Wednesday, January 7, 2009

The Power of Forgiveness Movie

http://www.thepowerofforgiveness.com/about/index.html

This film does an extremely good job of building the motivation to explore forgiveness, first for oneself, then for others through empathy and compassion. This topic is the very root of peace-building. Peace does not come from justice (which is an issue we cannot ignore), peace comes from letting go of the anger. It includes many real-life stories of tragedy and healing, not the least of which is the final one, Azim Khamisa's. My wife and I were teary-eyed because of the hope for fulfillment of our deepest longings, not only for ourselves but also for all the children.

A detailed description of the film is here, and you can buy it at Amazon.com through The Peace Alliance link for less than $17, well worth it. I plan to use it as part of a series of movie nights to raise money for the campaign.

Gratefully,
David
David Hazen
Oregon State Coordinator
The Peace Alliance Campaign
for a U.S. Department of Peace
Oregon Campaign on Facebook
Encouragement for a Culture of Peace
innercom@peak.org
541.343.2109
Eugene, Oregon

"Political activism is seductive because it seems to offer the possibility that one can improve society, make things better, without going through the personal ordeal of rearranging one's perceptions and transforming one's self." -Tom Robbins

Friday, July 27, 2007

Visions and Ideals by James Allen

Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become. Your Vision is the promise of what you shall one day be; your Ideal is the prophecy of what you shall at last unveil.

The greatest achievement was at first and for a time a dream. THIS IS THE LINE I LOVE: The oak sleeps in the acorn; the bird waits in the egg; and in the highest vision of the soul a waking angel stirs. Dreams are the seedlings of realities.

Your circumstances may be unpleasant, but they shall not long remain so if you but perceive an Ideal and strive to reach it. You cannot travel within and stand still without.

You, too, will realize the Vision (not the idle wish) of your heart, be it base or beautiful, or a mixture of both, for you will always gravitate toward that which you, secretly, most love. Whatever your present environment may be, you will fall, remain, or rise with your thoughts, your Vision, your Ideal. You will become as small as your controlling desire; as great as your dominant aspiration.

The thoughtless, the ignorant, and the lazy, seeing only the apparent effects of things and not the things themselves, talk of luck, of fortune, and chance. See a man grow rich, they say, “How lucky he is!” Observing another become intellectual, they exclaim, “How highly favored he is!” And noting the saintly character and wide influence of another, the remark, “How chance aids him at every turn!”

They do not see the trials and failures and struggles which these men have voluntarily encountered in order to gain their experience; they have no knowledge of the sacrifices they have made, of the undaunted efforts they have put forth, of the faith they have exercised, that they might overcome the apparently insurmountable, and realize the Vision of their heart. They do not know the darkness and the heartaches; they only see the light and joy, and call it “luck”; do not see the long and arduous journey, but only behold the pleasant goal, and call it “good fortune”; do not understand the process, but only perceive the result, and call it “chance.”

In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result. Chance is not. “Gifts,” material, intellectual, and spiritual possessions are the fruits of effort; they are thoughts completed, objects accomplished, visions realized.

The Vision that you glorify in your mind, the Ideal that you enthrone in your heart—this you will build your life by, this you will become.
____________
James Allen was born in Leicester, England on November 28, 1864. When he was fifteen, the family business failed and his father left for America to find work. His father was murdered before he could send for the family and subsequently, James left school and worked for several British manufacturers until 1902. His literary career lasted only nine years until his death in 1912. As A Man Thinketh was his second book.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

complex love of country

Patriotism's Secret History
by PETER DREIER & DICK FLACKS

[from the June 3, 2002 issue]

Many Americans believe that the left is "antipatriotic" (and even anti-American), while the political right truly expresses the American spirit and reveres its symbols. Particularly since the late 1960s--when the movement against US intervention in Vietnam gained momentum--the terms "progressive" and "patriotism" have rarely been used in the same sentence, at least in the mainstream media. It has become conventional wisdom that conservatives wave the American flag while leftists burn it. Patriotic Americans display the flag on their homes; progressives turn it upside down to show contempt.

