Ethos: The Practical Ethics Blog

From July 17 to July 23, 2008, I took part in a six-day “Whole Thinking Retreat” sponsored by the Center for Whole Communities at Knoll Farm in Fayston, Vermont. The twenty-plus participants and facilitators were a multi-racial group of environmental leaders from across the country trying to move beyond the limited thinking so often embedded within each of our particular sectors of the movement. My cohort now joins over 700 other alumni of similar Center retreats. The reflections below are adapted from some journal writing I did upon returning home. For more information about the Center for Whole Communities, please go to http://www.wholecommunities.org/.

Steve Chase

Driving home from Knoll Farm reminded me of the last scene in My Dinner With Andre. In that movie, Wally Shawn is driving home in a cab through the streets of New York City–something he’s done countless times before–and he is staring out the window transfixed, seeing everything again for the first time and with appropriate awe. All of life was sacramental to him after his amazing dinner with his friend.

That was also true for me during my quiet trip home through the sometimes cloud-hidden and rainy Green Mountains and hills of Vermont. I drove in silence (without my usual talk radio jabbering on and on) at 55 miles per hour–ten miles an hour less than the speed limit, and twenty-five miles an hour less than I usually drive. Not changing lanes, not passing anyone, and burning far less gas on this trip, I had time to look out the window more, to notice my breathing, to think deeply about my time at Knoll Farm and about all of my companions on the retreat journey, including the luminous green humming bird I saw in one of the flower gardens during one of the few sunny moments in the week.

In Jewish Scripture, the word for “sin” literally translates to the phrase “missing the mark.” At the Farm, I tasted “the mark” with unusual vividness. I tasted being a part of a diverse, inspiring, and intentional community working to create a more environmentally sustainable, spiritually fulfilling, and socially just human presence on this planet. I tasted what Jesus called faithfulness–being both smart as a serpent and as open-hearted as a dove.

For five of our days together, we walked up and down Bragg Hill—or rode in the “sun buggy”–though the Farm’s gardens, grasslands, and woods. At the top of the hill, we sat in a circle in a giant yurt and shared our core visions and values and—very blessedly—took the time to talk honestly about race, power, and privilege in our lives and in our organizations. We did this even when it was painful, incomplete, and raw. All of us experienced moments of anger, hurt feelings, and misunderstanding in that yurt—as we sometimes did during the rest of our time together at Knoll Farm. Yet, we also shared many moments of profound forgiveness, repentance, and insight. We became imperfect, but powerful, allies during those six days.

Our time together also fed my tattered, middle-aged, Quaker soul. We spent from ten at night to ten in the morning in silence. We even meditated together several times during the “talking” part of our day. We told stories about our lives and about our work back home to help heal the world. There was one night of ecstatic dancing and chores everyday, as well as hot, outdoor, solar-heated showers early in the morning, sometimes taken in the rain. I mulched and picked blueberries, sorted wool, or shucked peas most afternoons. There was singing sometimes while we worked or did spoon carving–and some people read poetry before dinner. Don’t even get me started about the food! There were also giant orange moons coming up over the mountains at least partially visible through the clouds to the southeast most every night. These moons were most frequently viewed from a fire circle where several people sat a while before heading off to sleep in their tents.

I found it hard to say goodbye to everyone at the Farm and drive home on our last morning. Yet, as well as one can driving alone in a car powered by gas and lubricated by oil, I came much closer to the mark than normal on that journey home. Inside that car, I drank water from the Farm that I carried in the metal bottle that I now usually keep clipped to my belt loop. On such a trip in the past, I would have stopped along the way and purchased six or seven plastic bottles of diet soda.

I also got hungry for lunch near Randolph and took the town’s exit off Interstate 89 and drove right past the MacDonald’s at the end of the ramp. Usually, driving alone and with no one looking, I would have turned into that parking lot and indulged in some childhood/teenage comfort food, one of my private guilty pleasures that has had a huge addictive pull on me for decades. On this afternoon, however, MacDonald’s did not hold any allure or offer any pleasure to me. It was not just far from the mark, it was also far from my heart.

Instead, I drove into town and looked for a little, locally-owned restaurant that served me a handmade salad with a bit of chicken, a hard boiled egg, and some diced black olives on top of a mix of greens, romaine lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, and carrots all lightly dressed in olive oil and balsamic vinegar. The Depot Restaurant owner brought it to me with a smile, along with a slice of homemade bread, and all of it in a glass bowl!
I ate slowly thinking of the single wooden bowl that I had eaten out of every meal for a week, the very bowl that was now sitting cock-eyed on the front seat of my borrowed car. I also thought of Helen and Jay, two long-time organic farmers that I now knew personally. I silently lifted my glass of local tap water and toasted them for their love of our soil and their ability to help the earth say beans or squash or blueberries.

I only wished that the owner had stood by the table before I ate and told me what farm every ingredient in the salad had come from. I also fantasized about someone standing up at the next booth and reading a poem by Rumi out loud and then another customer on the other side of the room offering a few passages from Wendy Johnson’s Gardening at the Dragon’s Gate. Gently letting go of that sweet image, I offered a silent prayer before I ate my lunch. “Stealth meditating” Wendy would call it.

Driving homeward again, I felt Dunking Donuts, Burger King, even the Olive Garden slipping away from me. As I munched one-handed on Knoll Farm organic blueberries for my dessert, I felt myself drawing closer toward the mark–closer toward farmers markets, roadside produce stands, locally-owned restaurants, and the organic section of my big chain supermarket until those precious folks in Keene, who are working on establishing a food coop in our town, succeed. And, yes, I thought I should send them a little money and a thank you note, right after I send a thank you poem to all the dear ones from my retreat week at Knoll Farm.

