Author: asitoughttobemagazine

MISHANA HOSSEINIOUN

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

SEX PISTOLS & THE POLIS:

THE WEAPON OF THE FEMININE IN ARISTOPHANES’ LYSISTRATA (411 BC)

by Mishana Hosseinioun

The seductive powers of speech are exhausted quite literally by Aristophanes in his Sex Farce, Lysistrata. When it comes to introducing a politically controversial play such as Lysistrata into an otherwise stern, patriarchal society of Athens in 411 BC, Aristophanes understands the essential role that sex and humor play in theater, above and beyond mere rationality of discourse. Ironically, absurdity is not only integral to Aristophanes’ conscious effort to garner popular acceptance for his play, it is that which the fictional female characters in his play deploy in an equally unexpected, logical manner in order to bring the belligerent men to their senses and knees—the former, by way of rousing laughter in the bellies of his audience, not in a way dissimilar to the latter’s technique of rousing that which lies slightly below the belt. In demonstrating the ways in which irrationality can work hand in hand with reason, Lysistrata accesses the untapped potential that permeates traditional stereotypes once aimed at stripping women of their agency and any claims to rationality. The women in this play who are shown to cleverly excavate power from the roles that are assigned to them by men, namely those of caretakers and sexual objects, in the end take it into their own hands to act as the true productive members of their society.

Throughout the length of his play, Aristophanes calls into question traditional views of females as the inferior, irrational sex, as Aristotle would put it, by carefully and comically reappropriating certain female stereotypes. The labels that might have previously worked to the disadvantage of women, Lysistrata redeploys as tools of agency. For instance, in the very first scenes, all the while reinforcing stereotypes that depict women as unintelligent and vain, Kalonike sarcastically asks Lysistrata what “mere women can do that is intelligent or noble when all they do is sit around the house looking pretty, wearing saffron dresses and makeup and Kimberic gowns and canoe-sized slippers”(45). In response, Lysistrata unflinchingly remarks that these very female attributes which she then goes on to relist and embellish for emphasis as “fancy little dresses, perfumes and slippers, rouge and see-through underwear,” are in fact, “exactly what she thinks will rescue Greece;” still, while Lysistrata cannot expect to convince Kalonike or the others on the spot of an argument that still does not hold water, she will spend the remainder of the play building valid defense, both figuratively and literally. After all, only Lysistrata has the audacity and the vision to imagine these frivolous female qualities as serving towards strategic ends. Thus begins an entire revolutionary movement hiding under the wing of one big sexual joke, on its way to disprove the trivial status of the female voice in matters of the Athenian state. As weak or marginalized as the female gender may be, Lysistrata seems to say, it is still capable of making up for the occasional lapses in male rationality, with what little it has at its disposal, even see-through underwear.

“So shouldn’t the women have gotten here by now?” Lysistrata proceeds to point out in an indignant tone, referring to the women whom she anticipates to round up and brief on her strategy for policing the men of Athens. “My friend, you’ll see that they’re typically Athenian: everything they do, they do too late. There isn’t even a single woman here from the Paralia, nor from Salamis,” she later adds. When Lysistrata here complains to Kalonike of the perpetual tardiness of the Athenian women, she confronts the first of the many obstacles that come in the way of mobilizing the women for her peace campaign. Kalonike confirms Lysistrata’s complaint by stating, “oh, them: I just know they’ve been up since dawn, straddling their mounts,” alluding to the women of Athens engaged in risqué sexual positions, and simultaneously substantiating the societal view of women as reckless, sex-starved creatures. Nevertheless, Kalonike’s statement ironically contains a window of promise as it almost innocently foreshadows Lysistrata’s preceding prophecy that women will rise to the top, using their sexuality as a method to harness the men and control their irrational drive for war. In this moment, Aristophanes demonstrates a willingness to capitalize on the many diverse utilizations and benefits of the so-called missionary position as a way of perhaps extending the influence of women to spheres beyond the domicile.

Alike a lieutenant recruiting members into an army, or more specifically, a revolutionary, initiating a chant, Lysistrata requires the women to take, what appears at first glance, a most foolish sounding oath: “No man of any kind, lover or husband—shall approach me with a hard-on. I can’t hear you!”(50). In obliging all women to repeat the promise to deny men of sex until they agree to depose of their arms, and then to seal in their oath with a drink of boar’s blood from a consecration bowl, Lysistrata exhibits an almost cultic, methodical, approach to galvanizing support—a technique traditionally reserved for men. In other words, Lysistrata’s organizational efforts are not lacking in calculation and reason, though they may still be abundant with elements of absurdity (e.g. “hard-on”…). The oath continues, “at home in celibacy shall I pass my life—wearing a party-dress and makeup—so that my husband will get as hot as a volcano for me—but never willingly shall I surrender to my husband”(51). While one utterance is more ludicrous than the next, each still seems to follow fairly logically from the last. Even Kalonike agrees to take this oath by repeating these very lines, when only moments earlier she had dismissed the notion of party-dresses and makeup as amounting to anything constructive or beneficial in Athenian state affairs. It can be said, therefore, that Lysistrata has satisfactorily completed the task of persuading her fellow female comrades to join in on the effort, and is left but with the charge of collectively persuading the men to submit to more peaceful alternatives; but first, she will need to build an Ethos on behalf of the female movement.

In an onstage debate between the women and the Magistrate, Aristophanes constructs the female Ethos and substantially weakens that of its counterpart by staging a literal transferal of one sex’s characteristics onto the other. “If the veil’s an obstacle, here, take mine, it’s yours, put it on your face [she removes her veil and puts it on the Magistrate’s head], and then shut up!”(61), Lysistrata assertively retorts after the Magistrate explains patronizingly that he would “rather die than shut up for her, a damned woman, with a veil on her face too.” Aristophanes cleverly uses this combination of absurd and almost juvenile actions, words and props as a rhetorical device for constructing meaningful and persuasive characters—just one more example of the compatibility of the rational and irrational. The gesture of placing the veil on the Magistrate’s head alone is not only telling of Lysistrata’s disavowal of negative female stereotypes, it symbolizes the act of mapping femininity and thus weakness onto the male body, while in turn reinforcing masculinity on her own side. “And take this sewing-basket too,” the first old woman adds, to which Lysistrata tacks-on, “now hitch up your clothes and start sewing; chew some beans while you work. War shall be the business of womenfolk!”  The transmission of responsibilities between the sexes, beyond that of sewing and housework, is at its most dramatic when it calls for the ceding of control to women on issues of war. In this utter reversal and exchange of gender roles, Lysistrata can be said to be manually weaving a masculine Ethos for women—one that necessarily demands more respect from her audience, and which thus renders the women all the more persuasive. For feats such as these, she is fittingly dubbed the “manliest of all women” (80) by the male Chorus-leader, towards the conclusion of the play.

As any rhetorician well knows, Ethos is not entirely effective without mixing in a dash of Pathos here and a pinch of Logos there. In an almost chain-reaction resulting from the foregoing minor victory of Lysistrata and the first old woman, the rest of the women speak out passionately in chorus, affirming, “oh yes! I’ll dance with unflagging energy; the effort won’t weary my knees. I’m ready to face anything with women courageous as these: they’ve got character, charm and guts. They’ve got intelligence and heart that’s both patriotic and smart”(61). After the debasing of the Magistrate only just before, this collective declaration seems somehow justified even in its taboo interchange of feminine and male attributes to designate their female compatriots. The women, having accumulated more authority and legitimacy by snowball-effect along the path of this debate, are now situated in a more prime, and possibly more persuasive position than before. What is more, as the women here remark as much on the intelligence as on the charm and heart of the Athenian dames, they perhaps seek to counterbalance traditional misrepresentations of women as mere emotional beings, and in doing so, effectively help to rewrite the female legacy in its as-yet, unsung form; moments such as these which invite laughter and disbelief via their bending of sacred gender lines, are exemplary of the kind of Aristophenesian rhetoric that is aware of itself—and thus rational—in its use of absurdity.

