-center, humanistic institution such as Knox.

However hearing all this has spurred some thought. Malcom X's main critisism of Dr. Kings policy of integration is that it would only lead to assimilation, that is minorities would be sucked in the the culture of the majority, losing there cultural roots. Now, while I am not an anti-integrationist and on the contrary see integration as a very rich and positive achievement, I feel there is a certain degree of validity to Malcom X's statements. To a certain extent with education, and integration a culture gets assimulated into the mass of america. I for one am almost 100% swedish, yet retain only a small degree of swedish culture and heritage. Are we a salad bowl, or a cup of soup? I for one see the salad as more enriching to society.

Here is another question, though we are as a whole losing our cultural roots, and may experience a degree of nakedness. We are becoming something else. American, and hold on a second before we jump on the bandwagon to bash american culture. I am not propegating capitalist imperialism here, I am talking about something deeper. American, I dont know what that will come to mean, but it is unfolding.

albums that got ya the past year

2005-01-04T15:05:00.000-06:00

OK, I think thtat this might generate some replies.
The game: taking NO LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES TO THINK AND RESPOND, list your favorite albums from the last year (maening last year, it did not ahve to come out in the last year, you just discovered or appreciated it in the last year)

mine:
Aqualung (from the Wicker Park soundtrack, I've yet to get ahold of their CD)
blindside 'About a Burning Fire'
Over the Rhine 'Ohio' (stunning double CD) and 'Live, Changes Come'
Maroon 5 'Songs About Jane'
Kanye West 'College Dropout'
U2 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb' (suprisingly as good, probably better than their previous CD)
Switchfoot 'Beautiful Letdown' (not a letdown)
Bob Marley- any album will do

That's all that comes to me in the 5 allowed minutes.
Everyone have a good afternoon and evening. FYI- there is a premier of U2's new video during halftime of the bowl game this evening, if that interests you.
Good pizza is always good and Dasani water is pleasantly pleasant.

quote

2004-12-30T08:11:00.000-06:00

Where you live should not decide
Whether you live or whether you die
-Bono (of U2)

Viva la Ross

2004-12-28T21:30:00.000-06:00

Mr. Ross from Kansas City joins us. He is a good jolly bloke and I love the kid with tears in my arse. Give him a high five or a hang loose whatever your style. Just remember that his girlfriend is tougher that I and a whole set of midget dwarves from minas megadeath. So watch your back, keep the fly buttoned, and give someone a hug. Peace

The Draft

2004-12-28T20:28:00.000-06:00

A few weeks back I read "The Things They Carried", by Tim O'Brien. The books is largely about how Vietnam vets carried much more than weapons and required goods. They also carried memories, dreams, and fears. These wieghts not only were with them on the battle front, but came home with them when the war was over. The book is a fiction, because even though they are stories based on fact, and actual experiences of Tim in Vietnam, he changes them to help the reader more understand the individual situations. A very interesting read, and very well written.

A major theme is in regards to the draft. When the draft was implimented and it finally cast its die on Tim, he comtemplated dodging it and going to Canada. So much so that he found himself a few feet from its edge. He didnt want to go for many reasons, but mostly because he was scared. However Tim turned back and went to Vietnam. Why, largely because Tim was ashamed of what others may think of him. It was what he ought to do. It was his duty to his country, so forth and so on. He didnt want to fight, and he didnt believe in what was happening, yet he went. He took up arms, and in the same act agreed to kill and deystoy others lives, because it was what he 'ought' to do.

The draft raises serious question with me. First of all it raises a question of constitutionality. The fourteenth amendment of the U.S. constitution states: "niether slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the part shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Now the 14th amendment abolished slavery we all know that, however the part on involuntary servitude raises interest with me. The draft seems to nudge a little too close to this for comfort.

Next, It seems largely wrong and converse for a society, who values giving its society such choices such as education, occupation, and mobility of the social stucture to require these same citizens to fight. A volunteer corp would seem much more aligned with such ideals.

I have gone on for a bit so I will finish with this. Arguably there are times when a country such as ours would need a force larger than that which would be supplied by regular volunteers. I see to possibilities. One the conditions become clear that there is a need, and danger is iminent and citizens volunteer. Two, the countrys other option is to spend the time and energy convincing and educating its people why it needs such a force. They still volunteer.