Recent months have seen a dramatic increase in the number of Americans proudly displaying the Stars and Stripes on their cars, homes, businesses, T-shirts, caps, lapel pins and even tattoos. This outpouring of flag-waving signifies a variety of sentiments--from identification with the victims of the September 11 attacks to support for the military's invasion of Afghanistan. But in our popular culture, displays of the American flag are--along with the very idea of "patriotism"--typically viewed as expressions of "conservative" politics. The patriotic fervor since September 11 has revitalized that belief and, as in other times, has given conservative politicos and pundits a handy means to undermine dissent and progressive initiatives.

A case in point: In Santa Barbara, California, progressive County Supervisor Gail Marshall is facing the possibility of a recall election fueled by right-wing forces opposed to her support for environmental regulation, affordable housing and labor unions. Because Marshall occupies the key swing seat on the five-member county board, Santa Barbara's conservative activists--funded by oil interests, agribusiness and land developers--have been trying to unseat her for years. They launched a recall campaign after Marshall refused to rubber-stamp a proposal to require the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings of one of her community advisory boards. Marshall said she wanted the board to discuss the idea, but her opponents--who made sure that TV camera crews were present at the meeting where the issue first surfaced--have turned her civil libertarian instincts into proof that she's hostile to public expressions of patriotism.

In TV ads and newsletters, Marshall's opponents--who are gathering signatures for a recall petition that, if successful, will go before the voters this fall--claim that her alleged reluctance to have the pledge recited was clear confirmation of their suspicion that she is a "socialist."

Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a leading Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy, who was fired from his Boston ministry for his sermons depicting Jesus as a socialist. Bellamy penned the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a magazine for young people published in Boston with a circulation of about 500,000.

A few years earlier, the magazine had sponsored a largely successful campaign to sell American flags to public schools. In 1891 the magazine hired Bellamy--whose first cousin Edward Bellamy was the famous socialist author of the utopian novel Looking Backward--to organize a public relations campaign to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America by promoting use of the flag in public schools. Bellamy gained the support of the National Education Association, along with President Benjamin Harrison and Congress, for a national ritual observance in the schools, and he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance as part of the program's flag salute ceremony.

Bellamy thought such an event would be a powerful expression on behalf of free public education. Moreover, he wanted all the schoolchildren of America to recite the pledge at the same moment. He hoped the pledge would promote a moral vision to counter the individualism embodied in capitalism and expressed in the climate of the Gilded Age, with its robber barons and exploitation of workers. Bellamy intended the line "One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all" to express a more collective and egalitarian vision of America.

Bellamy's view that unbridled capitalism, materialism and individualism betrayed America's promise was widely shared in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many American radicals and progressive reformers proudly asserted their patriotism. To them, America stood for basic democratic values--economic and social equality, mass participation in politics, free speech and civil liberties, elimination of the second-class citizenship of women and racial minorities, a welcome mat for the world's oppressed people. The reality of corporate power, right-wing xenophobia and social injustice only fueled progressives' allegiance to these principles and the struggle to achieve them.

Most Americans are unaware that much of our patriotic culture--including many of the leading icons and symbols of American identity--was created by artists and writers of decidedly left-wing and even socialist sympathies. A look at the songs sung at post-9/11 patriotic tribute events and that appear on the various patriotic compilation albums, or the clips incorporated into film shorts celebrating the "American spirit," reveals that the preponderance of these originated in the forgotten tradition of left-wing patriotism.

Begin with the lines inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Emma Lazarus was a poet of considerable reputation in her day, a well-known figure in literary circles. She was a strong supporter of Henry George and his "socialistic" single-tax program, and a friend of William Morris, a leading British socialist. Her welcome to the "wretched refuse" of the earth, written in 1883, was an effort to project an inclusive and egalitarian definition of the American dream.

The words to "America the Beautiful" were written in 1893 by Katharine Lee Bates, a professor of English at Wellesley College. Bates was an accomplished and published poet, whose book America the Beautiful and Other Poems includes a sequence of poems expressing outrage at US imperialism in the Philippines. Indeed, Bates identified with the anti-imperialist movement of her day and was part of progressive reform circles in the Boston area concerned about labor rights, urban slums and women's suffrage. She was also an ardent feminist, and for decades lived with and loved her Wellesley colleague Katharine Coman, an economist and social activist. "America the Beautiful" not only speaks to the beauty of the American continent but also reflects her view that US imperialism undermines the nation's core values of freedom and liberty. The poem's final words--"and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea"--are an appeal for social justice rather than the pursuit of wealth.

