Yesterday, I got on a bicycle for the first time in 34 years.  Well, check that, I tried to get on a bicycle.  My 14-year-old daughter Kari and I went down to the bike path by the Jordan River Parkway beside the apartment complex. I attempted to get on the bike and pedal, but realized, I had, in fact forgotten the sequence of steps of how you seat yourself, reach for the pedals, balance yourself.  What is this sequence?  Can any of you describe it? I think the seat was also too high.  At any rate, I didn't even manage a full revolution of the wheel before it wobbled sharply to the right, pulled me off the pavement, and then neither Kari nor I is sure what happened.  I was thrown, landed face first on the embankment, sliding down to the river.  Blood everywhere.

Kari, though terrified, had the presence of mind to run for a neighbor, and yelled this to me as she left.  I managed to crawl back up onto the pavement while she was gone.  The neighbor cleaned me up and got me to an Instacare. Diagnosis: “really badly” (doctor's words) broken nose, gash on right leg, banged up left hand, but no fingers broken, road rash on face, and bad cuts on nose and chin.  No concussion, no eye injuries, no knocked-out teeth, no broken limbs or back or neck injuries.  I am so lucky for Kari being there, for my neighbor being there, and for relaxing on impact which reduced the injuries.  It could have been so much worse. As I write this, my face is incredibly swollen, but I can still see, I haven't needed the pain medication, and my left hand is splinted, but I can still type. The business trip to Mauai Wednesday will likely be canceled, but I should be able to return to work this week and scare the heck out of my colleagues with my bloated, bruised face.

So when someone uses the expression, “like riding a bicycle” about memory of basic experiences, tell them it ain't so.

We have invented a crude geometry
to cover our nakedness,
where arcs of arms enclose
sacred, safe spaces of trust -
yet we are neither of us good at arithmetic.

We carve fragile niches
for our momentary lapses of reason,
holding breaths and breezes from wary eyes and lips.
You tether me gently to the earth and
I teach you to fear not to dream.

We build rickety bridges
across the disparate reaches of our memories
weighing the narcotic of comfort
and the thrill of the unknown -
But that which is measured does not soothe.

We segment hours of anonymity
with stolen moments that roll back clocks and miles,
drying whiskey tears,
smoothing the creases and
lightening jaundiced, darkened snapshots.

We have not yet risen above
the tyranny of numbers;
in moments of doubt you struggle to see
a difference of age is not always
a difference of understanding.

I know, as you cannot yet
of the leaps of faith
that sway the pendulum
that add more sand to the glass
and stretch happiness to the horizon.

All hail the drunken poet!
a fifth of whiskey in one hand,
a pound of flesh in the other,
like orb and scepter
sitting in sodden sanctimonious state.

Strangling in self-imposed cocoon
staunching the bleeding by swaddling
in something or someone
seeming-safe and comfortable
with agony, with ecstasy, but alone.

Using people as tourniquets,
opiates and spent condoms
as ropes for dirty laundry--
he's not poetic or romantic,
he's pathetic and tragic.

Excusing inebriation as vulnerability,
alcoholism as genius;
he knows nothing of love,
only of obsession, anesthesia,
cheap booze and warm flesh.

Living to die in wounded drama
from one set of willing arms to another,
shotgun bottle between razor-wit lips
never sated, never really touched
writing his own tragedy.

In honor of  International Labor Day, and in solidarity with the Immigrants Rights Rallies today, let me share some thoughts about immigration reform.

The fundamental problem with our immigration laws is, as many say, that they are selectively enforced; punitively and tragically for those workers who are caught, and usually, not at all for the employers.  The laws encourage clandestine immigration and work.  The current laws value immigrants as cheap slave labor, frightened to speak up about poor working conditions, but not as intrinsically valuable human beings.