When I finally arrived in Keene, I picked up my computer from work and drove straight to my house, unlocked my backdoor—I hadn’t had keys in my pocket for five days, let alone a computer nearby—and I began to put my stuff away. I laughed at a week’s worth of unread newspapers dutifully piled on the dining room table by my partner Katy and I checked to see if there was any mail for me that had arrived while I was gone. I only opened one piece—the invitation to the upcoming September weekend celebration of the Center for Whole Communities’ fifth year anniversary at Knoll Farm.

I drank some water from my own kitchen sink faucet and got back in my borrowed car to fill up its tank at a Citgo station—whose profits at least help some of the poor in Venezuela. I then returned the car to my friend and, by way of a small thank you, gave her my last unmolested box of Knoll Farm blueberries. She was thrilled. We hugged, chatted a bit, and then she offered me a ride home. Even with it threatening rain again, I said no.

Like my four hour drive home, I walked this final bit as Wally Shawn rode home in his cab—in my case, wide-eyed and delighted while walking by our Town Common, which sits across from City Hall and the big white United Church of Christ, then on down our Main Street dotted with small businesses on either side, past the Colonial Theater (an amazing nonprofit arts organization), and up the hill on Water Street to my little house surrounded by Katy’s flowers. Walking through my community, I felt more committed than ever to fostering creative citizen action for climate protection, ecological sustainability, social justice, and the democratic control of corporations.

Still, on this day, I just sat quietly looking forward to Katy returning from work and hearing all about her week. I imagined her as a double rainbow over the Mad River Valley and waited.

Steve Chase is the founding director of the Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program at Antioch University New England in Keene, New Hampshire. He is also the editor of “The Well-Trained Activist” blog (http://eaop-blog.blogspot.com).

Steve Chase :: Jul.28.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Politics, Religion, Social Justice :: No Comments »

As I suggested in a previous post, having to choose between a life of public service and financial success is part of the ethos of our culture.

Harvard students too are feeling the pull of doing good or doing well. You can read about it here:

Big Paycheck or Service? Students Are Put to the Test

Letters to the editor in response to the article further reveal the frustrations around this issue.

Image: Courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

Karin Lauria :: Jun.29.2008 :: Ethics, Politics, Social Justice :: No Comments »

One of my greatest pleasures on Ethos is introducing new columnists to our readers. Today I want to welcome Jared Milrad.

Jared was born in New York City and raised both in New York and central New Jersey. Vegan since the age of 14, Jared has been intensely interested in animal welfare for most of his life, rescuing everything from finches to feral cats as a teenager. While a freshman at North Carolina State University in 2002, Jared became the first student in the school’s history to publicly challenge its policy on animal dissections, leading to a national outcry of support for his beliefs and a significant revision of the school’s Student Choice policy.

Jared later graduated from N.C. State with a B.S. in Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences and, most recently, from Tufts University with a M.S. in Animals and Public Policy. His thesis at Tufts, entitled A Fundamental Nexus: Animals and Genocide From An International Policy Perspective, advocated for revised genocide prevention and response policies that account for the many complex roles of animals during such crises.

Beyond human-animal studies, Jared has long been interested in finding common ground among people. Having visited four continents and advocated for a variety of groups, Jared is a strong believer in the intersections between social causes. He is the Founder and Editor of a socially conscious blog, Our Common Concern (http://ourcommonconcern.com), which highlights pressing social issues — from human rights to environmental justice to animal protection — in hopes of inspiring a dialogue for change.

Jared is also a long-time organizer for the Obama Campaign, and part of the team organizing New Hampshire for the presidential election in 2008.

You can contact Jared at ourcommonconcern@gmail.com.

William Lynn :: Jun.25.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Human-Animal Studies, Politics, Social Justice :: No Comments »

June 22, 2008

In “The dumbing down of voters” (Op-ed, June 15) Rick Shenkman attributes Americans’ political ignorance to television and the collapse of labor unions. I think there is a deeper problem: The United States tends to raise employees, not citizens.

Our culture emphasizes so-called practical skills, while we thumb our noses at theory, as if theory had no practical effect. Education is being reduced to job training. The humanities suggest pleasant ways to spend our “free time,” as if literature, art, philosophy, and religion had nothing to teach us about how we ought to live.

Work is supposed to be hard, or it’s not work. To commit your life to service means taking a vow of poverty, as if one cannot do good and do well. In short, we are encouraged to act without deep reflection, to toil away without questioning. And, sadly, I suspect that’s how politicians like it.

Karin Lauria

Source: www.boston.com

William Lynn :: Jun.22.2008 :: Ethics, Politics :: 4 Comments »

The other day, Dan Schnur had an op-ed in the New York Times on Barack Obama’s suggestion that working-class voters in Pennsylvania “cling” to religion, guns, and xenophobia to cope with bitterness over their economic conditions.

His basic argument is that the Democratic party is “continually vexed” by people who vote according to their values, even to the detriment of their economic interests. According to Schnur, Obama’s recent gaffe in Pennsylvania demonstrates that he doesn’t get it either.

Usually, I disagree with Schnur, but in this case, I think he’s right about one thing. Democratic candidates are not particularly good at understanding the relationship between values and actions.

Democrats, and in general liberal and progressive groups, tend to respond to issues. They adopt causes, which is very important. But they generally avoid investing in long-term programs focused on making sweeping shifts in individual and social values. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been putting money into think tanks for the last 40 years to do just that (the Heritage Foundation is a good example). Their patience has paid off.

I think many liberals and progressives also tend to make a sort of ’scientistic’ (not to be confused with scientific) mistake. That is, they believe that if most people were to view the ‘facts’ on the ground—the so-called practical matters—from a purely objective perspective (presumably their perspective), they would no longer be ‘distracted’ by things like religious values. Meanwhile, the values implied in their own views go largely unexamined.

Furthermore, what is practical is often narrowly construed. Thus many people (not just liberals and progressives) overlook the practical nature of values. How can values be practical? Because our values say something about what we believe it means to live a good life. And, when our values are aligned with our actions, it feels satisfying. We feel whole. Living by one’s values is so important to people that it can override some very pressing material concerns. This is true not just for the wealthy, but also for people who struggle to pay the bills.