Many Americans consider Woody Guthrie's song "This Land Is Your Land," penned in 1940, to be our unofficial national anthem. Guthrie was a radical with strong ties to the Communist Party. He was inspired to write the song as an answer to Irving Berlin's popular "God Bless America," which he thought failed to recognize that it was the "people" to whom America belonged. The words to "This Land Is Your Land" reflect Guthrie's fusion of patriotism, support for the underdog and class struggle. In this song Guthrie celebrates America's natural beauty and bounty but criticizes the country for its failure to share its riches, reflected in the song's last and least-known verse:


One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple
By the relief office I saw my people.
As they stood hungry I stood there wondering
If this land was made for you and me.

Guthrie was not alone in combining patriotism and radicalism during the Depression and World War II. In this period, many American composers, novelists, artists and playwrights engaged in similar projects. In the early 1930s, for example, a group of young composers and musicians--including Marc Blitzstein (author of the musical "The Cradle Will Rock"), Charles Seeger (a well-known composer and musicologist, and father of folk singer Pete Seeger) and Aaron Copland--formed the "composers' collective" to write music that would serve the cause of the working class. They turned to American roots and folk music for inspiration. Many of their compositions--including Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" and "Lincoln Portrait"--are now patriotic musical standards, regularly performed at major civic events.

Earl Robinson was a member of the composers' collective who pioneered the effort to combine patriotism and progressivism. In 1939 he teamed with lyricist John La Touche to write "Ballad for Americans," which was performed on the CBS radio network by Paul Robeson, accompanied by chorus and orchestra. This eleven-minute cantata provided a musical review of American history, depicted as a struggle between the "nobodies who are everybody" and an elite that fails to understand the real, democratic essence of America.

Robeson, at the time one of the best-known performers on the world stage, became, through this work, a voice of America. Broadcasts and recordings of "Ballad for Americans" (by Bing Crosby as well as Robeson) were immensely popular. In the summer of 1940, it was performed at the national conventions of both the Republican and Communist parties. The work soon became a staple in school choral performances, but it was literally ripped out of many public school songbooks after Robinson and Robeson were identified with the radical left and blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Since then, however, "Ballad for Americans" has been periodically revived, notably during the bicentennial celebration in 1976, when a number of pop and country singers performed it in concerts and on TV.

During World War II, with lyricist Lewis Allen, Robinson co-wrote another patriotic hit, "The House I Live In." Its lyrics asked, and then answered, the question posed in the first line of the song, "What is America to me?" The song evokes America as a place where all races can live freely, where one can speak one's mind, where the cities as well as the natural landscapes are beautiful. The song was made a hit by Frank Sinatra in 1945. Sinatra also starred in an Oscar-winning movie short--written by Albert Maltz, later one of the Hollywood Ten--in which he sang "The House I Live In" to challenge bigotry, represented in the movie by a gang of kids who rough up a Jewish boy.

"The House I Live In," like "Ballad for Americans," was exceedingly popular for several years but became controversial during the McCarthy period and has largely disappeared from public consciousness. Its co-author, Lewis Allen, was actually Abel Meeropol, a high school teacher who also penned "Strange Fruit," the anti-lynching song made famous by Billie Holiday. In the 1950s Meeropol and his wife adopted the sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after their parents were executed as atom spies. Despite this, Sinatra kept the song in his repertoire. Perhaps the most astonishing performance of "The House I Live In" was at the nationally televised commemoration of the centenary of the Statue of Liberty in 1986, when Sinatra sang it as the finale to the program, with President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy Reagan, sitting directly in front of him.

Only a handful of Americans could have grasped the political irony of that moment: Sinatra performing a patriotic anthem written by blacklisted writers to a President who, as head of the Screen Actors Guild in the 1950s, helped create Hollywood's purge of radicals. Sinatra's own left-wing (and nearly blacklisted) past, and the history of the song itself, have been obliterated from public memory.