One should never do anything as serious as war becuase you feel others want you to. It is a serious matter, involving dire consequences both to individuals and long term geo-political climates. So what do you do in such a case as a draft? That rests on your own personal integrity. hint hint I propose CD

PUTTING ACTION TO THE SOCIAL ISSUE TALK

2004-12-28T09:49:00.000-06:00

It seems that everyone who is part of amandla has concern for social issues by the way we talk. Now let's put "action to the passion." As you all should know, there was a horrific tsunami that has devastated Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar, Bhutan, Bangladesh, India, and Somalia. Death tolls are climbing into the 40,000s and this disaster is being called the costliest disaster ever. Talk of possible epidemic outbreak is arising.

Being "socially concious" is about a way one lives and contributes, not the way one thinks or talks.

I am challenging each one of you to donate at least $20 to the Red Cross towards relief. All you have to do is go to redcross.org and click on donate on the lift side of the screen. Prove to yourself that you're not ruled by money by giving it away, even if you feel you can't give the $20.

Don't let this event be a news story. Let it be a reality that you deal with and make a contribution to.

Welcome

2004-12-24T23:21:00.000-06:00

Adam Cox aka Adam Jefferson has joined us here at Amandla, he is an awesome guy and is probably the most passionate guy I have ever met in regards to the bible. I look forward to reading his posts since he is a good friend of mine. For those of you who may know him, it is noteworthy to mention that he has just been invited to Finland to speak at a conference there, so keep him in your prayers. He will only be recieving like 2 hours of daylight.

In Response

2004-12-23T15:42:00.000-06:00

In response to Tom's questions in a pervious post regarding the United Nations. First of all I feel that it would be highly erroneous to pull out of the United Nations, not only would it alienate the United States further from the international community, and increase ill will. It would also be problematic in the sense that if the U.S. is to provide leadership in world, the UN is seen as the legitimate arena to do so.

Now onto the issue of soveriegnty. This is tricky because it is not a black and white issue. Is the US soreign, yes, however are there times when we must forfiet such soveriegnty to enable greater cooperation, yes. Now of course there is a danger in this, becuase as you mentioned Tom some may aim to hurt the United States or use such power to promote their own self interests. And in such instances we should use discrestion and wisdom to do what is rights and in the long term interests of ourselves and the world. But I being one to promote the interntional system say it is worth such risks. This is something new we are embarking on in terms of government, it is controversial, risking and full of problems but long term I hope in will yield great results. If you go back in your thinking a few hundred years to when the idea of a republic began to become popular government over common monarch and aristocracy systems there was much hesitancy and trasition. It was not widely accepted that democracy was the best alternative. However this is what we now hold strong to. And in that same spirit of community, deliberation, discussion, and compromise that we find so forthright throughout democratic institutions, we are attempting to forge an International system. However just as our forefathers were leary of the risks of democracy that involved: mob rule, factions, tyranny over minorities by the strong, and stupidity winning over intellect, we must be careful to gaurd against these in an international setting. The US is the holds the most sway in the world both economically and milatarily, and as a nation who holds such truths of community to be paramount we should be deliberate in our stance in the UN.
Government is continually changing and is really just a big experiment, thats why Tom, you and I are in such unique positions, our study of government isnt absolute but requires an openness that I gladly share with you.

On the issue of Israel, I admit that the UN does perphaps promote a more belligerant attitude towards Israel. But I will save my commentary on Israel and Palestine for another day, however one may guess that I do lean towards the side of Palestine. Maybe Tom that would be fun: for sometime in the future for you and I to each write consecutive articles on the whole mid-east issue.

Always a pleasure

P.S. for you other internet bombkins out there please please read the MLK stuff it would benifit you greatly and the sacrafice of 15 mins. is truly very little.

listen up girls, here's my top ten movies of 2004 list

2004-12-21T14:36:00.000-06:00

OK, this list has not been long and thought out, like a writing on Dr. King. It's just a list I quickly came up with. Maybe you can join in the fun by making your own Top 10 Movies of 2004- in less than half an hour, in RANDOM ORDER. Here's mine:

Spanglish
The Village
The Passion of the Christ
Supersize Me
Ray
Friday Night Lights
Napolean Dynomite (sp?)
King Arthur
Return of the King (cheer nerds, cheer!)
Wicker Park (and a soundtrack to match!)

runners up- Luether (this is a great one, check it out... maybe I should have put it in the 10), and The Terminal

Oh, comments and lists, COME!

Merry Christmas everyone! Buy yourself a gift for Christmas. Sometimes it is good to giveth to thyself. -Travis

About That

2004-12-21T11:26:00.000-06:00

So about the last post being hella long, I highly highly encourage you to read them anyway, it really shouldnt take much time, and trust me it is excellent content, and would be well worth your time. In my opinion some of the greatest political writings of modern america.

