Showing posts with label Peace and Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace and Justice. Show all posts

Monday, May 26, 2008

Memorial Mile 2008

Gainesville, Florida

At four in the morning on Saturday, over 50 people gathered at the corner of 34th Street and 8th Avenue in Gainesville, Florida to work on a monument to those Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From The Gainesville Sun:
Neat rows of miniature gravestones stretch for one mile east of 34th Street on the south side of 8th Avenue. Each of the 4,516 "gravestones," lovingly and carefully made by groups of people getting together for months preceding this Memorial Day weekend, bears the name, rank, date of death and hometown of these brave members of our armed services. Additional markers were ready for 2009.
The Gainesville chapter of Veterans for Peace organized the event, which was also held last year.

I used to live three houses from the intersection where Memorial Mile originates and I used to walk this mile of road daily for months. The statues that normally span this stretch are of the nine planets (we include Pluto) situated roughly to scale. Seeing the head stones literally stretch from the Sun to Pluto is a shattering cosmic metaphor.

Here's a look at the Memorial Mile and the 4,577 monuments.


TAGS: , , ,

Saturday, March 01, 2008

In California, being a Friend can get you fired.

Just so you know. In case, you know, you actually want to put your faith into practice

(San Francisco Chronicle) Feb. 29 - California State University East Bay has
fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word “nonviolently” in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form.

Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.

“I don’t think it was fair at all,” said Kearney-Brown. “All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don’t care if I meant it, and it didn’t seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn’t matter. Nothing.”

A veteran public school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before - but had modified it each time.

She signed the oath 15 years ago, when she taught eighth-grade math in
Sonoma. And she signed it again when she began a 12-year stint in Vallejo high
schools.
[I have done this here in The Garden State, without any hassle.]

Each time, when asked to “swear (or affirm)” that she would “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote “nonviolently” in front of the word “support,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.” All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.

The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.

But Cal State East Bay wouldn’t, and she was fired on Thursday.

Modifying the oath “is very clearly not permissible,” the university’s attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. “It’s an unfortunate situation. If she’d just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment.” [Right. “If she’d only been a good little mind-numbed robot…”]

Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy. [Hello, Earth to Jerry: Mr. Brown, you used to be a “liberal…” Want to make a call here?]

Kearney-Brown said she could not sign an oath that, to her, suggested she was agreeing to take up arms in defense of the country.

"I honor the Constitution, and I support the Constitution,” she said. “But I want it on record that I defend it nonviolently.”

The trouble began Jan. 17, a little more than a week after she started teaching at the Hayward campus. Filling out her paperwork, she drew an asterisk on the oath next to the word “defend.” She wrote: “As long as it doesn’t require violence.”

The secretary showed the amended oath to a supervisor, who said it was unacceptable, Kearney-Brown recalled.

Shortly after receiving her first paycheck, Kearney-Brown was told to come back and sign the oath.

This time, Kearney-Brown inserted “nonviolently,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.”

That’s when the university sought legal advice. [Methinks they'll be a-needin' some more soon...]

“Based on the advice of counsel, we cannot permit attachments or addenda that are incompatible and inconsistent with the oath,” the campus’ human resources manager, JoAnne Hill, wrote to Kearney-Brown.

She cited a 1968 case called Smith vs. County Engineer of San Diego. In that suit, a state appellate court ruled that a man being considered for public employment could not amend the oath to declare: his “supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ Whom Almighty God has appointed ruler of Nations, and expressing my dissent from the failure of the Constitution to recognize Christ and to acknowledge the Divine institution of civil government.” The court called it “a gratuitous injection of the applicant’s religious beliefs into the governmental process.” [Wow! I’ve never heard of such a thing! Have you?]

But Hill said Kearney-Brown could sign the oath and add a separate note to her personal file that expressed her views.

Kearney-Brown declined. “To me it just wasn’t the same. I take the oath seriously, and if I’m going to sign it, I’m going to do it nonviolently.”

Then came the warning.