Here's my idea on immigration reform.  If persons are valuable enough to be employed, hire them, and then give them green cards if they don't already have them. Treat all workers with the same respect, and afford them the same rights.  Enforcement would consist of monitoring employers to make sure that all workers had the proper papers.  If they did not, it is the responsibility of the employer to obtain them.

 

If the responsibility is on the part of the employer to obtain green cards for their workers, they will think carefully when they hire, both because of the hassle of obtaining the papers, and the public opinion about hiring local workers first.  They will be more inclined to hire a worker who is already in this country, even if that worker seems overqualified.  American workers who have been displaced by the off-shoring of jobs, such as software developers are seeking jobs in manufacturing, service and retail that are being given to immigrants instead.  If American workers are not being turned away from these jobs, and a true need for immigrant labor exists, there should be no objection to hiring immigrants, and recognizing their basic humanity.

 

Yes, we have immigration laws, and they are arbitrary and unjust, and lead to the exploitation of human beings on both sides of the border.  Let's change the laws and their enforcement to something both the economy and human beings can live with. 

In September 1973, Linda Ensminger walked into my 8^th grade English class.  She informed us that she was a member of SDS, had a file with the FBI, and was proud of it. She also said that her job was not to tell us what to think, but to teach us how to think.  We kept journals, to record our thoughts, and write poems and essays about the world around us.  There was a lot to write about in those turbulent times of Cold War theatrics, social upheaval, visible and vocal opposition to an increasingly unpopular war.  And then Watergate exploded onto the scene.

 

In retrospect, the reports of the Watergate break-in sound more like frat boys stealing a mascot.  But at the time, it was unthinkable that there could be such corruption, and such manipulation of the electoral process.  We weren't thinking of (we barely knew anything about) the US subversion of the Chilean government, or the illegal bombing of the sanctuaries along the Viet Nam/Cambodia border, or of COINTELPRO, or any number of the now-known illegal acts of the Nixon Administration, only of the events of the Watergate break-in and cover-up themselves.  My journal was filled with newspaper clippings of Martha Mitchell's testimony, of erased tapes, of speculation and evidence.  Tidbits on then-minor White House functionary Karl Rove and a brilliant attorney named Hillary Rodham. Every day there was a new revelation of corruption and cover-up at the highest levels of government. It shook our confidence as a nation to the very core.

I was shocked, and in some ways relieved, when Nixon resigned.  I believed that now that he had resigned, that he would be tried for his crimes, justice would be done, and we could close this unfortunate chapter in our history.  I was shocked and appalled when President Ford pardoned Nixon, thinking to myself, "you don't pardon someone, unless he's guilty."

 

Fast forward to the present.  President Ford recently passed away, and in the newspaper elegies, he was praised for the great healing moment of pardoning Richard Nixon.  There was no healing in that moment for me.  It was the beginning of my cynicism and suspicion of our government.  It was a political awakening of the most negative kind. As an impressionable adolescent, I was aware of the cognitive dissonance between what my parents were teaching me about accountability and consequences, and the  seeming immunity of those rich and powerful enough to escape them.

 

We have evidence of crimes by the Bush Administration that make the events of Watergate sound trivial by comparison.  We have allegations of breaches of international treaties, of tolerance and even sanction of torture, obvious violations of international law, such as the Hague Conventions, subversion of intelligence agencies and processes and violation of constitutional protections. But instead of our Representatives and Senators asking the famous question "What did the president know, and when did he know it," we have the Speaker of the House saying that "impeachment is off the table."
  

Fortunately, we have a few brave individuals such as Mayor Rocky Anderson, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and the leadership of the Green Party of the US who are willing to risk their own political careers to ask the difficult questions. The Mayor's actions are well known in Salt Lake City. Congresswoman McKinney's last official act was to submit articles of impeachment against Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  Congressman Kucinich has submitted 3 articles of impeachment against Mr. Cheney, under House Resolution 333.  His website http://kucinich.house.gov has extensive supporting documentation for these articles of impeachment.  I urge you to read the resolution, check out the supporting documents, and come to your own conclusion. The Green Party of the US called for impeachment of President Bush in 2003; more information may be found on www.gp.org, on the press, action and impeach pages. The Desert Greens, Green Party of Utah, are joined by local Green parties across the nation in events scheduled for April 28, 2007.