With respect to religion in particular, I’ve spent the last three years in seminary studying a wide range of theological viewpoints. No doubt there is a coping component to religion. But many people err in assuming that that’s all religion is about, and in turn, belittle religious experience. For many people, religion is not merely or even primarily functional. It is redemptive. The feeling that one is recovering one’s spirit to become a whole human being is a powerful motivator, particularly when it so often feels like life chips away at our souls.

All that said, I doubt Obama intended to demean religious faith, and I think that the press has generally over-reacted to his comments. But unfortunately they did come across as a little condescending and maybe a bit too progressive in the sense described above.

For more on the shortage of liberal think tanks, see:

Democratic Think Tank Taking Shape (CommonDreams.org)
Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks (Washington Post)
The Rockridge Era Ends (Rockridge Institute)

Photo: Barack Obama Shaking Hands, copyright Trilobite | Dreamstime.com

Karin Lauria :: Apr.23.2008 :: Ethics, Politics, Religion :: No Comments »

This April 4th is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. I was just 12 when it happened, but I remember vividly the heartbreaking day when King was shot down in Memphis while supporting striking garbage workers standing up for their right to form a union.

I’m sure many TV news programs will mention the anniversary of King’s death on the 4th, and some will even play a short sound bite from King’s famous 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech. A few stations might even play a clip from the last night of his life, when King gave his speech about going up to the mountain top and seeing the Promised Land of an America finally and firmly dedicated to peace, economic justice, racial equality, and a real grassroots democracy.

Personally, I’m grateful for any attention paid to King and the meaning of his activism for us today. One of my favorite stories of people honoring King is from about twenty years ago. Back in the 1980s, a local coalition of churches, civic groups, and small business leaders organized a community organizing campaign in Seattle to get the city council to rename a street after King. At the time, the street they chose to rename, which was called the Empire Way, ran right through one of the city’s predominantly black neighborhoods.

After a few months of grassroots lobbying, they won their campaign and got the city council to agree to the name change. After the council’s vote, the organizers invited community members to a large Baptist church for a victory celebration. That night Vincent Harding, a long-time associate of King’s, spoke to the gathered community. He urged everyone there to fully embrace the deeper symbolism of what they had just accomplished. As he said to them, “You have now changed the road you travel from the Empire Way to Martin’s way.”

Isn’t that exactly the challenge we still face today—changing the road we travel from the Empire Way to Martin’s Way? As more and more people are coming to realize, we need to get active again in what King called “the long and bitter—but beautiful struggle” to move away from an empire of lies, militarism, illegal wars of aggression, torture, uncontrolled corporate greed, growing inequality, and the trampling of the Bill of Rights. We need to get active in the effort to create the “Beloved Community” that King so often invoked as his deepest, long-range vision.

There are many signs that this shift is beginning to happen. One important indicator of renewed movement is the innovative new coalition of religious, labor, environmental, student, and civil rights groups called Green For All. The coalition is hosting a national conference called “The Dream Reborn” in Memphis on the weekend of April 4-6. The conference is a very direct example of expanding King’s vision of the Beloved Community to include the interests of “We the People” and the planet. As Green For All’s conference invitation says:

It’s official: in Memphis from April 4-6, Green For All is bringing together the practitioners, activists, and communities at the center of the emerging green-collar economy. Join us on the 40th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination. This historic event will celebrate his extraordinary life and present positive solutions from today’s generation of visionary leaders. A bullet killed the dreamer, but not the dream. Together, we will create ecological solutions to heal the earth while bringing jobs, justice, wealth and health to all our communities.

Green For All’s mission statement goes on to say:

Green For All has a simple but ambitious mission: to help build a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. By advocating for a national commitment to job training, employment and entrepreneurial opportunities in the emerging green economy–especially for people from disadvantaged communities–we fight both poverty and pollution at the same time. We are committed to securing one billion dollars by 2012 to create “green pathways out of poverty” for people in the United States, by greatly expanding federal government and private sector commitments to “green-collar” jobs.

Now, isn’t that a great way to honor King’s memory? I would go to Memphis, but I’m hosting an activist training session that weekend on Diversity and Coalition-Building right here in Keene, New Hampshire. We can’t all go to big national conferences, but we can all contribute to the movement for a Beloved Community wherever we live.

Steve Chase is the Director of Antioch University New England’s Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program and is the editor of the EAOP’s “Well-Trained Activist” blog.

Steve Chase :: Apr.07.2008 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Politics, Religion, Social Justice :: No Comments »

When I started Ethos, I made a decision to avoid rapid-fire blogging in immediate response to current events. I wanted a substantive blog of columns that were both reflective and critically engaged with matters of practical ethics.

Yet I find myself routinely forwarding newspaper articles to my students and colleagues. Generally I draw from national and global newspapers, podcasts, and streaming media, e.g. the New York Times, the Toronto Globe and Mail, National Public Radio, and the Canadian Broadcast Service.

For my students, these articles are a gateway to connecting the theoretical and methodological knowledge they learn in class, and the insights this knowledge brings to one’s understanding of the empirical world. For my colleagues, they are a way we keep in touch, and receive ‘heads-up’ about events and information in our sphere’s of concern.

So beginning this summer, I’ve decided to experiment with sending a subset of these articles to Ethos as well, believing they may be of interest to a wider community interested in the ethical and policy dimensions of environmental studies, human-animal studies, and global studies.

Let me know what you think, whether you find these informational posts to be a complement or distraction to the substantive columns and editorials we usually publish.

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Mar.28.2008 :: Art, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Geography, Human-Animal Studies, Politics, Religion :: No Comments »

A scandal has arisen in China in which one of the winners of CCTV’s Top 10 News Photos of the Year (2007) has recently admitted to photo-shopping his picture. The artist, Liu Weiqiang, is a well-established and respected photographer who (before this incident) was the assistant director of photography at the Daqing Evening News.