Dr. King

2004-12-20T19:01:00.000-06:00

I am currently reading, Martin Luther King Jr.'s autobiography and I am reminded of my two favorite writings of his: The Letter from Birmingham Jail, and the Beyond Vietnam Speech. I was thinking of what to put in this blog and I couldnt think of anything more appropo than to put these two in. So if you have never read them, enjoy, if you have read them before I am sure you understand why I enjoy them so much. The Letter from Birmigham jail is an excellent apology for civil disobence.

Sorry that I havent thrown anything down for a while, I have been busy in KC and with work. But dont worry I have something in the works, until then chew on the Dr.

Beyond Vietnam:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Letter from Birmingham Jail:

April 16, 1963

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

As in so many past experiences, our hopes bad been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic with with-drawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-oat we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to 6e solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some-such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who 'has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Walleye gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America k freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if .you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in pubic. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face Jeering, and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My fleets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he k alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

The Lie

2004-12-12T15:39:00.000-06:00

Alright friends, I came upon this quote and it really rang true with me:
"art is a lie that makes us realize the truth" --Pablo Picasso

For this one I want to open it more up to you guys. What pieces of art, any medium, have helped you realize something, or have significantly impacted your life? Alright kids, take it from there, expand, contract do whatever you want with it, I will answer latter, but I didn't want to influence anyone's answer for this.

Simple Economics

2004-12-08T17:07:00.000-06:00

I have often heard it cited that a presidential election is often won on the basis of how the the economy is doing. If it is doing well the incumbant is re-elected and if it is doing poorly, the challenger is elected. And in most elections the economy is found to be the most important issue among voters. In this previous election for instance, the economy was only 2 points off from being the most important factor, second to moral values.

This confuses me, because in actuality the President has very little to do with the economy directly. Sure he can veto a budget and provide leadership on a budget. However it is the Legislature that handles fiscal policy directly and the Fed that handles monetary policy, two very large factors on the state of the economy. I wont give my opinion on which is more powerful, I will leave that for another day. Anyhow, this combined with factors such as consumer spending, capital investment, foriegn involvement, and the markets make the economy a volatile place, where the president has very very little direct control over. Sure he has influence but is that enough for the economy to be the #1 issue. Issues where the president does have direct control over such as foreign policy and the agenda's of his cabinets are marginalized in elections. Even an issue such as abortion, again an issue that is much more in the hands of congress and the courts, becomes the sole issue for people. I feel that it is good to look at all the issues surrounding a president, but why the economy is the #1 issue is beyond me. Sometimes I feel America just needs a scapegoat.

And if you look at the numbers for November the real GDP, that is GDP adjusted for inflation, was up 4.8% for that quarter, the previous quarter it had been up 3.3%. The numbers for unemployement were good as well at 5.4%, down from 6.1% the previous month. So fairly close to perfect, considering most economist consider 4.5-5% full employment of an economy. So all in all a good economic situation for the President as he went into the election. The only negative factors were our trade deficit which really only affects the value of the dollar, and the huge increase Bush has made in our National Debt, from his policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending. This however does not affect the average citizen directly, as it only takes away funds from the discretionary budget to pay interest--its more of a long range problem. So economically speaking the numbers that affect the everyday citizen were good, and Bush was re-elected, unfortunaley I may add.

Administrative Note

2004-12-08T16:52:00.000-06:00

As some of you may have been able to guess. Amandla has grown a bit. I never intended for Amandla to be personal, but more so to be a discussion board regarding politics, Jesus, and social issues. So Amandla at this point is myself, Bryan the administrator,Kicking it from Des Moines is Erin as Roxanne, saddling up from Kansas City is my best friend Paul, he loves Iowa and he loves the Hawkeyes its Travis from Marshalltown, and rockin it from right field is a good friend of mine from Knox, Tom. Soon we also may have Adam Cox the crazy theologian join us. If you would like to join, or know someone who would they can email me at bdale@knox.edu. My only request is to respect one another and keep away from personal stuff, and more to the issues. If you dont know how to post, all you need to do is go to www.blogspot.com enter in your username and password and it should be explanitory from there. Peace Out.

Che

2004-12-04T00:40:00.000-06:00

The film, Motorcycle Diaries is based on the book by Ernesto "Che" Guevera. The film catalogues the travels of Che and a friend around South America. This pre-dates the revolution in Cuba which he has now become known for. It is a great film, especially when placed in context, and I especially enjoyed its use of black and white stills to speak of the change occurring in Che's outlook on life. I highly recommend seeing it, and then listen to some "Rage Against the Machine" afterwards, haha.