As a people we carry unhealed wounds with us whenever justice is not done.  We still carry scars from the Nixon Administration, when those responsible at the highest levels were not held to account for their actions.  There can be no healing without accountability.  This is not about partisan rancor, or about retaliation; it is about accountability, and respect for ourselves and our ideals. Will we teach another generation of Americans that it is not only acceptable, but business as usual to subvert and twist and violate the laws of this nation for power or private gain?

Let us start the healing.  Investigate! Impeach! Indict!

 

About a week ago, I read an email from  an anti-nuclear list to which I subscribe, entitled, "Could this be True?" The email contained a news article from the Russian news daily Ria Novosti.  In this article, a Russian general described the US military operation Operation Bite, to unleash Shock and Awe against Iran on April 6, 2007.  Some are calling it an Easter Surprise. 

The next day, I started seeing articles about Iran arresting 15 British sailors and marines for allegedly trespassing into Iranian territorial waters. The day after that I read that the Iranian consul was surrounded by British troops, and that the soldiers were "firing into the air."  In other articles, I saw more and more incendiary language being used; Iranian snatch teams, Iran spoiling for war, hostage taking as a modus operandum, accusations that Iran is trying to "step up the tension." Who's to say that it isn't the British who are trying to step up the tension, and Iran is just responding to provocation?  

The spin had begun.  An anonymous Iraqi fisherman said that the British were in Iraqi waters.  An AP article mis-stated the terms of the Treaty of Algiers of 1975 that established the dividing line in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that forms the boundary between Iran and Iraq.  An Iraqi general said that the British were in Iranian waters.  Iraqi government official contradict him. A British admiral said that the Iranians submitted the coordinates of the British sailors in a secret diplomatic pouch, and then changed them when the British said that the coordinates given were in Iraqi waters. No one seemed interested in the Iraqi side of this story.  And if the information was submitted in a diplomatic pouch, how can the claim be verified either way? The British are lamenting the "humiliation" being suffered by the detained sailors.  The video that has been released show the personnel relaxed, and apparently well-treated. Criticizing the Iranians for their treatment of the 15 sailors and marines is laughable, given the US penchant for displaying captives in their underwear, or undergoing a physical exam. Has the Red Cross been denied access to the sailors and marines? I have seen no account that alleges this. Most recently, the Iranians have said that based on a GPS device taken from one of the sailors, that the British violated Iranian territorial waters "not once, but 6 times."  The British are said to be "softening their tone" towards the Iranians.

An overlooked fact in the media is that the entire Shatt al-Arab waterway is disputed.  Is the Treaty of Algiers of 1975 which divides it down the middle still in force, or did the Iran/Iraq war nullify it? The British claim that the UN has given them permission to patrol these waters.  If the territorial boundaries in these waters are in dispute, how can the term "Iraqi waters" be recognized or understood by the UN, if it is not agreed upon by Iraq and Iran? The media stories are completely inconsistent on this point.  A former British diplomat has called the British coordinate claims into question because the waters in dispute are out beyond the Shatt al-Arab, and called the charts they presented to the media "fabrications."

As I searched for more articles I learned of other events.  While the world seemed to be on high alert about the British sailors and marines, no one seemed concerned about the 5 Iranians detained by the US under circumstances that questioned their diplomatic status and credentials, as well as why their current whereabouts were unknown, and why they have not been charged with any crimes. Why is this action by Iran so egregious, and why is the US action being accepted without criticism?

The few recent accounts of the capture of the Iranian personnel are in inflammatory language, labeling the Iranian personnel in custody as "intelligence operatives," or "infiltrators" and ignoring the Iraqi assertion that they were in the process of being given full diplomatic credentials.