Whether acting out of revenge, out of mere chauvinistic habit, out of envy for her ability to craftily build an argument for the women’s side, or all of the above, the Magistrate continues to mock Lysistrata as the debate continues. Even after asking her to justify how she “really thinks her way with wool and yarnballs and spindles can stop a terrible crisis”(62) adding that it is “brainless,” Lysistrata does not for a moment back down from her own defense; rather, she calmly resumes her visual demonstration with a ball of yarn in her hand to represent the polis, and as such, clearly lays out an intelligent, step-by-step approach to managing the polis’ business. Lysistrata, alike Homer’s wise Penelope, wife of Odysseus, weaving a persuasive story on one level and a figurative cloak on another to achieve similar ends, is anything but thoughtless in her analogy-making before the Magistrate. As one example, when Lysistrata advises “[…] card the wool into a basket of unity and goodwill, mixing in everyone,” she displays an unapologetic and shameless attitude about her use of a old ball of yarn to make what is an otherwise valid and thoughtful interpretation of state needs.  Such can be seen as yet another instance where Aristophanes seizes the opportunity to display the female Logos as capable of spinning something substantial out of something ostensibly futile.

As becomes evident in the choral debate that follows, Lysistrata’s wool analogy is not expressed in vain and shows evidence of having perhaps haunted the men for quite some time; in fact, it has apparently managed to take a significant toll on the men’s collective psyche after all, despite having being originally rejected and scoffed at. The “wooly” residue of Lysistrata’s words show up almost as the equivalent of a Freudian-slip by today’s standards in a comment made by the men’s leader, when he carps, “it’s shocking, you know, that they’re lecturing the citizens now, and running their mouths—mere women!—about brazen shields […] Actually the plot they weave against us, gentlemen, aims at tyranny” (64). The use of the verb, weave, is noteworthy, especially as it here departs from its previous association with the trivial act of knitting (i.e. ball of yarn) and treads into a more charged epistemological domain where it links up with consequential words such as tyranny and plot, which necessarily imply rational thought on the part of the women. For what appears to be the first time in the play, the men openly recognize the women’s use of Logos or logic (i.e. in giving counsel, weaving a plot etc.)—which is also presumably the source of the perceptible fear in the leader’s voice.

In the words of Lysistrata, reflecting upon the successful completion of the female campaign to bring back good sense into the Athenian polis, “it’s an easy thing to do if you get them [men] when they’re hot for it”(81). The marriage of Pathos and Logos, the inherent interconnectivity of the irrational and rational, the important role that even marginalized groups such as women can play in a society, could not be more accurately expressed all at once in these lines. Where any unpatriotic voice, regardless of sex, is unwelcome and deemed a threat to ancient Greek society, Lysistrata becomes a safe locale where Aristophanes can push his feminist and anti-war agendas. The only thing that can save both the bold, dissident women in Lysistrata from beheading, and the audacious Aristophanes from being labeled a rebel, is their ability to disassociate the taboo of political dissent from frowns and associate it instead with the chuckles inspired by the crossing of sexual taboo lines. Seeing that Aristophanes is well in tune with the Ethos of his society, sensitive to the political climate of the times and equally adept of seizing the supreme moment to deploy particular discursive practices (i.e. Kairos), it can be said that he is also a self-conscious rhetorician in his own right, cleverly articulating his message through the fictional characters of his drama. Still, where women practically have no direct say in actual society, the stage of Lysistrata becomes a realm in which the female voice can exist without posing a real threat to male power, as it is uttered through the rouged lips of male actors, and kept under check by the quill of a male playwright who promises to safely return the men and women to the shelves where he first found them—but not before he is done playing.

–Mishana Hosseinioun is a Drafter with the 2048 Project: Humanity’s Agreement to Live Together at the UC Berkeley Law School and a doctoral candidate in International Relations at the University of Oxford, England.

All page references are to Three Plays by Aristophanes: Staging Women. Translated by Jeffrey Henderson. London: Routledge, 1996.


More writings by Mishana Hosseinioun:

Photography and Other Modes of Crying at Your Own Funeral

Black on White: Reading Fanon Against Mapplethorpe

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Phallocentric Economics, Triangular Trade & Other Shady Business

Excerpt: The Sorrows of Young Werther

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

Poster’s Note:  For much of my life I’ve struggled to understand human nature. Insights into my own drives, feelings, thoughts and actions increase as I better understand others, and my ability to love, forgive and empathize grow as a result. People who open themselves to the world with the written word have therefore been essential for my survival. I’d like to share some of my thoughts on the topic of being human, as well those of far better artists who have been particularly inspirational.

The following excerpt is from a fictional work written by Goethe in 1787 as a series of diary entries by a young man. It struck me not for the solution the narrator eventually chooses (read the book!) but for the clarity and honesty with which he expresses thoughts that, in me, vaguely bubble up while I’m busy “painting my prison walls”.


“The Sorrows of Young Werther”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

May 22nd.

That the life of man is but a dream, many a man has surmised heretofore; and I, too, am everywhere pursued by this feeling. When I consider the narrow limits within which our active and inquiring faculties are confined; when I see how all our energies are wasted in providing for mere necessities, which again have no further end than to prolong a wretched existence; and then that all our satisfaction concerning certain subjects of investigation ends in nothing better than a passive resignation, whilst we amuse ourselves painting our prison-walls with bright figures and brilliant landscapes, — when I consider all this, Wilhelm, I am silent. I examine my own being, and find there a world, but a world rather of imagination and dim desires, than of distinctness and living power. Then everything swims before my senses, and I smile and dream while pursuing my way through the world.

All learned professors and doctors are agreed that children do not comprehend the cause of their desires; but that the grown-up should wander about this earth like children, without knowing whence they come, or whither they go, influenced as little by fixed motives, but guided like them by biscuits, sugar-plums, and the rod, — this is what nobody is willing to acknowledge; and yet I think it is palpable.

I know what you will say in reply; for I am ready to admit that they are happiest, who, like children, amuse themselves with their playthings, dress and undress their dolls, and attentively watch the cupboard, where mamma has locked up her sweet things, and, when at last they get a delicious morsel, eat it greedily, and exclaim, “More!” These are certainly happy beings; but others also are objects of envy, who dignify their paltry employments, and sometimes even their passions, with pompous titles, representing them to mankind as gigantic achievements performed for their welfare and glory. But the man who humbly acknowledges the vanity of all this, who observes with what pleasure the thriving citizen converts his little garden into a paradise, and how patiently even the poor man pursues his weary way under his burden, and how all wish equally to behold the light of the sun a little longer, — yes, such a man is at peace, and creates his own world within himself; and he is also happy, because he is a man. And then, however limited his sphere, he still preserves in his bosom the sweet feeling of liberty, and knows that he can quit his prison whenever he likes.


The excerpt is from public domain text available at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2527.

The original German text can also be found at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2407.

For more on Goethe, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe

Image: Pieter Bruegel The Elder, “The Land Of Cockaigne”. Public domain.

Poster’s Note:  For much of my life I’ve struggled to understand human nature. Insights into my own drives, feelings, thoughts and actions increase as I better understand others, and my ability to love, forgive and empathize grow as a result. People who open themselves to the world with the written word have been essential not only for my growth as a person, but for my survival. I like to use this space to occasionally share some of my thoughts on being human, as well excerpts from far better artists who have been particularly inspirational. The following is from a fictional work by Goethe. It struck me not for the solution the narrator eventually chooses (read the book!) but for the clarity and honesty with which he expresses thoughts that, in me, vaguely bubble up while I’m busy “painting my prison walls”.