Even during the 1960s, American progressives continued to seek ways to fuse their love of country with their opposition to the national government's policies. The March on Washington in 1963 gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, where Martin Luther King Jr. famously quoted the words to "My Country 'Tis of Thee." Phil Ochs, then part of a new generation of politically conscious singer-songwriters who emerged during the 1960s, wrote an anthem in the Guthrie vein, "Power and Glory," which coupled love of country with a strong plea for justice and equality. Interestingly, this song later became part of the repertoire of the US Army band. And in 1968, in a famous antiwar speech on the steps of the Capitol, Norman Thomas, the aging leader of the Socialist Party, proclaimed, "I come to cleanse the American flag, not burn it."

In recent decades, Bruce Springsteen has most closely followed in the Guthrie tradition. From "Born in the USA," to his songs about Tom Joad (the militant protagonist in John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath), to his recent anthem for the victims of the September 11 tragedy ("My City of Ruins"), whom he urges to "come on rise up!" Springsteen has championed the downtrodden while challenging America to live up to its ideals. Indeed, by performing both "Born in the USA" and "Land of Hope and Dreams" at benefits for the families of World Trade Center casualties, Springsteen has coupled his anger at injustice with his belief in the nation's promise.

In each major period of twentieth-century history--the Progressive era, the Depression, World War II and the postwar era--American radicals and progressives expressed a patriotism rooted in democratic values and consciously aimed at challenging jingoism and "my country, right or wrong" thinking. Every day, millions of Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, sing "America the Beautiful" and "This Land Is Your Land," and memorize the words on the Statue of Liberty without knowing the names of their authors, their political inspiration or the historical context in which they were written.

The progressive authors of much of America's patriotic iconography rejected blind nationalism, militaristic drumbeating and sheeplike conformism. So it would be a dire mistake to allow, by default, jingoism to become synonymous with patriotism and the American spirit. Throughout our nation's history, radicals and reformers have viewed their movements as profoundly patriotic. They have believed that America's core claims--fairness, equality, freedom, justice--were their own. In the midst of current patriotic exuberance both authentic and manipulated, then, it is useful to recall the forgotten cultural legacy of the left. We need to ask, once again, "What is America to us?"

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Rabbi Lerner responding to Cindy Sheehan's Resignation from a Leadership Role in Anti-War Work

A note from Rabbi Michael Lerner:

I've contacted Cindy Sheehan to ask her to reconsider her decision, but I certainly understand much of what she is talking about in the note below describing her decision to leave activism.

When I invited Cindy Sheehan to speak at my synagogue, I was deluged by people telling me that she was an anti-Semite. When I invited her to speak at our Network of Spiritual Progressives conference in D.C., again I was deluged by communications from people telling me that her motives were impure, that she was just wanting to get publicity, that she was an opportunist, and that I was hurting our own credibility by having her speak.

I didn't give credence to any of that because the same and worse has been said about me, so I always suspect that anyone receiving that amount of personal negativity is either really bad, or, as I found out in personal contact with Sheehan, someone who has so much goodness and decency and idealism pouring out of her, mixed with righteous indignation, that s/he elicits fear, anger, competitiveness and a desire to eliminate her from public life even by people who agree with her.

Peter Gabel and I have analyzed in Tikkun the way that a hopeful movement or leader often unleashes a complex of feelings, partly of hope, but partly of fear. People remember, either consciously or unconsciously, moments earlier in their lives in which they opened themselves to love, kindness, generosity or hope, and then were deeply disappointed when it was not reciprocated in kind, or when they actually felt humiliated for making themselves vulnerable.

Fear that that humiliation or deep disappointment may happen again leads many to defend themselves against such an outcome by doing everything they can to negate the feelings of hope that are being elicited by a hopeful movement or a leader who is hopeful. Sometimes this will manifest in "acting-out" at a meeting,insisting that "the plan" (whatever it is) cannot possibly work, or that there is no evidence that it will, or that everyone who is involved in the project at hand is really missing the point, or that there is the wrong leadership (the people providing it are deficient in their sensitivity to racism, sexism, homophobia, egotism, process, psychological sensitivity, people who are physically challenged and otherly-abled, or some other similar fault in them). Or they will attack the leadership personally ("she is just out for power") or they will attack the underlying ideology even though they knew what it was before joining this particular group. Or they will complain that a fabulous and brilliant teacher or speaker is speaking too long, or that the email are too long to read--even though they often read books with less substance that are longer or listen to dumb television programs or movies for much longer. People are endlessly inventive in ways to protect themselves from feeling the humiliation that they fear might come back if they were to allow themselves to hope or to believe and work for a world of love, and then act lovingly toward fellow members of their movement or the leadership of the movement.