The assertions about Iran's weapons program are not borne out by the intelligence or by the IAEA. Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, as well as several other analysts, including CIA analysts believe that Iran is close to 10 years away from technically being able to build a weapon, and there is no way to gauge intent. The Supreme Leader of Iran has called nuclear weapons "un-Islamic," and tried to assure the international community that Iran is only interested in a reliable energy source.  While Iran may be sitting on a "sea of oil" as Donald Rumsfeld said back in the 1970's, it has no refining capability, because it was destroyed during the Iran/Iraq War. El-Baradei has stated that certainly the Iranians have knowledge, but "you cannot bomb knowledge."

The activities of the UN Security Council in unanimously passing a new round of sanctions are deplorable. Iran is NOT violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has, in fact, agreed to much more intrusive inspections than any other country. For the UN to pass sanctions against Iran based on a suspicion of its activities, and because Iran has failed to prove a negative, that is the absence of a weapons program is surreal. The United States IS in violation of the NPT. Under current UN criteria, wouldn't it be appropriate for sanctions to be called against the US for its development of Complex 2030, a complete revamp of the US nuclear weapons program, when it is supposed to be eliminating its stockpile, not improving it? Would it be appropriate for some other country to threaten to bomb Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratories, because they are developing plans for new nuclear weapons?

I read the official account of the new round of sanctions passed against Iran on March 24. Iran passionately defended itself, and recounted a formidable and credible list of grievances against the UN and US. I will post his statement as a separate blog entry.

Many news outlets comment that these sanctions will lead to the further isolation of Iran, and ignore the diplomatic axiom, that if you back your enemy into a corner, he will become desperate.  It is speculated that Russia and China will no longer support Iran since they voted in favor of the UN sanctions. In a couple of other articles I read that Russia had removed all of its personnel from the Bushehr reactor site, supposedly because of non-payment of the construction contracts, although other sources report that the bills are 90% paid. In another article, it was reported that Russia has been assured by the US that the Bushehr reactor would not be targeted. Could this be how the US persuaded/bribed Russia to tow the line? I'm not sure of the change with China, but they could have been acting on the assumption that the US would do something unilateral unless the sanctions passed, and that voting 'yes' bought time. The Chinese frequently take a longer, more patient view on issues before the UN. There are Latin American states, including OPEC members that certainly still support Iran, and a number of Arab states are rallying behind Iran, and refusing use of their airspace to the US. The significance here cannot be overstated.  Iran is not an Arab nation.  Iran is primarily Shiite in population, while the majority of the Arab world is Sunni.

There has been much focus on the rhetoric of the Iranian president. Certainly Ahmadinejad is guilt of making inflammatory statements, but the media continues to parrot the discredited translation of his speech that calls for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, and this in turn provokes the pro-Zionist lobby. Many reputable scholars have translated this as "Israel will vanish from the pages of time," a very different sentiment, and referring to the inevitable demise of a repressive regime, not the imminent actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was also quoting Ayatollah Khomeini at the time. Isn't calling Iran part of the Axis of Evil, and saber-rattling in their direction equally inflammatory? It is also the case that in the Iranian governmental model, the president really has very little power over foreign affairs. The words of the Supreme Leader are much more measured, and apparently less news-worthy. What is also ignored are the attempts a diplomacy, including unconditional recognition of Israel channeled through the Swiss ambassador that were ignored by the US.

Some disarmament experts doubt that the Easter Surprise will happen because it would be suicide for the carrier groups to strike while they were in range of the Iranian Exocet missiles. The news today reported that the carrier groups had completed their exercises. If the carrier groups are done with their exercises, they may move out of the Gulf. I think we should be watching carrier movements over the next few days.