Overall Motorcycle Diaries political voice is suprisingly subtle. Yet despite this it provides unique insight into the development of one of the 20'th centuries most controversial leaders. This is what I would like to focus on for a moment. Put aside any previous thoughts you have about the Che, good or bad, because despite his communist tendencies, I believe that at the core of Che's life is something that is very important to dwell on.

Che during his travels came face to face with the realty of the incredible injustice facing indigenous, and other marginalised peoples in South America. He was faced with a choice, to choose action and do whatever was in his power to correct it, possibly facing dire consequences to his own life. Or to do as most of us do, to recognize a problem and walk away--saving ourselves at the expense of society.

Mundanly speaking, when one comes across peers making fun of a person and denouncing that individuals human dignity, does one speak up or remain sheepish. All to often, I must confess I have erroneously remained silent. I know that I face circumstances similarly everyday, on many fronts: religiously, socially, and personal experiences. And what I am trying to forge out of my self, with the aid of much grace, is to live the principled life. To live by the cross; to protect the environment; to stand up for the marginalised, those whom the world has seemingly shat upon; to promote the arts; and to know love and express it. This is what is at the core of who I am. They are my core beliefs and those who have lived by their cores have shaken the world. They are dangerous men and women before an ocean of graves. Most will never be known to you or I, or the annals of history, but others we know and value such as Che, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Mandela, King, and many many more.

So for whatever Che did right or wrong, in the various revolutions he took part in, I honor him. For he came face to face with a great conflict and asked himself , 'what can I do?'. And that takes much courage and selflessness.

A word on Freedom

2004-12-02T15:51:00.000-06:00

I have a confession. I hate the word freedom, as used in American political circles. I see it as nothing more than a propaganda tool used to sway eager citizens to some lofty idyllic notion. Can one even really define freedom? The only true freedom is in Jesus Christ. However politically it does not exist. All nations grant their citizens certain liberties and all require their citizens to follow a certain syntax or law. That is government.

If you look at the word 'freedom' in any speech given by an American politician, it would be quite appropo for you to instead substitute 'democracy'. Or more specifically that of a republic, but I digress. By using the word freedom it sends a signal to the American public, telling them that we posses something superior and quite unique, building in them what I would designate as unhealthy patriotism. But are Americans truly more free than say our European counterparts? In Germany for instance I have the 'freedom' to drive as fast as I would like on the autobahn. However unlike the Germans, I have the 'freedom' to choose my political beliefs without fear of punishment from my affiliated party.

The real danger in using 'freedom' as a term in American politics, is that studies have shown that the American public is quite ignorant and impressionable in terms of international awareness. Thus if we designate ourselves as free and another nation as not, we have bypassed a quitessential element of a republic--descention.

A Given Thanks

2004-11-25T21:30:00.000-06:00

Today is the day of thanksgiving and there are many things that I am thankful for. My friends and family, education, health, and so forth. But most importantly I am thankful for my God, and his love, wisdom, and patience.

This Thanksgiving I have been thinking about being a Christian, and how difficult it truly can be, sometimes even seemingly impossible. We fight for our time of prayer, fight to love one another as we should, and fight to keep the fight and hope in us. And its God's grace that holds us in, and pushes us forward. So this Thanksgiving I dedicate especially to the saints of the world. Those men and women, many who are nameless the world but all are truly heroes, who keep the fight and press forward towards the goal of heaven.

Because we can talk about the problems of this world and what solutions we have contrived, but it all comes down to Jesus. This world is empty and without hope. It needs a savior and a lover. And their will always be conflict in this world, because we don't understand how to love how God loves. The more I live my life and observe the lives of others, the more I come to believe Toser that the most important thing about a person is how they view God. So to those saints, who are in love with God, I am thankful for the path and example you set. And to those who have helped guide my own personal journey. I am thankful for you.

Is there an Alternative?

2004-11-23T15:24:00.000-06:00

So finals week if over and I can now spend some time placing some thoughts in this blog. So today I ask, is there an Alternative?

The United Nations was created after World War II in San Franciso. It was intended to foster peace and International cooperation. The world had just recently experienced unprecidented destruction, propelled by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and many felt that this happened due to the inadequcies of the League of Nations, whom had been too passive and weak to stand up to the budding dictatorships. The UN was designed to fix the problems surrounding The League of Nations, and never again was the world supposed to see such catosrophic indignity dealt to mankind.