People tell me that they believe most of my generation "sold out" after the 60s because they wanted the material advantages of the society. But in my experience the most talented, caring, sensitive and creative people I met in movement activities, particularly those who were willing to take the extra personal risks involved in becoming leadership and spokespeople for peace and justice, left the Left not because of a desire for material success, but because they felt abused by others on the Left and in the liberal world who, while agreeing with their ideas, nevertheless found ways to be inhumane, insensititve, and put-downish to others in their movement.

Rumors were spread that claimed that the most idealistic of these people were "really" just out for power, fame or ego-gratification of some sort, and that undercut the effectiveness of these leaders because others responded to them not by listening to their ideas, but by treating them as suspect because of "what they had heard."

Few of those who spread these negative stories really bothered to get to know the people about whom they gossiped, and few ever bothered to acknowledge how destructive this behavior was. But for those who were the objects of this kind of abuse, the feeling of being undercut by people who should have been allies caused personal pain and eventual despair that anything really could ever change. A few of us hung in and remain involved, in my case at least sustained by a personal spiritual practice, but for each 60s activist still involved, there are thousands who are not, who could not stand this way of being treated, and who, when they stick their nose into the dynamics of the present movements of the first decade of the 21st century, quickly discover the same kind of dynamics operating in the Left and in the liberal world.

I've written about this in my book Surplus Powerlessness and in The Left Hand of God, so I'll only say that here in the case of Cindy Sheehan, once again, this movement has pushed away a very decent and ethically-motivated fighter for peace and justice. I only wish I could promise her that she would not experience again the pain that I and others personally experience every day in being involved in social change movements that do not show adequate caring for their activists and leaders.

I'm happy to report that this is not the dynamic in the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and that I'll do everything I can to make sure that it never becomes the dominant reality here. Our spiritual framework, our willingness to talk openly about love, and about the need for compassion for all the ways that each of us fails to be an embodiment of our highest values (including, of course, me and other leaders of our movement) helps a lot. Our message pulls for a more gentle way to be with each other.

But, that's no guarantee: I've watched people verbally beat each other up over who is not compassionate enough? i.e. When people have an unconscious fear and need to protect themselves from opening up to a world of love, they can turn the very idea of love or compassion into a weapon to hurt each other. Nothing protects us but our constant awareness and rededication to embody our values as much as we possibly can, and to be gentle with ourselves and others when we fail in this.

There is another element in Cindy's story that isn't really under our control. The Democratic Party has within it some very idealistic people. But it also has many "realists" who have decided that the only way they can accomplish their idealistic goals is to work within the parameters of "realism" set by the eltes of wealth and power who control funding for campaigns and own the media. Such people, often because they want to accomplish something very good and decent like ending the war, feel that they must distance themselves from the most idealistic people who have put their bodies, reputations, future chances for employment or money on the line and taken to the streets to challenge the system. Those who do so are often quoted by the media only when it sounds as if they are saying something unreasonable or extreme. and then the "realists" working inside the Democratic Party or the Congress or the liberal media feel that their own chances of influencing events will be weakened if they are identified with the more seemingly "extreme" statements of those who have been most courageous in challenging irrational and destructive policies.

So the "realists" try to distance themselves from the idealistic activists, often by putting down the very people who were the first to respond to the ethical crises--the shall we call them "prematurely ethical people." So, the "realists" make it harder for the ethically sensitive activists who first recognized the ethical crisis (and were willing to take personal risks to talk about it) to function politically or be taken seriously by anyone who hasn't personally encountered them.

Democrats who actually do agree with ethically motivated activists end up distancing or even attacking us, or making off-handed remarks to the media whose import is "stay away from her or him--they are too irresponsible or extreme or flakey."

The irony is that the people whom the realists dismiss this way are often the very people whose writings and formulations were what broke through the ethical deadness of the "realists" and made them aware of the need to change policies.