That the life of man is but a dream, many a man has surmised heretofore; and I, too, am everywhere pursued by this feeling. When I consider the narrow limits within which our active and inquiring faculties are confined; when I see how all our energies are wasted in providing for mere necessities, which again have no further end than to prolong a wretched existence; and then that all our satisfaction concerning certain subjects of investigation ends in nothing better than a passive resignation, whilst we amuse ourselves painting our prison-walls with bright figures and brilliant landscapes, — when I consider all this, Wilhelm, I am silent. I examine my own being, and find there a world, but a world rather of imagination and dim desires, than of distinctness and living power. Then everything swims before my senses, and I smile and dream while pursuing my way through the world.

All learned professors and doctors are agreed that children do not comprehend the cause of their desires; but that the grown-up should wander about this earth like children, without knowing whence they come, or whither they go, influenced as little by fixed motives, but guided like them by biscuits, sugar-plums, and the rod, — this is what nobody is willing to acknowledge; and yet I think it is palpable.

I know what you will say in reply; for I am ready to admit that they are happiest, who, like children, amuse themselves with their playthings, dress and undress their dolls, and attentively watch the cupboard, where mamma has locked up her sweet things, and, when at last they get a delicious morsel, eat it greedily, and exclaim, “More!” These are certainly happy beings; but others also are objects of envy, who dignify their paltry employments, and sometimes even their passions, with pompous titles, representing them to mankind as gigantic achievements performed for their welfare and glory. But the man who humbly acknowledges the vanity of all this, who observes with what pleasure the thriving citizen converts his little garden into a paradise, and how patiently even the poor man pursues his weary way under his burden, and how all wish equally to behold the light of the sun a little longer, — yes, such a man is at peace, and creates his own world within himself; and he is also happy, because he is a man. And then, however limited his sphere, he still preserves in his bosom the sweet feeling of liberty, and knows that he can quit his prison whenever he likes.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,1787.

“The Sorrows of Young Werther”.  May 22nd Entry.

This is public domain text available at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2527.

The original German text can also be found at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2407.

For more on Goethe, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe

RUSSIAN FUTURISM

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

Cover of the manifesto A Slap in the Face of Public Taste, issued by the Moscow-based Russian Futurist group Hylaea in December of 1912; it was bound in sackcloth.

A SLAP IN THE FACE OF PUBLIC TASTE (1912)

by David Burliuk, Alexander Kruchenykh, Vladmir Mayakovsky, Victor Khlebnikov


To the readers of our New First Unexpected. We alone are the face of our Time. Through us the horn of time blows in the art of the world.

The past is too tight. The Academy and Pushkin are less intelligible than hieroglyphics.

Throw Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc., etc. overboard from the Ship of Modernity.

He who does not forget his first love will not recognize his last.

Who, trustingly, would turn his last love toward Balmont’s perfumed lechery? Is this the reflection of today’s virile soul?

Who, faint-heartedly, would fear tearing from warrior Bryusov’s black tuxedo the paper armor-plate? Or does the dawn of unknown beauties shine from it?

Wash your hands which have touched the filthy slime of the books written by the countless Leonid Andreyevs.

All those Maxim Gorkys, Krupins, Bloks, Sologubs, Remizovs, Averchenkos, Chornys, Kuzmins, Bunins, etc. need only a dacha on the river. Such is the reward fate gives tailors.

From the heights of skyscrapers we gaze at their insignificance!…

We order that the poets’ rights be revered:

  • To enlarge the scope of the poet’s vocabulary with arbitrary and derivative words (Word-novelty).
  • To feel an insurmountable hatred for the language existing before their time.
  • To push with horror off their proud brow the Wreath of cheap fame that You have made from bathhouse switches.
  • To stand on the rock of the word “we” amidst the sea of boos and outrage.

And if for the time being the filthy stigmas of Your “common sense” and “good taste” are still present in our lines, these same lines for the first time already glimmer with the Summer Lightning of the New Coming Beauty of the Self-sufficient (self-centered) Word.

–David Burliuk, Alexander Kruchenykh, Vladmir Mayakovsky, Victor Khlebnikov

Book Review of David R. Slavitt’s Re Verse

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

Re Verse: Essays on Poetry and Poets
David R. Slavitt
Northwestern University Press
ISBN: 0-8101-2084-4


David Slavitt´s Re Verse: Essays on Poetry and Poets is at once a meditation on his long and varied career, an investigation into the nature of poetry, and an homage to some of America´s finest (if not always most celebrated) poets. Slavitt has studied with or been friends with many of the biggest names in writing and publishing in the second half of the twentieth century, and for that intimate vantage point alone, this collection of essays is a must-have for every academic library, every scholar and student of American literature, and every would-be poet.

Re Verse immediately strikes the reader as well suited as a supporting text to a poetry workshop. In the reworking (with present-day, memoir-like commentary) of his Master´s Essay on Dudley Fitts (the original essay having been written for his MA at Columbia), Slavitt shows a profound understanding of how poetry works and how we learn to become poets. Slavitt writes: “You learn to write defensively, as you learn to drive defensively, always looking out for sudden wacky things those with whom you share the road are likely to do. But there is a limit beyond which caution becomes anxiety so that you can´t even get into the car.” How true. But this essay offers more than just wise, quotable catch phrases. It, and the collection as a whole, “gives the reader the tools with which to construct a canon out of the labor of thought and reading,” as Mark Rudman´s blurb on the book´s jacket claims.

Its usefulness is therefore not limited to the workshop environment, but would also serve well as a warmer companion text in advanced and intermediate American Literature courses. Daniel Mark Epstein writes of Re Verse: “David Slavitt has known some of the finest poets and teachers of the twentieth century and writes about them with delightful humor and enthusiasm. His tone is a unique blend of fireside storytelling, literary analysis, and heartfelt reflection.” In place of a jargon-laden text destined to make students who once loved literature switch their major to pre-law, Re Verse will deepen the understanding and appreciation literature fans bring to the classroom, while at the same time instructing. But Re Verse is more than mere textbook. These are personal essays as much as they are essays on literature.

It would be a lapse not to mention Slavitt´s ponderings on his own career in Re Verse. Slavitt has published some eighty-odd books in his career. He has been included in numerous anthologies (Best American, Norton, et cetera), and he has made millions writing under pseudonyms, while at the same time being respected as one of the premier literary translators. By all respects, he has had an astonishing career. Yet we find references to himself as a “minor” author, or lines such as this one, from his essay on Winfield Townley Scott, occasioned by an article Slavitt read in TLS in which Scott is dismissed as minor: “The word that stuck with me, though, was ‘minor,´ which hurt as much as anything else because it is probably true, and I have been thinking about what that means.”

There is also an undercurrent of investigating what it means to be Jewish that intermittently pops up in Re Verse. It does not define or restrict the essays in any way, but it is there. Offhanded remarks such as the claim that comedy is to the Jewish people what the Blues are to African-Americans, or the notion of the Jew as the sayer of the unspeakable (e.g. Freud speaking candidly of sex in an age that repressed sexuality, or Marx pointing out class struggles when it was uncouth to mention such things in polite company).

Slavitt can be scathing and dismissive, and often the most enjoyable pieces in this collection are ones in which he is saying what no one else will. In his essay on (against?) Harold Bloom, Slavitt aptly points out much of Bloom´s intellectual posturing. The following passage shows Slavitt´s deft, harsh dismissal of Bloom:

“His [Bloom´s] bullying classroom habits are not easy to put aside, however, and addressing us common readers he can be abruptly confrontational. I cannot otherwise explain why he would write: “My late friend Paul de Man liked to analogize the solitude of each literary text and each human death, and analogy I once protested. I had suggested to him that the more ironic trope would be to analogize each human birth to the coming into being of a poem…I did not win that critical argument because I could not persuade him of the larger human analogue; he preferred the dialectical authority of the more Heideggerian irony.’

This is pure Bloomishness, graceless, pretentious, and absurd” (p. 92).

Slavitt goes on to point out that Bloom´s “late friend” was a Nazi collaborator and that Bloom should not have been so concerned with not convincing de Man, but rather concerned that he, “in the intricacy of the engagement, […] neglected to call him a fucking collaborator, slap his face, and then do [his] best to see that he got fired.” Bloom mentions de Man with warm regard, failing to so much as acknowledge the disgrace de Man heaped upon Yale (and humanity), in a typically defiant gesture, “a show of Bloom´s refusal to be intimidated by mere evidence.”