Weiqiang’s winning photo is of the newly constructed Qinghai-Tibet Railway, a structure that has been marred in controversy over its potential impact on the migration patterns of the Tibetan antelope. In the artist’s photo (above), a pack of antelope is shown ambling beneath the behemoth structure, apparently unaware or unafraid of the train passing above.

The photo came under intense scrutiny when numerous bloggers noticed inconsistencies in the image. The photographer, who originally claimed to camp out for 8 days waiting for the perfect shot, has now admitted that he photo-shopped two separate photos to create the award-winning image. At first he defended the image claiming that it was not intended as a news photo. It was originally used as the poster image for the Kekexili nature preservation area with the intent, he claimed, of helping the antelope. Since the uproar, however, Weiqiang admitted his wrongdoing and resigned from his post at the Daqing Evening News.

The artist’s reasoning for falsifying the image remains unclear. However, protests and concern over the train’s impact on the environment perhaps created a need for propaganda material to dispel public outcry. At the very least, it can be said that the doctored image was born out of a divisive situation between environmentalists and urban expansionists. There was a need to prove, in some capacity, that human encroachment on this territory does not impact the existing flora and fauna. Before the photo was revealed as a fake, it certainly made an impression on the public. As Weiqiang said on the evening he accepted his award, “I want to be able to capture the harmony among the Tibetan antelopes, the train, men and nature on July 1, 2006. I want to express through this photograph that the earth belongs to everybody. Everybody wants to see harmony among men and animals.” Now, however, it is hard to say how this incident will influence debates over the harmony between the Qinghai-Tibet Railway and the Tibetan antelope.

Meanwhile, Weiqiang’s photo has been stripped of its winning title, and the impact of the structure on the antelope population remains unclear.

Sources and further reading:

Chinese Editor Resigns over Fake Tibet Photo (Yahoo)

Photoshop Helps Photographer Win Award (China Economic Review)

Interview Transcripts with Weiqiang (Shanghaiist)

Lisa Brown :: Mar.12.2008 :: Art, Environmental Studies, Geography, Politics :: No Comments »

In my Kill Bill post I extol the virtues of the open source software — Linux OS, Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc — and the movement that seeks to liberate users from the vagaries of the Windows environment, the frustrations of Microsoft products, and the greed of irresponsible global corporations. Governments, ngos and individuals across the world are using open source to leverage the power of the internet.

A new development in this respect is the $100 computer called the XO. It was developed by the One Laptop Per Child project. The computer combines innovative hardware and software technologies that make it suitable for distribution in technology under resourced areas of the world. These same technologies are textbook examples of how we might make computing more sustainable and community friendly.

Take a look. Whether or not this computer is right for you, its a great example of facilitating global learning and communication so as to create a better world.

You can read a review of the XO by David Pogue in the New York Times.

Cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Oct.06.2007 :: Ethics, Politics :: 1 Comment »

Last April, I had the opportunity to do a twenty-plus minute radio interview for ACT Radio, a bi-monthly program on KTEP–the NPR station in El Paso, Texas. It was broadcast as their Earth Day edition on April 22, 2007.

ACT Radio, or Animal Concerns of Texas, is produced by co-hosts Greg Lawson, Steve Best, and Elizabeth Walsh. Every other Sunday evening at 7:30, these radio activists offer a unique radio program in Texas that focuses on animals rights, human health, and related issues such as vegetarianism and the environment. I was very pleased when Steve Best called the EAOP office and asked if he and Greg could interview me on activist training in general and the Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program at Antioch University New England in Keene, New Hampshire, in particular.

Well, I have now received the permission of KTEP’s general manager to offer this Earth Day edition of ACT Radio as a downloadable audio file through Real Player to all of you. (If you don’t have Real Player, you can download it for free right here.) My interview starts about 7 minutes into the program. You can jump to that if you like, but you might want to listen to the interesting news and commentary at the top of the show.

Once the program turns to my interview, I get to tell about my own journey to activism, the growth of my concern for environmental issues, two of the key educational inspirations behind the Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program, some key elements of the EAOP curriculum, and the importance of increasing the number and quality of activist training programs within institutions of higher learning. I hope you enjoy the interview. I know I enjoyed doing it. Steve and Greg were great interviewers.

Steve Chase :: Jul.30.2007 :: Environmental Studies, Politics :: No Comments »

As noted in a post on my Well-Trained Activist blog, I was recently a keynote speaker, along with Sarah Conn and Allen Kanner, at the Psychology-Ecology-Sustainability Conference held June 9-11 at Lewis and Clark College. I was the only non-psychologist among the keynoters, but my talk “Creative Maladjustment: Activism as a Way to Heal Self, Society, and Planet” was remarkably well-received and included a standing ovation by the 175 conference participants. I was very touched too when Allen Kanner, the founder of the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, wrote to say, “I loved what you had to say in your talk, and how you said it.”

For anyone who would like a write up of my talk, please write me and I’ll send you a PDF version. Also, please free feel to pass it on to any friends, colleagues, or contacts you think might be interested.

Here’s a section from the talk to whet your appetite for more:

I do hear many activists complain that even well-meaning, pro-activist psychologists often fall into a very unhelpful psychological trap. This needs to be addressed before we can move forward together. Let me give you one very specific example of this unhelpful perspective. I found this example in the Psychologists for Social Responsibility book on Working for Peace I just mentioned. In it, there is a very interesting, but confusing piece by Dr. Christina Michaelson, a clinical psychologist who practices and teaches in Syracuse, New York.