However the UN has not been without its porblems. The most significant case is the genocide in Rwanda. In the early 90's the President of Rwanda was assasinated. The Presidential gaurd, some 30,000 strong, blamed the Tutsis ethnic group. The result was the makings of a genocide. The United Nations got involved, but pulled out in a few days, due to 10 soliders being killed. Over the course of 100 days 800,000 Rwandans were murdered. The most intense genocide in human history. That was 1994.

Currently in Sudan there is a genocide against black africans, in the Dafur region. Since last year around 50,000 have been killed and some 1.4 million have become refugees, if my numbers are correct. The United Nations has only issued sanctions.

It seems that in recent history the UN has proved to be too weak to handle international crisises. This is not the only problem facing the United Nations however. In the realm of International Law, we are seeing states act as rouges of the international community, and the inability of the UN to enforce law. Now I am not only talking about obvious states such as former Iraq and N. Korea. But even amoung the more 'civil' nations. The single largest offender of international law is Israel in regard to its settlements in the west bank, golan heights, and gaza strip. In 1988 the United States was convicted of terrorism for its involvement in nicaragua, a accusation which the US has ignored. How can there be international cooperation, if states are not willing to submit to such a community.

Other problems involve UN structure. We have on the UN human rights commission: Sudan, Libya, and Cuba. All states with atrocious human rights records. On the UN security council are five permanet members: United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, and the United States. These countries all have the power to veto the actions of the security council. This really comes down to soverignty. My worry is that this enables certain countries to look out for thier own interests, instead of acting in a way more benificial to the international community. At times I worry that the UN requires a maturity of the world that it does not in fact posses.

Now dont get me wrong, I support the United Nations and even more so the idea of International Community. Those of you who know me understand that I see myself a citizen of the world before I see myself as an American. I am even an International Relations major. But I cannnot let my tendencies towards certian things blind me of thier problems. The UN has a marvelous ability to spark dialouge, highlight areas of conflict, place pressure on nations, and has some very good success stories. But it does have problems and may need an overhaul. I would like it to become stronger, require stricter attributes for membership, and have more accountability for member nations. I hope that it would be come more demoratic, and thus international law will become more legitamite.

So I turn it over to you, what does the future hold for the UN, and what can be done to fix it. Or do we need an alternative, and what does that look like. God Bless--Peace out--Clentch Fists

P.S. I strongly feel that the Rwandan Genocide has been largely overlooked and that we can learn much from looking at it. So here is a great resource for you to chew on for a bit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/rwanda/default.stm

Middle East

2004-11-13T15:09:00.000-06:00

As many of you are aware, Yasser Arafat, president of the Palestinian Authority died earlier this week. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is key to stability in the Middle East and perhaps even the International Community. With Arafats death I have many concerns and hopes. My hope is that with Arafat's death will also die the Fatah movement, a movement that focuses on the destruction and abolishment of the Israeli state. If the Fatah movement, which Arafat began, is weakened I hope that it may allow for further dialogue and compromise. Which I hope, may lead to the creation of two sovereign and peaceful states. On the flip side the death of Arafat could further weaken the Palestinian Authority and allow for the strengthing of Milatant groups in Palestine. Particularly, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. This I believe will be heightened by Israel pulling out of the Gaza Strip, the main area of Hamas.

The conflict in the Middle East requires a maturity I fear that either side does not possess. As it progresses each side increasingly views the other side less as human and abstractly as the enemy. I believe we can see this by looking at the Intifada's. The First Intifada (89' - 93') was characterized by rocks being thrown. In the current Intifada it is being defined by a wall being erected, effectively placing the Palestinians in ghetto's, and suicide bombings. Will the increase in violence continue to shift moderates on either side to increasingly militant stances? As to the role of the US and the UN, I have always been of the mindset that the leadership and solutions should come within the two factions. The Arab world views the US as being too pro-Israeli and the Western World and Israel view the UN as being pro-Palestinian. I would like to thank my Father for sparking this, and for those of you looking for more information I would suggest: www.bitterlemons.org which allows for Israeli and Palestinian views on issues (allows for some objectivity) and for some general history on the conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict. Enjoy and keep chewing.

Culture

2004-11-12T16:39:00.000-06:00

What am I? I am a W.A.S.P. (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant). The great conquering, assimilating, genocidal society; I don’t have culture in the way others do, and our history I am ashamed of. I feel naked.
It seems to me that my culture is the purveyor of materialism, selfishness, and ignorance. We in an effort to imitate the Romans seem intent into turning demos’ attention back to the circus maximus.

Can my culture be reconciled?

To that end I cannot answer. All I can do is hope, and work towards that greater tomorrow by first reconciling myself, and than by a life of example have some influence. For my past is secure, my history set, but tomorrow is an open door.