From his heartbreaking, elegiac essay on Thomas McAfee to his friendly essay on Fred Chappell (“Ole Fred”) to his investigations into the nature and uses of depression, or his illuminations on Robert Penn Warren (under whom Slavitt studied at Yale), Re Verse never panders and never obfuscates for the sake of sounding smarter than it is. This collection is the real thing, a rare find, and probably the best book about poetry published in years.


–Okla Elliott


[The above review originally appeared in Pedestal Magazine.]

POLITICS

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

Joe Strummer, Matt Gonzalez & Whitney Leigh.

FOR THE HISTORICAL RECORD

MARCH 4, 2008

WRITING TRUTH TO POWER? HOW THE GUARDIAN LET PROGRESSIVES DOWN

by G. Whitney Leigh

As Matt Gonzalez’s law partner, I’ve had more time than most to consider the upsides and downsides of his decision to join Ralph Nader’s campaign for president. So I wasn’t entirely surprised that Barack Obama supporters like the Bay Guardian’s Steve Jones did not greet Gonzalez’s candidacy for Vice President warmly. After all, there are multiple good arguments by which to question the value and potentially negative impact of such an effort.

The trouble is, Jones doesn’t make any of these arguments.

Instead, in his blog – which runs under the stupendously ironic by-line “Writing Truth to Power,” Jones embarks on a heavily emotional, and utterly ineffective criticism of Gonzalez for doing just that – pointing out facts about Obama’s record that are both true and deserving of consideration by progressives weighing their votes for this fall.

As I explain below, in purporting to refute points raised by Gonzalez about Obama’s record in an article he posted in BeyondChron, Jones does little more than confirm that regardless of how one comes out on the election, the questions Gonzalez asks should be asked, and should be asked now, rather than after the election.

Gonzalez’ scrutiny of Obama’s record is not just fair, but critically important

In attacking Gonzalez’ article on Obama, Jones first complains that Gonzalez, “characterizes Obama’s campaign as ‘one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.’”

That might be an interesting observation if that is what he said. It isn’t.

In his article, Gonzalez does not criticize Obama’s campaign but, instead, the votes he cast as a United States Senator. Surely Jones knows the difference – we aren’t talking about parsing speeches, but instead examining decisions Obama made that had great effect on the people he would have elect him president.

Obama has premised his campaign largely on a comparison of positions he has taken and votes cast by his Democratic opponents (i.e., Iraq). And if Obama should not be judged by his votes in the Senate, then on what basis, pray tell, should voters judge him?

Obama’s votes to fund the war in Iraq, and the specifics of his plans for withdrawal are worthy of scrutiny

Many folks who support Obama might be surprised to find out that, as Gonzalez points out, Obama has on every occasion afforded him, voted to support funding the war in Iraq -unlike many other Democrats. Many folks that support Obama over Clinton because of Obama’s often-referenced pre-war opposition just don’t know this. So pointing out how Obama voted when he had the power to vote is not, as Jones suggests, mere “opshop” tactics (whatever “opshop” means). It is, for lack of a better phrase, “writing the truth.”

Rather than confront this troubling aspect of Obama’s record – for which reasonable explanations might be made – Jones declaims, “Obama and the other Democratic candidates have all clearly and unequivocally pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.”

This false and obtuse contention obscures important distinctions between the Democratic candidates themselves. Of the Democratic candidates, only Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson advocated complete withdrawal. Obama, Edwards and Clinton advocated – and advocate – varying plans of troop reduction and “strategic” redeployment.

Whether these latter approaches are necessitated by the circumstances presented is debatable. But to suggest, as Jones does, that all Democrats have unequivocally endorsed “withdrawal” is, at best, to engage in misleading sophistry (cloaking within the term “withdrawal” any reduction or movement of troops) or, worse, to place our heads in the sand.

The fact that Nader and Gonzalez force you to engage in these kinds of verbal gymnastics says a lot. There is a phrase about “protesting too much” that comes to mind.

Health Care – “No, We Can’t?”

Jones’ response to Gonzalez’s criticism of Obama’s health care plan is in some ways the most troubling element of his piece because he buries what could be a worthy point of discussion in a needless, messenger-blaming diatribe.

Few serious people are impressed with Obama’s (or anyone’s) promises to hold hearings on health care with unidentified “stakeholders,” as Jones professes to be. On the one hand, Jones appears to agree that a single-payer system is the best and only means of providing good health care to all. But Jones defends Obama’s refusal to pursue a single payer system based on the claim that Obama’s abandonment of this goal merely reflects a “stealth” effort to reach that goal – all that is needed is the right, “no-lobbyist” setting for the crafting of a national health plan. To wit:

“But here’s the brilliant part of Obama’s position: he has said over and over that he wants to have nationally devised hearings on health care, with all the stakeholder groups but no lobbyists, and to craft a national health plan in that setting. That, Matt, is how you educate the people and create a national consensus around single payer.”

Disregarding Jones’ assertion that “stakeholders” and “lobbyists” is a meaningful distinction (it isn’t), this contention does strike at the heart of Obama’s appeal for many progressives nonplussed by the generalities of Barack’s appeals for undirected Hope and unspecified Change. These progressives (among whom I count myself) hold out the hope that Obama’s candidacy presents an opportunity to reengage the body politic in a discussion about key policies – health care being a principle but by no means the only one – and a chance to create an environment where more progressive goals – the goals we all know make sense – can be achieved.

They hold out the hope, to put it simply, for a better, saner and more humane future.

But before we attack those who espouse the principles we support and believe to be right – because we perceive them to be too strident for the moment – we should stop for a moment and consider whether our pique and indignation actually stems from our discomfort with being confronted with compromises we are making.

Indeed, one of the most compelling themes of Obama’s campaign, at least for me, is the maxim “Yes, we can.” But for many people, Dennis Kucinich for example, “yes, we can” is the correct answer to the question of whether universal, single payer health care is a prudent and achievable objective.

At least make the apologetics credible

Jones’ omnibus rap-up of Gonzalez’s additional criticisms is equally lacking in substance. Yes, legislation often can be analogized to sausage making. But if the Guardian has adopted the “everybody does it” approach to evaluating bad votes on important issues, then we might just as well read the Chronicle, or Salon. The Patriot Act is not just a “contentious issue” among a “thousand votes”.

If how Obama voted on the Patriot Act is now irrelevant, then we all are in trouble. Instead, why not consider the amendments Obama offered, what procedural situations obtained, and whether consideration of Obama’s votes on the Patriot Act make more sense when placed in context.

That would be useful. “Everybody does it” arguments are not.

And with his defense of Obama’s explanation for opposing a 30 percent credit card interest cap (”Obama has said repeatedly and credibly that he thought that cap was too high”), Jones falls off the logic cliff. This claim isn’t credible for the simple reason that Obama never proposed a lower percentage interest cap.

Under Jones’ analysis, an official can oppose a 30 percent cap by supporting no cap at all. Are we really supposed to swallow that?

It doesn’t make sense to attack Gonzalez for espousing the same positions the Guardian has long embraced

Notably, in his broad-brush dismissal of Gonzalez critique of Obama, Jones glosses over the very positions he himself has taken. For example, one of the key differences between Nader/Gonzalez and the leading Democrats is on the issue of impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, for their acts in leading the country to war on false pretenses, authorizing torture in violation of U.S. laws and international treaties, and authorizing illegal surveillance of Americans in flagrant violation of federal law.

But as Gonzalez points out, Obama – a former civil rights lawyer and constitutional law professor – distinguished himself in his vociferous opposition to the efforts by other Democrats (moderates and progressives like Robert Byrd, John Conyers, John Lewis, Russ Feingold, Robert Wexler and Dennis Kucinich) and even some Republicans (i.e. Chuck Hagel) and to even open discussion of impeachment.