Do I want to see a nuclear armed Iran? No! But neither do I want to see a nuclear bombed United States. Commentators such as Scott Ritter and William John Cox have speculated on what an attack, particularly a nuclear attack on Iran could reap for the US.  We should live under no illusions of the retribution that would certainly follow such an attack.

Is this nation truly considering bombing Iran "back into the stone age?" If so we have truly become a rogue nation, and an Axis of Evil unto ourselves.

The following is a partial list of the articles I have been reading over the past week.  Please read, educate yourself, educate others, and work to stop this madness.

 For recent news information:

Britain Adopts Conciliatory Tone with Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/world/middleeast/01iran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Power Struggle in Iran Over Hostages

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596694.ece

Gulf Allies Reject Role in any Attack on Iran

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/nationworld/ci_5548268

Iran: Decision to withhold information due to fear of U.S., Israeli attack

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/844232.html 

US Ready to Strike Iran on Good Friday

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879220977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

U.S. Ready to Strike Iran in Early April

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

Iranian Official: Sailors May be Tried

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070331/D8O76O400.html

Fate of Five Detained Iranians Unknown

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/30/192/

Iran Changed Coordinates of British Boats Say s British Ambassador

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Changed_Coordinates_Of_British_Boats_Says_British_Ambassador_999.html

Easter Surprise: Attack on Iran , New 9/11… or Worse

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/28/150/

USS Nimitz Scheduled to Depart for Persian Gulf

http://www.10news.com/news/11422067/detail.html

Russian Intelligence Sees U.S. Military Buildup on Iran Border

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

Iraqi Gen: Brits Entered Iranian Waters

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B651827DC-B0C5-4F39-9C20-7060760139CF%7D)&language=EN

Carrier Stennis Joins Eisenhower for Exercises in Persian Gulf

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=121837&ran=241052

Iran: El-Baradei Says Attack on Country Would be Catastrophic

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/01/20E65B32-383F-4778-A13D-1D438C4E2F34.html

For detailed analysis:

The War on Iran

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070401&articleId=5247

Iran: Washington's Next Nuclear Target? By John Hallam

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/705/36618

War Without Win: A White Paper on Iran by William John Cox

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_william__070320_war_without_win_3a__a_.htm

The Redirection by Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh%3F%25E2%2580%259D

Heads Up on Anti-Iran Propaganda by George Cheney

http://www.catalystmagazine.net/shorts--occasionals/politics-shorts/heads-up-on-anti-iran-propaganda.html

Regime Change is the Reason, Disarmament the Excuse (interview with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter)

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10595

What's it Like Waiting Around to be Bombed?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russ_wel_070328_what_s_it_like_waiti.htm

Keeping All Options on the Table: A Roadmap to Negotiation or War?

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4043

The View From Tehran

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/21/letter_from_iran/

On January 10, 2007 the Salt Lake Tribune called upon the Governor and congressional delegation to demand answers from Defense Threat Reduction Agency.  There have been many media stories focusing on the concerns of downwinders, and about how far the danger could extend.  To date, the health concerns and demands for public comment have extended only to the states of Nevada, Utah and Idaho. But the demand for public participation on the environmental assessment and for reassurances on the safety of the test misses two key points.

 

While concerns about the possible dispersal of radioactive soil are, to a large extent, local issues, issues of national security and  defense posture are not NIMBY (Not in my backyard) issues. There is wide agreement among weapons experts, such as at the Federation of American Scientists, that this test will be used to develop metrics for the deployment of new tactical nuclear weapons.  Indeed, the initial budget stated that the intent of the test was "to improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage." 