“Please understand that this issue needs to be resolved no later than Friday, Feb. 22, 2008, or you will not be allowed to continue to work for the university,” Hill wrote.

The deadline was then extended to Wednesday and she was fired on Thursday.

“I was kind of stunned,” said Kearney-Brown, who is pursuing her master’s degree in math to earn the credentials to do exactly the job she is being fired from.


“I was born to do this,” she said. “I teach developmental math, the lowest level. The kids who are conditionally accepted to the university. Give me the kids who hate math - that’s what I want.”

(Snarky comments and emphasis all mine.) Loyalty oaths should have gone out of fashion when Joe McCarthy was run out of Washington, DC, back in the 1950s. And, last time I checked, this handy little chestnut was still part of the Bill of Rights (the part that pertains here is emphasized, just in case, you know, they forgot):

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Quakers do not swear oaths. This is part of our religious practice going back to the very founding of the Religious Society of Friends. It’s why I personally don’t say the Pledge, amongst other things. From Wikipedia:

Various religious groups have objected to the taking of oaths, most notably the Quakers and the Mennonites. This is principally based on the words of Christ in the Antithesis of the Law, “I say to you: ‘Swear not at all’”. The Apostle James stated, “Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.” Not all Christians follow this reading, because of the statements in the Old Testament. Jews also avoid taking oaths, as even making an unintentionally false oath would violate a Biblical commandment (see Leviticus 19:12).

Opposition to oath-taking caused many problems for these groups throughout their history. Quakers were frequently imprisoned because of their refusal to swear loyalty oaths. Testifying in court was also difficult. George Fox famously challenged a judge who had asked him to swear, saying that he would do so once the judge could point to any Bible passage where Jesus or his apostles took oaths. (The judge could not, but this did not allow Fox to escape punishment.) Legal reforms from the 18th century onwards mean that everyone in the United Kingdom now has the right to make a solemn affirmation instead of an oath. The United States has permitted affirmations since it was founded; it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Only two US Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover, have chosen to affirm rather than swear at their inaugurations…

So I guess they’d have to fire two former Presidents, too… And me.

Would, or will, this university demand that all Catholic instructors remove the crucifixes from around their throats? That all Jewish males on campus remove their yarmulkes? That any Muslim females take off their hijabs? This is discrimination, plain and simple.

This is also why we have an ACLU, and why, in this “post-9/11 world,” chock full of phony baloney plastic patriotism and jerky, car-magnet jingoists, we still need one.

Here’s a deal for you: California American Civil Liberies Union, take this Friend’s case, and I’ll renew my lapsed membership. Today. Seems to me this is an easy win.

And if you’re so inclined (I am, and I did), you can contact the Office of Public Affairs for this fine, tolerant institution, a so-called university that prides itself (and advertises itself) as being “academically rich”… “multicultural”… “socially responsible”… “open-minded”… “welcoming”… “inclusive” here. Just be polite. That’s how Friends are supposed to act.

(H/t for the head’s up on this to Blue Gal, ‘natch.)

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Scrapping the machinery of death.

At least here in The Garden State:


PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) Dec. 6 - New Jersey is preparing to scrap the death penalty next week, becoming the first U.S. state to legislatively abolish capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.

State legislators will vote on Monday and Thursday on bills that would end the death penalty and substitute life without parole for the most serious crimes. Lawmakers say the measure is likely to be approved.

The state Senate bill’s sponsor, Democrat Ray Lesniak, predicted it will pass both houses of the Democrat-controlled legislature and, after a promised signature by Gov. Jon Corzine, will become law before the end of the year.

“I’m very confident it will pass by a slim margin in the Senate, and by a wider majority in the Assembly,” said Lesniak.

Alex DeCroce, leader of the minority Republicans in the state Assembly, said Democrats were rushing the measure through without proper debate. He did not know how individual lawmakers would vote but predicted, “The majority is going to force it though.”

New Jersey, with eight people on death row, has not executed anyone since 1963.