Michaelson’s research interests include Eastern psychology, meditation, and inner peace and her essay in the book is called “Cultivating Inner Peace.” There is so much that is useful in this essay, so let’s start with that. First, there is absolutely no question that Michaelson is maladjusted to the world of violence and imperial war. In her essay, she also lauds all peace activists who “invest tremendous amounts of time, talent, energy, and resources into changing the world.” She also wisely claims that this work can be made even more effective, and more soul-satisfying, if peace activists cultivate their own inner peace through such methods as meditation, nature experiences, counseling, and prayer. I am completely with her on all of this.

Yet, in just her second paragraph, Michaelson says something I think we need to question. According to Michaelson:

If you’re to bring peace to others, then you must first manifest peace in your own life. Your peace work in the world should begin with cultivating an inner state of peacefulness and then you truly can offer peace to others. Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” If you want to see peace in the world, then you must “be” peace in the world.

Now this all sounds pretty good on the surface, but I sense in her repetitive first/then formulation that she is actually counseling would-be peace activists to delay their outward social activism until they have cultivated a deep inner peace. She explicitly says it twice and implies it a third time in just this one brief passage. Her advice to her readers seems to be: first cultivate inner psychological peace and then, and only then, think about investing your “time, talent, energy, and resources into changing the world.”

If this is true, then Michaelson’s linear “personal growth first and then activism” idea is not only a serious misreading of Gandhi’s strategy for ending British imperialism, but is also an unconscious call to social passivity and foregoing outward activism until some unspecified future. This is just not helpful. As Paul Rogat Loeb notes in his book Soul of a Citizen, many people already hold back from becoming engaged activists because they believe that they have to be saints before they begin. As he says:

Many of us have developed what I call the perfect standard: Before we will allow ourselves to take action on an issue, we must be convinced not only that the issue is the world’s most important, but that we have perfect understanding of it, perfect moral consistency in our character, and that we will be able to express our views with perfect eloquence… Whatever the issue, whatever the approach, we never feel we have enough knowledge or standing. If we do speak out, someone might challenge us, might find an error in our thinking or an inconsistency-what they might call a hypocrisy-in our lives.

As a result of believing in Michaelson’s version of “the perfect standard,” many people I know either turn away from activism altogether or work endlessly in personal growth workshops to prepare themselves for a day that rarely comes–when they finally feel that they have met the perfect standard and can actually become activists out in the world. This is disheartening to me because I haven’t seen much evidence that this approach does all that much to help people move towards greater empowerment and wholeness in their lives. I also can’t think of a time in history when it has ever led to social movement success. Time and time again, effective social movements have been made by people who don’t wait on perfection, but who just get active by hook or crook.

[To give folks an example, I told the story I’ve told before of Martin Luther King’s messy journey to activism in 1955.]

Steve Chase :: Jun.27.2007 :: Environmental Studies, Politics :: No Comments »

Camilla H. Fox
P.O. Box 5007
Larkspur, CA 94977
415.690.0338 (mobile)
415.945.1354 (fax)
chfox@earthlink.net
www.practicalethics.net/blog/camilla-fox

I have the pleasure of introducing yet another remarkable person, who is both a columnist on Ethos and an advisor to Practical Ethics.

Camilla Fox is a wildlife advocate, consultant, writer, and speaker with over 20 years of experience working on behalf of animals and the environment in the United States and internationally. A recognized expert and leader in her field, she has worked for several nonprofit organizations including the Fur-Bearer Defenders, Rainforest Action Network, and most recently the Animal Protection Institute (API) where she served as both Director of Wildlife Programs and National Campaign Director for 10 years. Camilla has spearheaded national and international campaigns aimed at reducing trapping cruelty and lethal predator control, protecting native carnivores, and fostering humane solutions to human-wildlife conflicts. Prior to working for API she served as the Executive Director of the Fur-Bearer Defenders where she became known for her work on trapping and furbearer protection.

A frequent speaker on these issues, Camilla has also authored more than 60 publications and is co-author of Coyotes in Our Midst: Coexisting with an Adaptable and Resilient Carnivore and co-editor and lead author of Cull of the Wild: A Contemporary Analysis of Trapping in the United States. She also produced the award-winning documentary Cull of the Wild: The Truth Behind Trapping. Camilla currently consults for a variety of clients including nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and municipalities helping to foster humane, effective, and practical solutions to human-wildlife conflicts and to reduce unnecessary cruelty and exploitation of wildlife.

Camilla holds a Master’s degree in Environmental Studies with a focus in Wildlife Conservation, Policy, and Ecology from Prescott College and a Bachelor’s degree from Boston University where she graduated magna cum laude and co-founded the B.U. Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. She has served as an appointed member on the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee and currently serves on several national and local coalitions and advisory boards. In 2006, Camilla received the Humanitarian of the Year Award from the Marin Humane Society and the Christine Stevens Wildlife Award from the Animal Welfare Institute.

Selected publications:

Fox, C.H. and M. Bekoff. In press. Ethical Reflections on Wolf Recovery and Conservation: A Practical Approach for Making Room For Wolves in: M. Musiani, L. Boitani, and P. Paquet (eds.), The World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology, Behaviour and Policy. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta.

Fox, C.H. 2008. Analysis of The Marin County Strategic Plan for Protection of Livestock & Wildlife: An Alternative to Traditional Predator Control. Master’s thesis. Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona. 112 p.

Fox, C.H. 2007. Trapping Animals. Pp. 984-989 in M. Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships: A Global Exploration of Our Connections with Animals. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut.

Fox, C.H. 2007. Coyotes, Humans and Coexistence. Pp. 311-313 in M. Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships: A Global Exploration of Our Connections with Animals. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut.

Fox, C. H. 2006. Coyotes and humans: can we coexist? Pp. 287-293 in: R.M. Timm and J. H. O’Brien (eds.), Proceedings, 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference. Publ. Univ. Calif.-Davis.

Hadidian, J., C.H. Fox, and W.S. Lynn. 2006. The ethics of wildlife control in humanized landscapes. Pp. 500-504 in: R.M. Timm and J. H. O’Brien (eds.), Proceedings, 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference. Publ. Univ. Calif.-Davis.