But instead of honoring those who are first out there, the realists instead resent these "prematurely ethical" people and diss them whenever possible, insisting that it is only they, the realists, who can make any real changes in the society. Imagine how disappointing it was to millions of activists when MoveOn began to talk the language of the realists and defend the Democrats for trying to work out compromises with Bush and then eventually capitulating to fund the war. We know how disappointed we were when we couldn't get Move On to send out our message about the Global Marshall Plan and our alternative strategy to end the war. "Spiritual" ideas are also "unrealistic" to the realists, and so they ignore or put us down. And yet, the very ideas that we advance today will be those that in a few years these same people will be telling you that "they always agreed and supported these same goals." Meanwhile, people like Cindy Sheehan get batted around till its hard to remain in that kind of vulnerable public position.

Blessings to all who continue to struggle, each in their own ways, as Cindy Sheehan certainly will, for peace, justice, generosity and love to prevail on our planet.

Rabbi Michael Lerner
RabbiLerner@tikkun.org

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Congressional Food Stamp Challenge

http://foodstampchallenge.typepad.com/

U.S. Members of Congress to Live on a Food Stamp Budget from May 15-21 Staff and Advocate Groups to Join Challenge

Take the Food Stamp Challenge ~ Live on a Food Stamp Budget for One Week

U.S. Representatives James McGovern (D-MA), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Tim Ryan (D-OH) have pledged to live on an average food stamp budget -- just $3 a day -- from May 15-21, 2007 and have invited other Members of Congress to join them in the Food Stamp Challenge. The spouses of Reps. McGovern and Emerson will also be taking the challenge. A number of advocate groups and Congressional staff are also expected to take part.

Members of Congress are living on a food stamp budget for one week in order to raise visibility and understanding around the challenges that millions of low-income American's face in obtaining a healthy diet under current food stamp benefit levels.

The Farm Bill, which includes the Food Stamp Program, is due to be reauthorized in Congress this year.

Throughout the week, Reps. McGovern, Emerson, Schakowsky, and Ryan as well as others taking part in the challenge, will post their experiences on the Congressional Food Stamp Challenge blog.

Read the Dear Colleague sent by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)

Read the Food Stamp Challenge Registration and Guidelines

To learn more about the Food Stamp Program, visit the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service site.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Sharon Olds, Poet, declines White House Invitation

In a culture like ours, one sometimes forgets the power of a poet's words.

Here is an open letter from the poet Sharon Olds to Laura Bush declining the invitation to read and speak at the National Book Critics Circle Award in Washington, DC. Sharon Olds is one of most widely read and critically acclaimed poets living in America today. Read to the end of the letter to experience her restrained, chilling eloquence.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/olds

Laura Bush
First Lady, The White House

Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation atthe National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House. In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents--all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers. And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children.

Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challen ged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit--and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's unique story and song.

So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC.

I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country--with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top"and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths.

I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism--the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.

I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war.

But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you, Mrs. Bush. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us. So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire.

I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I simply could not stomach it.

Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS

Saturday, May 19, 2007

U.S. Bars U.N. Observer from Visit to Immigrant Detention Center

From: ACLU E-Newsletter, Texas Challenge to Religion in Schools, DOJ NSA Revelations and More, May 18th, 2007

This month, United Nations Special Rapporteur Dr. Jorge Bustamante is conducting a three-week fact-finding mission in the United States.

As Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Dr. Bustamante is reviewing the treatment of migrants and immigrants at border facilities and detention centers and meeting with human rights and immigrants’ groups from Arizona to New Jersey.

But midway through Dr. Bustamante’s visit, U.S. officials barred his access to one scheduled stop, the Hutto immigrant detention facility in Taylor, Texas. The ACLU represents 12 children detained at Hutto, in a challenge charging that they are subject to inhumane treatment. The tour of Hutto a converted prison holding about 400 immigrants, including children and asylum seekers was considered a major part of the Special Rapporteur's U.S. visit.

According to the official terms for fact-finding missions, as an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur must have “access to all prisons, detention centers and places of interrogation.” The terms also mandate that the Rapporteur be given confidential and unsupervised contact with witnesses and potential victims of human rights violations. A letter has been sent to the U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security seeking answers on why the Hutto facility tour was cancelled. To learn more about the Special Rapporteur and the rights of immigrants, and to follow Dr. Bustamante’s U.S. travel activities on the ACLU’s blog, go to: blog.aclu.org/index.php?/categories/13-Immigrants-Rights