As it happens, one of the most cogent and persuasive cases for impeachment was made by – you guessed it, Steve Jones. I guess that’s how Jones felt in January 2006. Now, impeachment is merely “op-shop” stuff, or whatever.

There are multiple reasons to support and be excited for Obama. In my view, Obama has taken many truly courageous and important positions, not the least of which is his willingness to engage adverse governments in countries like Cuba. And for my money, the election of an African American president would have immeasurable societal effects that cannot be ignored. Moreover, scrutiny of Obama’s past shows that progressives’ hopes for an Obama presidency could be well placed.

But we don’t need the Guardian to tell us that legitimate questions about Obama’s record should be swept under the rug. We can get that from Joan Walsh.

It’s far better to remember that “writing truth to power,” while often inconvenient and rarely easy, is nevertheless an essential endeavor.

–G. Whitney Leigh is a graduate of Hope College in Holland, Michigan and Stanford Law School. He practices law with Matt Gonzalez at the law firm of Gonzalez & Leigh LLP in San Francisco.

This piece was first published in Fog City Journal on March 4, 2008.

Steve Jones’ original piece Gonzalez joins Nader’s pursuit of infamy was published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian Online on February 28, 2008.


POLITICS

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

Ralph Nader posters designed by pjchmiel.

RALPH NADER WAS RIGHT ABOUT BARACK OBAMA

by Chris Hedges

We owe Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney an apology. They were right about Barack Obama. They were right about the corporate state. They had the courage of their convictions and they stood fast despite wholesale defections and ridicule by liberals and progressives.

Obama lies as cravenly, if not as crudely, as George W. Bush. He promised us that the transfer of $12.8 trillion in taxpayer money to Wall Street would open up credit and lending to the average consumer. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), however, admitted last week that banks have reduced lending at the sharpest pace since 1942. As a senator, Obama promised he would filibuster amendments to the FISA Reform Act that retroactively made legal the wiretapping and monitoring of millions of American citizens without warrant; instead he supported passage of the loathsome legislation. He told us he would withdraw American troops from Iraq, close the detention facility at Guantánamo, end torture, restore civil liberties such as habeas corpus and create new jobs. None of this has happened.

He is shoving a health care bill down our throats that would give hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry in the form of subsidies, and force millions of uninsured Americans to buy insurers’ defective products. These policies would come with ever-rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums and see most of the seriously ill left bankrupt and unable to afford medical care. Obama did nothing to halt the collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference, after promising meaningful environmental reform, and has left us at the mercy of corporations such as ExxonMobil. He empowers Israel’s brutal apartheid state. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where hundreds of civilians, including entire families, have been slaughtered by sophisticated weapons systems such as the Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of victims’ lungs. And he is delivering war and death to Yemen, Somalia and perhaps Iran.

The illegal wars and occupations, the largest transference of wealth upward in American history and the egregious assault on civil liberties, all begun under George W. Bush, raise only a flicker of tepid protest from liberals when propagated by the Democrats. Liberals, unlike the right wing, are emotionally disabled. They appear not to feel. The tea-party protesters, the myopic supporters of Sarah Palin, the veterans signing up for Oath Keepers and the myriad of armed patriot groups have swept into their ranks legions of disenfranchised workers, angry libertarians, John Birchers and many who, until now, were never politically active. They articulate a legitimate rage. Yet liberals continue to speak in the bloodless language of issues and policies, and leave emotion and anger to the protofascists. Take a look at the 3,000-word suicide note left by Joe Stack, who flew his Piper Cherokee last month into an IRS office in Austin, Texas, murdering an IRS worker and injuring dozens. He was not alone in his rage.

“Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?” Stack wrote. “Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political ‘representatives’ (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the ‘terrible health care problem’. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.”

The timidity of the left exposes its cowardice, lack of a moral compass and mounting political impotence. The left stands for nothing. The damage Obama and the Democrats have done is immense. But the damage liberals do the longer they beg Obama and the Democrats for a few scraps is worse. It is time to walk out on the Democrats. It is time to back alternative third-party candidates and grass-roots movements, no matter how marginal such support may be. If we do not take a stand soon we must prepare for the rise of a frightening protofascist movement, one that is already gaining huge ground among the permanently unemployed, a frightened middle class and frustrated low-wage workers. We are, even more than Glenn Beck or tea-party protesters, responsible for the gusts fanning the flames of right-wing revolt because we have failed to articulate a credible alternative.

A shift to the Green Party, McKinney and Nader, along with genuine grass-roots movements, will not be a quick fix. It will require years in the wilderness. We will again be told by the Democrats that the least-worse candidate they select for office is better than the Republican troll trotted out as an alternative. We will be bombarded with slick commercials about hope and change and spoken to in a cloying feel-your-pain language. We will be made afraid. But if we again acquiesce we will be reduced to sad and pathetic footnotes in our accelerating transformation from a democracy to a totalitarian corporate state. Isolation and ridicule—ask Nader or McKinney—is the cost of defying power, speaking truth and building movements. Anger at injustice, as Martin Luther King wrote, is the political expression of love. And it is vital that this anger become our own. We have historical precedents to fall back upon.

“Here in the United States, at the beginning of the twentieth century, before there was a Soviet Union to spoil it, you see, socialism had a good name,” the late historian and activist Howard Zinn said in a lecture a year ago at Binghamton University. “Millions of people in the United States read socialist newspapers. They elected socialist members of Congress and socialist members of state legislatures. You know, there were like fourteen socialist chapters in Oklahoma. Really. I mean, you know, socialism—who stood for socialism? Eugene Debs, Helen Keller, Emma Goldman, Clarence Darrow, Jack London, Upton Sinclair. Yeah, socialism had a good name. It needs to be restored.”

Social change does not come through voting. It is delivered through activism, organizing and mobilization that empower groups to confront the hegemony of the corporate state and the power elite. The longer socialism is identified with the corporatist policies of the Democratic Party, the longer we allow the right wing to tag Obama as a socialist, the more absurd and ineffectual we become. The right-wing mantra of “Obama the socialist,” repeated a few days ago to a room full of Georgia Republicans, by Newt Gingrich, the former U.S. speaker of the House, is discrediting socialism itself. Gingrich, who looks set to run for president, called Obama the “most radical president” the country had seen in decades. “By any standard of government control of the economy, he is a socialist,” Gingrich said. If only the critique were true.

The hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Democrats become, in the eyes of the wider public, the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the liberal class. We can continue to tie our own hands and bind our own feet or we can break free, endure the inevitable opprobrium, and fight back. This means refusing to support the Democrats. It means undertaking the laborious work of building a viable socialist movement. It is the only alternative left to save our embattled open society. We can begin by sending a message to the Green Party, McKinney and Nader. Let them know they are no longer alone.

–Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges is a graduate of Colgate University and Harvard Divinity School. He is a former Middle East bureau chief of The New York Times (where he shared a Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism for coverage of terrorism) and has also reported on current events in Latin America, Europe, and Africa. In 2002 he was the recipient of an Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism and in 2009 the Los Angeles Press Club named him the Online Journalist of the Year. He is a senior fellow at the Nation Institute and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University. Hedges is the author of nine books including War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2003) which was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction.

This piece was first published in Truthdig on March 1, 2010.

POLITICS

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

MoveOn t-shirt celebrating Barack Obama’s inauguration as President of the U.S.

WHO GOT IT RIGHT

by John Halle


Who Got it Right?

A common lament among progressives involves those who got it wrong-in many cases, disastrously wrong-walking away from their collisions with reality not only with their reputations untarnished, but actually rewarded in the form of increased access to circles of political power and media influence.

Parade examples include liberal hawks Michael O’Hanlon, Thomas Friedman, Peter Beinart and others, not to mention Hillary Clinton whose enabling of the Iraq disaster is taken as a prime qualification for being placed at the foreign policy helm.