Fox, C.H. 2006. Seeking Justice. Animal Issues 37:12-13.

Fox, C.H. 2006. Standardizing Cruelty: The International Trapping Debate. Animal Issues 37:18-21.

Fox, C.H. and C.M. Papouchis. 2005. Coyotes in Our Midst: Coexisting with an Adaptable and Resilient Carnivore. Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, California

Fox, C.H. July, 2005. Close Encounters of the Coyote Kind. Wildlife Tracks. Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. Available online at:
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Tracks-fall-coyotes05.pdf (accessed January 10, 2008).

Fox, C.H. March 2005. Pet Peeved: You’re Working Like a Dog. But How is Your World Schedule Working Out for your Faithful Friend? Experience Life 7:78-80. Lifetime Fitness, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Available online at: http://www.lifetimefitness.com/magazine/index.cfm?strWebAction=article_detail&intArticleId=355 (accessed January 10, 2008).

Fox, C.H. and C.M. Papouchis (eds.). 2004. Cull of the Wild: A Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States. Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, California.

Fox, C.H. March-April 2004. God’s Dog: Learning to Co-Exist with Coyotes. Wild Mountain Times, Asheville, North Carolina.

Fox, C.H. 2004. Wildlife Trapping, Behavior, and Welfare. Pp. 1170-1176 in: M. Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut.

Fox, C.H. 2004. Close Encounters of the Coyote Kind. Animal Issues 35:14-17.

Fox, C.H. 2004. Cull of the Wild. Wild Earth 13(4):54-60. Richmond, Vermont: Wildlands Project.

Fox, C.H. 2004. Wildlife Control Out of Control. Animal Issues 35:15-18.

Fox, C.H. 2003. What About Fluffy & Fido? Pp. 52-56 In J. de Graaf (ed.), Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork and Time Poverty in America. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, California.

Fox, C.H. 2003. Predators, Politics, and Prejudice. Animal Issues 34:22-29.

Fox, C.H. 2002. National Wildlife Refuges: Sanctuaries or Killing Fields? in: K.W. Stallwood (ed.), A Primer on Animal Rights. Lantern Books, New York, New York.

Fox, C.H. 2001. Taxpayers say no to killing predators. Animal Issues 31:26-27.

Fox, C.H. 2000. Deadly Refuges. Earth Island Journal 15:27. Earth Island Institute, San Francisco, California.

Fox, C.H. 1999. (Report) Trapping on National Wildlife Refuges: the History and Current Status of Trapping on the National Wildlife Refuge System. Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, California.

Camilla Fox :: Jun.04.2007 :: Coyotes, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Politics, Practical Ethics, Wildlife, Wolves :: No Comments »

We have pleasure in announcing the launch of New Zealand’s first national research centre for Human-Animal Studies at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand.

For more information on the New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies (NZCHAS), please see:

www.nzchas.canterbury.ac.nz/

Best regards,

Annie Potts & Philip Armstrong
Co-Directors
NZ Centre for Human-Animal Studies
School of Culture, Literature & Society
Te Whare Wananga o Waitaha/University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch
Aotearoa New Zealand
Phone: 64 3 364 2987 ext 7967
www.amst.canterbury.ac.nz/people/potts.shtml

William Lynn :: Mar.18.2007 :: Art, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Politics :: No Comments »

As the administration mounts its surge/escalation of upwards of ~45,000 troops (~20,000 combat) in Bahgdad, Andy Davison sends us this reminder of what happens to the best laid plans of imperial ambition.

In the Sixth Year of the Peloponnesian War: The Invasion of Aetolia by Demosthenes of Athens

Edited by Andy Davison

“Demosthenes had … been persuaded by the Messenians that it was a fine opportunity for him, having so large an army assembled, to attack the Aetolians… The Aetolian nation, although numerous and warlike, yet dwelt in unwalled villages scattered far apart, and had nothing but light armour, and might, according to the Messenians, be subdued without much difficulty before succours could arrive. The plan which they recommended was to attack first the Apodotians, next the Ophionians, and after these the Eurytanians, who are the largest tribe in Aetolia, and speak, as is said, a language exceedingly difficult to understand… These once subdued, the rest would easily come in.

To this plan Demosthenes consented, not only to please the Messenians, but also in the belief that by adding the Aetolians to his other continental allies he would be able, without aid from home, to march against the Boeotians …

His base he established at Oeneon in Locris, as the Ozolian Locrians were allies of Athens and were to meet him with all their forces in the interior. Being neighbours of the Aetolians and armed in the same way, it was thought that they would be of great service upon the expedition, from their acquaintance with the localities and the warfare of the inhabitants.

After bivouacking with the army in the precinct of Nemean Zeus, in which the poet Hesiod is said to have been killed by the people of the country, according to an oracle which had foretold that he should die in Nemea, Demosthenes set out at daybreak to invade Aetolia. The first day he took Potidania, the next Krokyle, and the third Tichium, where he halted and sent back the booty …

Meanwhile the Aetolians had been aware of his design from the moment of its formation, and as soon as the army invaded their country came up in great force with all their tribes; even the most remote Ophionians, the Bomiensians, and Calliensians, who extend towards the Malian Gulf, being among the number.

The Messenians, however, adhered to their original advice. Assuring Demosthenes that the Aetolians were an easy conquest, they urged him to push on as rapidly as possible, and to try to take the villages as fast as he came up to them, without waiting until the whole nation should be in arms against him. Led on by his advisers and trusting in his fortune, as he had met with no opposition … he advanced and stormed Aegitium, the inhabitants flying before him and posting themselves upon the hills above the town, which stood on high ground about nine miles from the sea.