 

At the same time that the NEPA process is being followed for this test, the Department of Energy is considering proposals to revamp the existing nuclear arsenal with a proposal called the Reliable Replacement Warhead.  This is part of a larger plan called the Complex 2030, which would revamp the entire US weapons complex, allowing for a new generation of nuclear weapons.  By the terms of the Non-proliferation Treaty, which the US uses like a club over the heads of Iran and North Korea, the US and other nuclear weapons states are obligated to drawing down their arsenals towards eventual abolition. Mohammad ElBaradei of the IAEA has recently restated that this is the essential goal of the NPT.  What message is sent to the rest of the world when the US not only does not draw down its nuclear force, but actively (with Complex 2030) and subtly (with Divine Strake) moves forward with plans to upgrade its nuclear capacity.  Already, other nations are following suit; 8 nations are testing ICBMs, 2 are upgrading their nuclear submarine fleets, and currently non-nuclear states such as the Arab States are claiming their need for nuclear "power." In today's climate of international tension, this test is provocative and ill-advised.

 

What is also not a local concern is the rule of law.  The US considers itself subject to not only its own laws, but the treaties it signs with other nations, including the Charter of the United Nations.  The US criticizes nations such as North Korea and Iran as acting outside the "community of nations" for its alleged violations of UN resolutions and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Yet the US  regularly violates UN resolutions as well as supports other countries who violate them, such as Israel, and violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as supports other countries who violate it (or refuse to sign it), such as Israel, India and Pakistan.  In addition, the US violates its own laws, particularly the treaties it signs with native peoples. The Nevada Test site sits on land that by the terms of the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863 is part of the Western Shoshone Nation.  The US seized this land to create the Nevada Test Site, citing that "gradual encroachment" by non-Western Shoshone settlers meant that the Western Shoshone no longer held title to this land, and the US government seized it, essentially through eminent domain.  A drive through this country will show you that no such encroachment has taken place.  If this degree of gradual encroachment is lawful grounds for land seizure, then Mexico should be able to annex much of the southwestern US.

 

The Western Shoshone have sought peaceful redress of their land claims for years, and have been denied any audience within the US.  Finally, they went to the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  In March of 2006, the UN CERD committee declared that the US should "cease," "freeze" and "stop" its activities on Western Shoshone land, including extractive industries,  the activities at the Nevada Test Site, and the development of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility.  To date, the US has not complied with this directive, nor has it prepared a compliance report. This issue is largely below the radar for most Americans, because the US media does not cover it.  The international media does, including Belgian, Spanish and Italian media.  If Al-Jazeera finds this issue important enough to give it front page coverage with photos, shouldn't Americans be concerned?

 

Are we a nation of laws?  If we are, then we must adhere to our own laws, including arms reduction treaties, UN resolutions and our treaties with native peoples. This is not a local issue.  People all over the United States must step forward and demand the cancellation of this test, as a small, but initial step towards returning to the rule of law.

I've been following the media on the recent I.C.E. raids of Swift, and was compelled to put in my two cents worth.  Here is an article about the effects of the raid on residents of Northern Utah, and opinion of some readers, and my response.

 

http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2006/12/21/news/news02.txt#blogcomments

 

Here are some other facts to consider about selective enforcement of immigration and employment laws.  What charges is Swift facing? None.  What will they pay in fines? $0. So, tell me, what is the incentive for Swift or other employers to follow the law, verify documents, treat workers with respect? None.  I would be very surprised if Swift didn't continue to hire workers they suspected of being in the US "illegally."  It is no loss to them to hire someone, withhold taxes from them, and then say, so sorry, when their status is revealed.  Remember that only about 10% are facing identity theft charges.  What was the documentation for the other 90%? Did Swift even check?  The truth about "illegal" immigration is that it cuts both ways.  What criticism do we raise against a manufacturer who decides to move off-shore, leaving hundreds of employees high and dry? None; sometimes we actually praise the employer for reducing their costs, to remain competitive.  It's not just about competition; in many places it's about survival. If we praise companies for going off-shore in search of the lowest wages in the world, why do we not also praise the initiative of workers who move in search of higher or any wages?  Is moving 30 miles from Mexico to San Diego really any different than moving, say, from Cache Valley to Salt Lake City? Corporations and capital are allowed to travel wherever they want, sometimes with the backing of the US government and military.  Look at what Paul Bremer did in changing the Iraqi constitution to allow foreign ownership (and keeping of profits) of Iraqi businesses.  We are fixated on the nationality of workers while we allow corporations to become stateless. Our laws about borders are arbitrary and punish workers, while allowing corporate elites to make higher and higher profits at worker expense.  Look at your own paychecks and prospects for success over the past few decades, and compare with the skyrocketing salaries of CEOs.  Are you getting ahead, or have you become content to allow yourself to become pawns, and to demonize fellow workers ?