Matched with them is a similar collection of elite technocrats from the Robert Rubin circle such as Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner joined by Fed chief Bernanke now being provided the opportunity to run the economy into the ground a second time, while their enablers in the media-the most conspicuous being CNBC hypemaster Jim Kramer continue to enjoy the status of financial gurus.

All this is always good for a few chortles from the gallows from what passes for the left and maybe boosts our morale-something we need a lot of now.

Unfortunately, we can only go so far with this before realizing that the laugh is also on us.

For just as the establishment right and center got Iraq and the economy wrong, the establishment left was indulging in its own fantasy world, and it was one which is now coming to bite us on the proverbial ass, namely the fantasy of Barack Obama.

Plenty of ink has been spilled in recent weeks about “misjudgments” which caused the left to swoon over a candidate who rejected virtually the entirety of what the left (by any reasonable definition) believes.  And even more anguish is caused by the grim reality that Obama is now acting on his deepest beliefs: expanding the war on terror, torpedoing banking reform, extending Bush tax cuts, while demanding fiscal austerity in the midst of what appears to be a second great depression.

How We Could Have Known

How could we have known? The answer is that we could have if we had listened.

For there were those who were speaking up but our alleged “reality based community” refused to hear them. Their voices were, quite literally, censored and those raising them were, figuratively speaking, disappeared.

As should have been obvious then and is painfully obvious now, left outlets ranging from the Nation to In These Times to the American Prospect passed over virtually all discouraging words during the campaign denying them access lest they threaten to put a damper on the party atmosphere deemed necessary for selling the Obama product.

The establishment left media was complemented by the progressive blogosphere which reached clinical levels of delusion during the campaign.  In dealing with dissenting voices,  passive censorship was replaced with the iron fist of repression.  At what have now become known as “access blogs” such as Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, and Democratic Underground,  those suggesting that the Democratic nominee was anything less than a messiah were subjected to vicious personal attacks, troll rated and in short order summarily banned from discussion boards.

Rather than revisiting the Zombie-like behavior of much of the left during this period, well documented by the Onion, it is by this point probably best forgotten.

What is important now is where we are going-whether the left has learned from its absurd dalliance with a smooth talking Chicago neo-liberal and is now capable of the requisite level of skepticism in our dealings with him as chief executive and the objectively reactionary policies of his administration.

A Tale of Two Professors

As an indication of the distance we still have to travel, it is instructive to focus on a single comparison between two Ivy League professors who made their views known on the Obama phenomenon during the 2008 campaign.

One of these is UPenn Political Science Professor Adolph Reed whose experience goes back to Obama’s much hyped days as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side. Far from being favorably impressed, in a Village Voice column from 1996, Reed noted the latter’s “vacuous to repressive neo-liberal politics” and presciently described these as “the wave of the future.” This future would arrive in 2008 when right wing governance and ideology were successfully marketed to progressives by establishment liberals as “transformative leadership.”

Among those selling the Obama product most successfully was another Ivy league Professor, Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton.     In increasingly high-profile appearances, Harris-Lacewell repeatedly compared the Obama campaign to iconic moments in the civil rights movement such as the Montgomery Bus Boycotts.  Once the Obama administration assumed office, apologetics for neo-liberal rhetoric smoothly transitioned to apologetics for the implementation of neo-liberal policies.  These required some logical contortions and more than a little cynicism.  Thus, in a stunning Martin Luther Day King posting at the Nation, Harris-Lacewell chose to focus on instances of King’s dealmaking, personal failings and sell-outs of core constituencies.  The conclusion, according to Harris-Lacewell, was that the comparison of Obama and King remained in force: “extraordinary change can be achieved even through imperfect leadership . . .  wholeheartedly groping toward better and fairer solutions for our nation.”

It would seem that very few leftists remain who are willing and able to accept the Polyannish equation of the current occupier of the Oval Office with the author of the Letter from Birmingham Jail.  Nor would many grant the benefit of doubt that Obama’s “gropings” are anything other than simple pay-backs to his primary constituency, the Wall Street brokerage houses, megabanks, insurance companies, energy consortia, and lobbyists who financed his campaign.  Given this emerging consensus, one might have expected that Harris-Lacewell’s commentaries would be seen as having a limited shelf life while Prof. Reed’s inconvenient truths would be recognized for what they are: as what we needed to hear then-and need to hear now.

But nothing of the sort has occurred. Prof. Harris Lacewell remains a guest frequently encountered not only on the liberal wing of the corporate media represented by MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman but at seemingly authentic alternative left outlets such as Laura Flanders’s GritTV.  More disconcertingly, a continuing flow of Obamapologetics will likely be offered through Harris-Lacewell’s recently announced “Sister Citizen” to appear weekly in the Nation, an editorial decision which will reduce the contributions of iconic left columnist Alexander Cockburn to once a month.

In contrast to this upward trajectory, Reed remains at his post at Penn, his book on the Obama phenomenon eagerly awaited by a few followers but otherwise a largely invisible prophet undeserving of honor, at least as far as the establishment left is concerned.

An Honor Roll

These two academics are, of course, not the sole representatives of their respective positions with respect to the Obama phenomenon.  Harris-Lacewell, while perhaps more enthusiastically fellative than most was different only in degree from Michael Moore, Thomas Frank, Katha Pollit, Michael Tomasky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, and numerous others from whom one would have hoped (if not expected) to have asked the right questions and prepared the left for the outcome we are now facing.

Furthermore, while Reed was the earliest to sound the alarm, there were others attempting to do so, among them Paul Street whose widely ignored Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics anticipates some of the arguments which will appear in Reed’s forthcoming book.  Another was the trio of Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberly at the Black Agenda Report, whose on the ground experience with Obama mirrored that of Reed and led to nearly identical warnings to the left. From his Washington perch, Sam Smith of the Progressive Review saw the light in the tunnel as the oncoming train which would materialize as did former NY Times correspondent, Chris Hedges whose views on this and other matters has by now relegated him to non-person status.  Finally, there was Nader’s Vice Presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez whose entry into the race was announced by an impressively researched bill of particulars published in Counterpunch.

These are a few entries deserving inclusion on an all-too-short honor role.  The point here is that, rather than being rewarded for being right, these figures remain on the marginal fringes of left discourse.

In other words, those who got it wrong dictate not only destructive neo-liberal administration policies from the inside, but how these are to be opposed (if at all) by a left which should have long since been on the streets as if our lives depend on it.

That they do, perhaps more than at any time in our history, should be obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

–John Halle

John Halle is a former alderman for the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and is on the faculty at Bard College in New York State where he teaches music theory and is active as a composer.

This piece was first published in Corrente on March 1, 2010.

To see other political writings by John Halle you can visit his website johnhalle.com.

PALESTINE & ISRAEL

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

Map of Palestine and Israel, 1948-2000, from Justice First!

Editor’s note~ This is an important event taking place in the Bay Area this weekend with some great speakers including our friend Anna Baltzer whose writings (from Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories, Paradigm Publishers, updated & revised 2007) we’ve reprinted here at AIOTB many times.

Btw, if you haven’t seen her recent appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, with Palestinian legislator Mustafa Barghouti, I strongly recommend that you watch it. You can see it here. — Matt Gonzalez

________________________________________

Bay Area Friends of Sabeel presents…

A Time for Truth, A Time for Action:

Palestine/Israel & the U.S. at the Crossroads


Mar 5th – 6th

First Presbyterian Church

72 Kensington Rd

San Anselmo, CA


Conference speakers will include:

Ziad Abbas is a Palestinian refugee from the Deheisheh refugee camp in the West Bank and cofounder of the Ibdaa Cultural Center in Deheisheh, where he has served as executive director since 1994. He is currently associate director of the Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA).

Dr. Hisham Ahmed, professor of politics at St. Mary’s College, Moraga, California, teaches courses on Middle East politics, terrorism and nonviolence. He was born in Deheisheh refugee camp and served as a Fulbright scholar and on the faculty of Birzeit University. His book, From Religious Salvation to Political Transformation: The Rise of Hamas in Palestinian Society, was the first to appear in English on the subject.