A legislative commission recommended in January that the death penalty be abolished, saying there was no evidence it deterred the most serious crimes. Life without parole cost less, and capital punishment is “inconsistent with evolving standards of decency,” the commission said.

Thirty-seven American states and the federal government have the death penalty but its use has fallen in recent years. The number of death sentences handed down fell by 60 percent from 1999 to 2006 while the number of executions dropped by 40 percent over the same period, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington research group.

Continued here… Another reason why I am PROUD to be from New Jersey.

If YOU are from these parts, I urge you to call your state legislators and urge them to support Assembly Bill # 3716 and Senate Bill # 171. I just called mine.

Results will be posted here next week. Pray for victory

Thursday, November 08, 2007

"Happy" Veterans' Day?

Veterans' Day is this Sunday. Try to remember the following when you go out to hit those sales:

WASHINGTON (AP) Nov. 7, 2007:
Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.

And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job.

The Veterans Affairs Department has identified 1,500 homeless veterans from the current wars and says 400 of them have participated in its programs specifically targeting homelessness.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness, a public education nonprofit, based the findings of its report on numbers from Veterans Affairs and the Census Bureau. 2005 data estimated that 194,254 homeless people out of 744,313 on any given night were veterans.

In comparison, the VA says that 20 years ago, the estimated number of veterans who were homeless on any given night was 250,000.

Some advocates say the early presence of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at shelters does not bode well for the future. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. Advocates worry that intense and repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable.

"We're going to be having a tsunami of them eventually because the mental health toll from this war is enormous," said Daniel Tooth, director of veterans affairs for Lancaster County, Pa.
The rest is here, at The Huffington Post.

My late father served in the United States Navy during the Korean War. His dad sailed around the world with The Great White Fleet. My late father-in-law fought the Nazis as an artillery man during the last year of World War Two. My uncle served four years on a tin can in the Pacific: he signed up the day after Pearl Harbor. This past summer, I spent a lot of time interviewing World War Two vets for the young adult novel I'm writing about conscientious objectors who served as combat medics in Europe (and as smoke jumpers here at home) during World War II. While I call myself a pacifist, and while I detest and abhor war - ALL war - I respect and appreciate the sacrifices and service of our veterans, even when they serve in conflicts with which I disagree. Which would pretty much be all conflicts. No matter where you stand on the subject of war, THIS story is an utter and complete outrage. I would challenge everyone who reads it to link to the article and to send that link to their elected members of Congress this weekend, just in time for the "holiday" we set aside each year to honor our vets. Add a simple line: "What are YOU going to do about this?"

Make them give you an answer. Something more than "I support our troops."

We need to do better. And we need to end the senseless conflicts which lead to such long-lasting pain and suffering.

Pray for peace on Sunday (or Friday or Saturday). And work for it, too.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Bad education.

Sometimes, school-aged kids stand up in righteous indignation and reinstill your faith in humanity because you see that, after all is said and done, they really do care about more than just the the latest clothing styles or the latest music or what’s going on on their MySpace pages, that, after all is said and done, they really do care about what is going on in the world and that they want to do something about it.

Maybe not this time.

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) Sept. 20 - Two students in northern New Jersey can
wear buttons featuring a picture of Hitler youth to protest a school uniform policy, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. sided with the parents of the students, who had been threatened with suspension last fall for wearing the buttons. However, the judge added in his ruling that the boys will not be allowed to distribute the buttons at school.

Citing a 1969 case in Iowa involving students who wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War, Greenaway wrote that “a student may not be punished for merely expressing views unless the school has reason to believe that the speech or expression will ‘materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.’”

The buttons bear the words “no school uniforms” with a slash through them superimposed on a photo of young boys wearing identical shirts and neckerchiefs. There are no swastikas visible on the buttons, but the parties agreed that they depict members of Hitler youth.

After the suspension threat, the boys’ parents filed a federal lawsuit claiming the district stifled the children’s First Amendment free speech rights.

District lawyers asserted that the image of the Hitler youth was abhorrent because it conveyed intolerance and racial inequality represented by Nazism.