I've just come off a week of euphoria over the wonderful unexpected accidental connections we can make with people.  I had heard of the organization Jewish Voice for Peace (http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ ) before, but I read some amazing articles in the Jewish Peace News for the first time.  It filled me with such hope to see Israeli nuclear policy, destruction of Bedouin villages and disagreement among Jews about the character of Israel reported with so much candor. I passed this e-newsletter on to friends, and learned of local anti-Zionist voices within the Jewish community in Salt Lake City.

 

2 days before I had run into the former head of the Lesbian Avengers, who had taught me about how to "redecorate" a billboard. The Avengers are now defunct, but in their heyday it was like having a local Ruckus training camp. We have committed to keeping in touch.

 

The day before, I had participated in a labor coalition meeting planning a protest at the Mexican Embassy in SLC in solidarity with APPO in Oaxaca, Mexico.  I got into a long discussion with Isaac Giron of the SLC Brown Berets. Who would expect there to be Brown Berets in SLC? Fantastic!

 

Isaac and I talked about Liberation School, where immigrants are taught, among other things, English.  He and I are working on a plan to also include a Spanish class.  I can learn how to order a Licuado through any of the Spanish self-help books, but we agreed that activists need a specialized vocabulary.  We're thinking of a phrase book with things like:

 

"Please stay on the sidewalk."

"The building is surrounded!"

"The barricades are on fire!"

"Do the police have tear gas?"

"Where are the medics?"

"Put your bandanas on now!"

 

Isaac is also hooking me up with a chapter of La Otra in SLC.

 

At the same meeting, I met someone who is trying to set up a Beer not Bombs in SLC.  I'm also a brewer, and the IWW here has been talking of creating a collective nano-brewery.

 

What an amazing place this city can be.

Today I read a blog by Jim Wallis,  a faith progressive, who published God's Politics, and publishes Sojourners.  His most recent blog entry was entitled "A Defeat for the Religious Right and the Secular Left." here is the link to the blog. http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/

and here is my response. 

I am glad to see that I am not the only person offended by the title "A Defeat for the Religious Right and the Secular Left." 

 

I am deeply spiritual, but adhere to no particular creed. I have been receiving the Sojourner newsletter, and opening dialogue with my evangelical stepmother.  I have also been working to form alliances with faith communities, focusing on what we have in common; care for the poor, fair labor standards, universal healthcare, an end to nuclear weapons, an end to torture and to the many wars around the world, not just the war in Iraq, and the exploitation  of others for economic gain.

 

Over the past several months especially, I have had the privilege of working with Father Louis Vitale, Sister Megan Rice, members of the Catholic Workers, and Nevada Desert Experience, as well as traditional Western Shoshones, and LDS members here in Utah. 

 

I consider myself secular, because I do not believe that particular religious views have any place in our government, and that we need to learn tolerance and acceptance for all faith views.  To hear that I was "defeated," simply because I support the right of a woman to choose based on her own beliefs (and there are faith systems that do not believe that abortion is "murder") whether and when to have a child through birth control, and if necessary, abortion, and defend the right of my gay and lesbian friends and neighbors in committed relationships to enjoy the same rights and privileges that I do under the law, is deeply insulting to me, and demeaning to them. 

 

The narrow-mindedness of this title shocks and saddens me, and makes me skeptical about supporting this organization in the future.