Mohammed Alatar is a filmmaker and human rights activist from Jenin in the West Bank. He was nominated for the Martin Luther King Jr. Award for Humanity in 2002 in recognition of his work for human rights. His films include The Iron Wall and Jerusalem: The East Side Story.

The Rev Naim Ateek, the founder of Sabeel, is an Arab-Israeli citizen known to many as the ‘Bishop Tutu of Palestine.’ He served as the canon pastor of the Episcopal Cathedral of Jerusalem and is the author of numerous books and articles, including Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation and A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation.

Anna Baltzer, Jewish-American granddaughter of Holocaust survivors and award-winning speaker and organizer for Palestinian rights. Baltzer worked with the International Women’s Peace Service in Palestine and recently appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (watch here: www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-28-2009/exclusive—anna-baltzer—mustafa-barghouti-extended-interview-pt–1). She is the author of Witness in Palestine: Journal of a Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories.

Omar Barghouti, an independent Palestinian researcher, commentator and human rights activist, is a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel and the Palestinian Civil Society Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. Barghouti holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in electrical engineering from Columbia University.

Kathleen and Bill Christison are former CIA analysts. Bill Christison was a senior official in the organization, and Kathleen worked on Middle East issues for 35 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession. Together the Christisons published Palestine in Pieces: Graphic Perspectives on the Israeli Occupation.

Dr. Jeff Halper, an Israeli-American peace activist, founded and coordinates the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. He is a professor of anthropology, author, acclaimed speaker and 2006 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. His books include Obstacles to Peace: A Reframing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and An Israeli In Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel.

Remi Kanazi, a Palestinian-American poet and writer based in New York City, is the editor of Poets for Palestine, a recently released collection of poetry, spoken word, hip hop and art.

Mohammed Khatib is a member of the Popular Committee of Bil’in, a West Bank village. He organizes nonviolent protests against the barrier separating his community from its farmland and has been arrested and beaten for his activities. Khatib has challenged the barrier in Israeli courts and set up an alliance of West Bank villages to share his strategies.

A full list of speakers can be found at www.fosna.org/content/marin-countybay-area-conference-march-5-6-2010

Registration and more details at www.fosna.org/content/marin-countybay-area-conference-march-5-6-2010

PEACE PILGRIM

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

From 1953 to 1981 a silver haired woman calling herself only “Peace Pilgrim” walked more than 25,000 miles on a personal pilgrimage for peace. She vowed to “remain a wanderer until mankind has learned the way of peace, walking until given shelter and fasting until given food.” In the course of her 28 year pilgrimage she touched the hearts, minds, and lives of thousands of individuals all across North America. Her message was both simple and profound. It continues to inspire people all over the world: “This is the way of peace: overcome evil with good, and falsehood with truth, and hatred with love.”

She believed that world peace would come when enough people attain inner peace. Her life and work showed that one person with inner peace can make a significant contribution to world peace.

Peace Pilgrim: Her Life and Work in Her Own Words

CHAPTER 1: Growing Up

I HAD A VERY FAVORABLE BEGINNING, although many of you might not think so. I was born poor on a small farm on the outskirts of a small town, and I’m thankful for that. I was happy in my childhood. I had a woods to play in and a creek to swim in and room to grow. I wish that every child could have growing space because I think children are a little like plants. If they grow too close together they become thin and sickly and never obtain maximum growth. We need room to grow.

We begin to prepare for the work that we have to do and customarily we have no idea what we are preparing for. So as a child I had no idea what I was preparing for. And yet, of course, I was in many respects preparing. I was preparing for the pilgrimage when I chose my rule of ‘first things first’ and began to set priorities in my life. It led to a very orderly life and it taught me self discipline – a very valuable lesson, without which I could never have walked a pilgrimage. I carried it right into my adult life.

I received no formal religious training as a child. (It would be less that I would have to undo from my mind later on!) My first view inside a church was when I was twelve years old and I looked through the doorway of a Catholic church to watch janitors clean the cathedral. When I was sixteen I entered a church for the first time to attend a wedding.

When I was a senior in high school I began to make my search for God, but all my efforts were in an outward direction. I went about inquiring, “What is God? What is God?” I was most inquisitive and I asked many questions of many people, but I never received any answers! However, I was not about to give up. Intellectually I could not find God on the outside, so I tried another approach. I took a long walk with my dog and pondered deeply upon the question. Then I went to bed and slept over it. And in the morning I had my answer from the inside, through a still small voice.

Now my high school answer was a very simple answer — that we human beings just lump together everything in the universe which is beyond the capacity of all of us, and to all those things together some of us give the name God. Well, that set me on a search. And the first thing I did was to look at a tree, and I said, there’s one. All of us working together couldn’t create that one tree, and even if it looked like a tree it wouldn’t grow. There is a creative force beyond us. And then I looked at my beloved stars at night and there’s another. There’s a sustaining power that keeps planets in their orbit.

I watched all the changes taking place in the universe. At that time they were trying to keep a lighthouse from washing into the sea. They finally moved it inland and said they had saved it. But I noticed all these changes and I said, there’s another. There is something motivating towards constant change in the universe.

When I reached confirmation from within I knew beyond all doubt that I had touched my highest light.

Intellectually I touched God many times as truth and emotionally I touched God as love. I touched God as goodness. I touched God as kindness. It came to me that God is a creative force, a motivating power, an over-all intelligence, an ever-present, all pervading spirit — which binds everything in the universe together and gives life to everything. That brought God close. I could not be where God is not. You are within God. God is within you.

***

I was working in the five-and-ten-cent store between my junior and senior year in high school. I just loved the work, especially fixing up counters so they would look pretty. They even let me fix up the windows because I liked to do that. Well, you know, I was cheaper than a window decorator!

I had two registers at my counter. One day I didn’t have the proper change in one register so naturally I went over to the other and rang “no sale” and took out the change. Then I discovered I had committed a cardinal sin. I heard them whispering, “She rang ‘no sale’!” The male floorwalker came over and said, “Come with me.” He put me at a counter in a corner that needed fixing up. He left me there, and then came back and said, “Why did you do that?” I replied, “I still don’t know what I did. I just took change out of the register — I didn’t steal any money.” He said, “You were instructed never to ring ‘no sale’.” I answered, “I wasn’t instructed at all.”

Then he went to the female floor walker who was supposed to instruct me. I was reinstated. But, because of the incident, she then hated me. I knew that something needed to be done about it. Then I passed her desk and noticed a few faded flowers there. The next morning I brought her a beautiful bouquet of flowers from my garden. I said, “I noticed those faded flowers. I know you love flowers and here are some from my garden.” She couldn’t resist them. At the end of the week we walked out of there arm in arm!

I feel sure I was being prepared for the pilgrimage when I read the Golden Rule in history, “Do unto others what you would have others do unto you” — expressed in a lot of different ways and pointing out that every culture had one. It got an inner confirmation from me. It affected my entire life. In fact, there were certain offshoots of the Golden Rule which carried over even into the pilgrimage. When I was in high school I had a little saying, If you want to make friends, you must be friendly. If you analyze it, that is an offshoot of the Golden Rule. It is the recognition that people react according to the influences brought to bear upon them. I have it in my life today with my little saying, If you want to make peace, you must be peaceful.

I put the Golden Rule into practice just beyond my student days. I was given a job that one of my girl friends wanted, and I was elected to an office in a community club that she also wanted. I thought she hated me. She said all kinds of mean things about me. I knew it was a very unhealthy situation. So I hauled out the Golden Rule — I thought of and said every possible kind thing that could be truthfully said about her. I tried to do her favors. It fell to my lot to do her a significant favor. And to make a long story short, when she was married a year later I was maid of honor at her wedding. See how a little bit of spiritual practice goes a long way?