Meanwhile the Aetolians had gathered to the rescue, and now attacked the Athenians and their allies, running down from the hills on every side and darting their javelins, falling back when the Athenian army advanced, and coming on as it retired; and for a long while the battle was of this character, alternate advance and retreat, in both which operations the Athenians had the worst.

Still as long as their archers had arrows left and were able to use them, they held out, the light-armed Aetolians retiring before the arrows; but after the captain of the archers had been killed and his men scattered, the soldiers, wearied out with the constant repetition of the same exertions and hard pressed by the Aetolians with their javelins, at last turned and fled, and falling into pathless gullies and places that they were unacquainted with, thus perished, the Messenian Chromon, their guide, having also unfortunately been killed.

A great many were overtaken in the pursuit by the swift-footed and light-armed Aetolians, and fell beneath their javelins; the greater number however missed their road and rushed into the wood, which had no ways out, and which was soon fired and burnt round them by the enemy. Indeed the Athenian army fell victims to death in every form, and suffered all the vicissitudes of flight; the survivors escaped with difficulty to the sea and Oeneon in Locris, whence they had set out.

Many of the allies were killed, and about one hundred and twenty Athenian heavy infantry, not a man less, and all in the prime of life. These were by far the best men in the city of Athens that fell during this war. Among the slain was also Procles, the colleague of Demosthenes. Meanwhile the Athenians took up their dead under truce from the Aetolians, and retired to Naupactus, and from thence went in their ships to Athens; Demosthenes staying behind in Naupactus and in the neighbourhood, being afraid [for now] to face the Athenians after the disaster.”

Andy Davison :: Mar.01.2007 :: Ethics, Politics :: No Comments »

Los Angeles has the biggest homeless population of any U.S. city today and spends proportionally less on the problem than New York, Boston, Chicago and Seattle. There are more than 90,000 homeless people countywide on any given night. According to a petition signed by 54 prominent university researchers from southern California, and a companion research report from the Inter-University Coalition Against Homelessness, current approaches to ending homelessness will not solve the problem. Policy makers, service providers, and communities need to move away from attempts to contain the problem in neighborhoods like Skid Row and encourage broader community responsibility. In addition, added affordable and supportive housing, job opportunities, and services are critical. The petition and report are available on-line at www.usc.edu/sustainablecities.

Jennifer Wolch is a distinguished geographer at the University of Southern California (USC), and Director of the Center for Sustainable Cities at USC. The CSC is an admirable venture, and Dr. Wolch’s work evinces are deep care for the human and non-human world. A wonderful example of interdisciplinarity in human-animal studies. To find out more about the Center and its work, visit www.usc.edu/sustainablecities.

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Feb.06.2007 :: Ethics, Geography, Human-Animal Studies, Politics :: No Comments »

Those of you with TV may be watching 24 and its fictional vision of a terrorist nuking of the US. And the response. There is an On Point program of WBUR (Boston Public Radio) that examines the resonance and cultural meaning of the program. It is an excellent way to experience the connections between fiction and public policy.

To listen to the program, visit www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/01/20070118_b_main.asp.

Cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Jan.27.2007 :: Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Politics :: No Comments »

For the last two years, I’ve broadcast a Martin Luther King Holiday special on WKNH, the Keene State College radio station. The segment that always gets the most listener comment is the little-known story about how King actually became an activist during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It gets a laugh and an “aha.”

In 1955, King was fresh from seminary, only 26 years old, and new to town. His church was one of the smallest, wealthiest, and most conservative of the two-dozen African-American churches in Montgomery. His personal ambitions at the time were to run a solid church program, be well paid for it, have a nice house for his growing family, write theology pieces for his denomination’s magazine, and do a bit of adjunct teaching at a nearby college. He was not dreaming of becoming a leader in the struggle for civil rights, economic justice, and a peaceful US foreign policy.

Indeed, if it had been left up to King, the Montgomery Bus Boycott would never have happened. The real organizer of this effort was E.D. Nixon, an experienced civil rights and labor activist who created the Montgomery Improvement Association and launched the Montgomery Bus Boycott within the first four days after Rosa Parks’ arrest for refusing to move to the back of the bus. It was Nixon who recruited King to the civil rights movement. After bailing Rosa Parks out of jail, Nixon went home and started calling local ministers to line up their support for his boycott idea. As Nixon later explained: “I recorded quite a few names. The first man I called was Reverend Ralph Abernathy. He said, ‘Yes, Brother Nixon, I’ll go along. I think it’s a good thing.’ The second person I called was the late Reverend H.H. Hubbard. He said, ‘Yes, I’ll go along with you.’ And then I called Rev. King, who was number three on my list, and he said, ‘Brother Nixon, let me think about it awhile, and call you back.’”

When King finally agreed to come to a meeting, Nixon chuckled and told King, “I’m glad you agreed, because I already set up the first meeting at your church.” At this first ministers’ meeting, King was very nervous about Nixon’s idea of conducting an illegal boycott campaign. Several other ministers soon began to side with King against the campaign. In his own memoir on the Bus Boycott, King recalls how Nixon exploded towards the end of the meeting and shouted that the ministers would have to decide if they were going to be like scared little boys, or if they were going to stand up like grown men and take a strong public stand against segregation. King’s pride was so hurt by Nixon’s comment, he shouted back that nobody could call him a coward. Then, to prove his courage, King immediately agreed to Nixon’s plan for an aggressive, community organizing campaign to build up the boycott. Everyone in the room quickly agreed with King and the matter was settled.

With that decision made, the group began to discuss who should lead the effort. Everyone present had expected Nixon to become the president of the newly formed Montgomery Improvement Association. But when he was asked about serving, Nixon answered, “Naw, not unless’n you all don’t accept my man.” When asked whom he was nominating, Nixon said, “Martin Luther King.” Having just loudly declared his courage to the whole group, King felt that he had to agree to take on this responsibility. Then, Nixon told King he would have to give the main address at the mass rally scheduled that very night to announce the boycott plan to the black community.