If you’ve read my stuff here before, you know that I am a teacher (and a parent and a citizen) who is all for students’ rights, especially the right to express themselves and to try to influence school policy. I’ve helped kids write petitions, and I have signed student petitions. I have sat sat with students at school board meetings, listening to them read statements of protest that we wrote together. We talk about the rights of students all the time, so the kids know that they have them. That they have them most of the time. In many cases. But not in all cases. In fact, that’s what the Tinker decision was about: the legal limits on students’ free speech in a public school. Because a school cannot operate if everything that is “legal and fair” outside of a school is also fair and legal inside the school walls.

And we also talk about the responsibilities that go along with those rights. Like the right of my Jewish students (and colleagues) to not have to be offended by having Nazi imagery stuck in their faces all day while at school, Nazi imagery which is being invoked and exploited to make a point about a student dress code? Um, but, excuse me? Do these kids (and the adults behind them) really believe that somehow we can equate rules that dictate how students dress when they come to school with what the Nazis did? REALLY? Being told to tuck in your shirt or to not expose too much cleavage is the same as slaughtering people by the millions?

We on the Left - and some folks on the Right (hi, Rush!) - tend to throw that word “Nazi” around a bit too easily. Not all conservatives are fascists, no matter how angry and frustrated we might be with them. Sticking a label like “Nazi” on every person with whom we disagree is as bad as the right-wingers slapping the label “godless communist” or “socialist” on any progressive with whom they might disagree. And frankly, I think that it waters-down and softens the real meaning of the word. It denigrates the memory of those who suffered and died fighting the Nazis, and those who were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. It almost helps to make the word more acceptable, more conversational: just another catch-word for those we oppose.

Which means it becomes less scary.

School administrators who want to impose dress codes may be wrong-headed, but they are not “Nazis.” Somebody should have taught these kids about the true nature of the Nazis - and about their long list of horrific crimes - long before this issue came up. If someone had done a better job of teaching them the barbaric real history of National Socialism in Germany, they might not feel so free to do this.

So now this judge says that these kids can wear their silly buttons. Good for them. High-fives all around. They get to say they beat The Man. But just as Momma Agitator used to say, because they can doesn’t mean they should.

TAGS: , , ,

Friday, January 26, 2007

Get Some While You Can

The Street Protest Controversy
I suppose that street protesting has always been controversial. I don't know; I missed the 60s. Despite the hugely unpopular yet nonetheless escalating war and occupation in Iraq, some question the effectiveness of street protests. Others liken street protests to "60s nostalgia" and argue that a draft would be far more effective at stopping the war than any protest could be. This debate has got me thinking and also wondering what others think. It's hard for me to link the expression of our political speech now to that of the 60s, not having been there myself, but I do know that what is being debated here in America is the right of free speech and of the People to question our government. We can exercise our right to free speech and to question the government in lots of ways. We can...

Get Music
I love music. Music is speech. Here is a list of some great antiwar songs and their lyrics. Here is evidence that protest music is alive and kicking. And The Nation muses about songs of protest against the failures of the Bush administration (Go Green Day!), here. Good music encourages others to sing along.

Get Informed
Knowledge informs speech. I love this site:

Antiwar

Get Listed
Signing petitions is speech. Here's one telling congress to use its power to bring the troops home now.

Get Writing
The Time to Stop a War With Iran Is NOW. Contact the Democratic Congressional Leadership, and give them your Marching Orders! Tell them what your vote meant.

Get Active
Political action is speech. Here's the action alert sign-up for people United for Peace and Justice.

Get Marching
Marching in the streets is speech. It is visible support for a cause. The street march of the day is here:

Stop the War Now!


Solidarity events outside of DC are listed here.

GET SOME WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

The People Have the Power...



My own answer to my question about the value of protests on this issue today is that I think that protesting:
1) Will not alter Bush's actions.
2) Will pressure congress to reign Bush in.
3) Will help consolidate opposition to Bush at home.
4) Will soften anti-American feelings abroad.