I know I was being prepared for the pilgrimage when I made certain choices. For instance, I was in grammar school when I was offered cigarettes from a package, which I did not smoke but my friends did. In high school I was offered all kinds of alcohol, which I did not drink but my friends did. Then just after my student days I was faced with a kind of test because all my friends at that time used both alcohol and tobacco. There was such a push towards conformity in those days — they call it peer pressure now — that they actually looked down on me because I didn’t do these things. And gathered in someone’s living room I said to them, “Look, life is a series of choices and nobody can stop you from making your choices, but I have a right to make my own choices, too. And I have chosen freedom.”

***

I also made two very important discoveries as time went on. In the first place, I discovered that making money was easy. I had been led to believe that money and possessions would insure me a life of happiness and peace of mind. So that was the path I pursued. In the second place, I discovered that making money and spending it foolishly was completely meaningless. I knew that this was not what I was here for, but at that time I didn’t know exactly what I was here for.

It was really the realization that money and things would not make me happy that got me started on my preparation for the pilgrimage. You may wonder how in the world I got involved with money and things in the first place, but you see, we are taught these sets of opposites which are extremely confusing.

I was very fortunate in that I was only confused by one of these sets of opposites; most people are confused by both.

On the one hand I was trained to believe that I should be kind and loving and never hurt anybody, which is fine. On the other hand I was trained to believe that if so ordered it is indeed honorable to maim and kill people in war. They even give medals for it. Now that one did not confuse me. I never believed there was any time under any circumstances when it was right for me to hurt anybody.

But the other set of opposites confused me for awhile…

I was trained to be generous and unselfish, and at the same time trained to believe that if I wanted to be successful I must get out there and grab more than my share of this world’s goods. These conflicting philosophies which I had gathered from my childhood environment confused me for some time. But eventually I uprooted this false training.

[reprinted from the Friends of Peace Pilgrim website: “Friends of Peace Pilgrim is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to spreading Peace Pilgrim’s message. In the tradition of her pilgrimage, all materials on this website are offered free of charge. Anyone working for peace, spiritual development, and the growth of human awareness has our willing permission to reprint non-copyrighted materials in whole or part.”]

IRAN

Posted on by asitoughttobemagazine

AP photograph by Shahabaddin Sheikhi.

NEW DAY

by Ms. Irani

Springtime in Iran usually is a blissful time, with the coming of the Persian New Year on the day of the vernal equinox, usually celebrated on March 20th or 21st. As an Iranian-American woman growing up in the U.S., I always wondered what it would be like to be celebrating this wonderful holiday known as “Norooz”, which means ‘new day’, with my fellow Iranians.  Usually I just take a day off work or school and have to explain to people why I celebrate a New Year holiday in the middle of March, instead of celebrating Christmas or Thanksgiving or any other “Am-rik-aee” holiday. Last year, I had the chance to visit my family in Iran during the Persian New Year holiday season, and with my own eyes finally got to witness the vibrant street markets and lively merchants selling the traditional holiday fixins for the annual Norooz altar…hyacinth flowers, garlic, gold fish; our equivalent of Christmas trees and ornaments. I also noticed a buzz in the air about the upcoming Iranian election in June.  Even though former Reform President Mohammad Khatami had just withdrawn from the election earlier that week, people still had hope that they were going to have an “Obama v McCain”-esque showdown, with Ahmadinejad on the radical right, and one of the (at that time) yet-undecided other candidates on the “reform” side (or really as it should be called, “the significantly less right but still very to-the-right by our standards” side). People had witnessed the power of the vote in the American elections, and were preparing to take to the polls in droves to vote for change. They were hopeful, as if they were on the brink of achieving progress peacefully and democratically through spectacular voter turnout, and challenging the authority of a supposedly ‘theocratic democracy’ which had not been tested anytime during the reign of the Islamic regime since it was ushered in during the bloody revolution of 1979. They needed a government that better represented their economic interests, to turn the attention to domestic issues such as unemployment and infrastructure problems, and also wanted some reprieve from the radical element of the regime that had taken over Iranian politics and brought such negative attention to the country for over 30 years.


Photograph courtesy of kavehfarrokh.com.

Flash-forward one year later to present day, March 2010. Preparations are yet again under way for Norooz, both amongst the Iranian population in the United States, and back with my family and fellow Iranians in Iran. But the mood is somber, one of frustration, anger, and resentment. The election was a sham, as everyone now knows. Hundreds of Iranian brothers, sisters, children, and elders have given their lives for freedom and to have their voices and votes heard, and have not, as of yet, even come close to attaining that precious freedom that we Americans take for granted every day. We captured the world media’s attention for just a moment (at least until Michael Jackson died), and had our voices heard on Twitter and You Tube, coining the term “Twitter Revolution”. All Iranian-Americans, including myself, finally felt sympathy from average Americans instead of the usual fear and disdain that has followed us since the hostage crisis. Freedom fighters, politicians, activists, musicians, actors, and citizens from around the world were both captivated and horrified with images of dying Iranian youth on the street; even U2 dedicated their disaffected-people’s anthem “Sunday Bloody Sunday” to the people of Iran. And politics and international policy once again became center stage with the Iran’s pending nuclear development, instead of those forgotten domestic issues that continue to affect regular Iranians on a daily basis. With regard to the election, most Iranians keep repeating a famous Iranian adage that says, “The fire is not over; it is still smoldering as embers beneath the dirt”, but that is become more and more difficult to believe as the situation grows bleak with each passing day. Just this week, the so-called Islamic government shut down two more prominent Iranian reform newspapers, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has barred the opposition from running in the future, claiming THEY have lost their credibility and ‘their right to participate’ by not accepting the (doctored) results of the (falsified) election. To me, what is even more infuriating than the dictatorial oppression of this regime is this blatant hypocrisy that is so incredibly obvious to most everyone both in Iran and around the world…one wonders whether they have gone completely mad with power; even devout Muslims are questioning their religious legitimacy, and it has become a current topic of discussion amongst many scholars and policy makers alike. Mr. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the “Green Revolution” reform candidate who has been in the spotlight of all the election pandemonium (and shockingly to me, has thankfully not been physically harmed by government supporters…yet), agrees:

    “This is the rule of a cult that has hijacked the concept of Iranianism and nationalism,” Mousavi said in an interview published on his Web site, kaleme.com. “Our people clearly understand the difference between divine piety and thirst for power in a religious style … our people can’t tolerate that (dictatorial) behaviors are promoted in the name of religion.”

I couldn’t agree more with Mousavi’s eloquent manner of summing up the root of the problem in Iran. This ‘Islamic’ government, through its falsification of a legitimate election, and through its violent oppression and of a large group of voters and average citizens, has proven itself to be nothing more than a petty military dictatorship thirsty for political power and financial gain. With an Iran that is in the hands of the regime’s Revolutionary Guard, helmed by a truly delusional Mahmood Ahmadinejad, a Guard veteran himself, I am left to wonder what is going to happen for the next Norooz. Will we truly have a ‘new day’ in Iran? Will I live to see change happen in my lifetime? Will my family and cousins in Iran have to live through another vicious war, like those that are occurring in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan? Will I even be able to visit Iran again? Or, as I sign this statement anonymously, must we Iranians fear crackdowns and retribution like that which has occurred to Professor Kian Tajbaksh, Bijan Khajehpour, or most recently renowned film director Jafar Panahi. A year later, Iranians are left with more uncertainty than ever about the direction our country will go in this next New Year, and what amount of violence, death, and sacrifice must those in Iran face before they have the basic right to determine their own leadership without interference from any dictatorial OR foreign power. My only hope and wish for this Norooz is that we will one day truly be able to celebrate a new day in Iran, one that will enshrine the values of freedom and liberty that all Iranians so passionately seek in the streets. On this March 20, I hope others think of Iran and will have the same wish for my country as well.

–By Ms. Irani

Ms. Irani is the pen name of a writer who lives in the Bay Area, California.