King rose to Nixon’s challenge. Serving as the leader of the Montgomery Bus Boycott for the next twelve months changed King. Watching 42,000 poor and working-class black people stay organized and do without public transportation for a year, he discovered things about the courage and capacity of ordinary people to resist oppression and move toward freedom. Watching the conservative, rightwing city government finally cave in to the boycott, he discovered the power of mass nonviolent direct action campaigns to win real victories–even when they are opposed by powerful interests. By seeing his own power to inspire people to become active citizens for a noble cause, King discovered just what kind of person he wanted to be in this life. He now fully embraced his new mission as an activist leader for building what he called the “Beloved Community.”

There is an important lesson here for all of us. We don’t have to be born leaders. We don’t have to know everything before we get started. We just have to get started.

This short piece on MLK was written by Steve Chase, the Director of Antioch University New England’s Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program. His contact information is at the bottom of this email. The piece is adapted from a posting on “The Well-Trained Activist” blog (http://eaop-blog.blogspot.com). For more, see Steve Chase.

Photo: Sheeba Arif, 2004, First Prize co-winner of the Princeton University MLK 2004 Poster Contest, grade 6, John Witherspoon School, Princeton

Steve Chase :: Jan.22.2007 :: Politics :: No Comments »

I recently posted Andy Davison’s op-ed for the Poughkeepsie Journal, entitled ‘A Change in Iraq Means Reconsidering the Logic of Force’. In it he expressed skepticism about President Bush’s plan for a surge of troops, and suggested the alternative of political rather than military engagement. You can read his op-ed here, or view the version posted on this blog here.

His essay was placed in the ‘Face to Face’ section — a point/counterpoint format of commentators. The other op-ed was by Kieran Michael Lalor and entitled ‘There is no substitute for full victory in Iraq’. You can read his op-ed here.

I read Lalor’s op-ed, and aside from his heartfelt insistence on victory in a war already lost, I was curious about what I might learn from his website, the Eternal Vigilance Society.

It turns out that Lalor is the founder and executive director of the society. He is a Marine Corp veteran passionately committed to the defense and freedom of the US. Nothing wrong with that, a?

Look a bit further, however, and you might start to worry. There is the proud display of a photo with Oliver North, an operative in former President Reagan’s not-so-secret war in Central America — a war whose American benefactors made liberal use of drug smuggling, illegal arms shipments and terrorists named ‘Contras’. Note too the prominent endorsement from the author Michelle Malkin, an apologist for putting Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War 2. Makes one wonder about similar concentrations camps for Arab-Americans, Muslims and anti-American agitators. There is also the less obvious but prolonged attempt to bash Congressional representative John Hall (D-NY) as a gay-funded wimp for the hate-America Left.

Such organizations sport a nationalist rhetoric, heated in a stew of apparent authoritarianism, militarism and true manliness. Do these groups realize the resonance their beliefs have with neo-fascism? I do not think so. I can only hope they develop a deeper understanding of the dynamics and pitfalls of their political ideas. An understanding that recognizes that in the right circumstances, their ideals and actions undermine the liberty they prize. And however well-intended their motives, they can unwittingly become agents of the terror they so decry.

cheers, Bill

PS. For more on ordinary citizens and the wages of terror, see Daniel Goldhagen (1997) Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. On the perils of authoritarianism in contemporary US politics, see John Dean (2006) Conservatives without Conscience.

Photo: Traitors Among Us, Propaganda Remix Project.

William Lynn :: Jan.21.2007 :: Ethics, Politics :: No Comments »

With elections near, the White House is charging that Democratic policies on Iraq are harmful to America, warning if the U.S. “cuts and runs,” al-Qaida will fill the power vacuum and use the country to attack America.

As President Bush said Oct. 19 in Pennsylvania: “If we were to follow the Democrats’ prescriptions and withdraw from Iraq, we would be fulfilling Osama bin Laden’s highest aspirations.”

Karl Rove made a similar case in Buffalo on Friday.

Observers say this rhe-torical strategy resembles the 2004 election, when the administration used its reputation for being “tough on terrorism” to secure its hold on the presidency and Congress.

Within the context of the “war on terrorism” - as distinct from campaign politics - the strategy also resembles the case the White House made for invading Iraq in 2002-03.

The White House ap-proach now is, unless the U.S. fights until victory, it will lose, and that loss will damage U.S. safety, prestige and power. For emphasis, the president repeatedly cites bin Laden: “If we were to abandon that country,” the president said at his recent press conference, “the terrorists would establish a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America. How do I know that would happen? Because that’s what the enemy has told us would happen. That’s what they have said.”

Note the president’s certainty about what will happen in Iraq. Just as there was little evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003 - not to mention no credible evidence of ties between the Baath regime and al-Qaida - there is little reason to think were the U.S. to withdraw, al-Qaida “would” rule Iraq. Militant and capable of terror as it is, the movement does not enjoy the support of anywhere near the majority of residents of Iraq (as a whole or in its different regions), or their neighbors, who are all likely to resist its growth with as much determination as the U.S.

Terror war will continue

Moreover, even if the Democrats take Congress this year and a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, it is highly unlikely the U.S. will withdraw from the war with al-Qaida. Remember: It was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who first took up arms against the organization, declaring after he ordered strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan that “the battle against terrorism” would “be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism” (8/20/98).

Few Democrats question the idea of such a war. Most say they want to fight it better. In other words, just as the administration exaggerated the realities of Iraq’s threat to the U.S. in 2002-03, it is now exaggerating - and misrepresenting - both al-Qaida’s potential to rule Iraq and Democratic approaches to the war on terror. Not only has it revived its politically convenient distortion of an al-Qaida/Iraq connection, it has also brazenly linked the former’s hostility with Democratic questioning of Republican policies.

The White House is indeed taking the possibility of an electoral regime change in the U.S. Congress very seriously. Before the war, the White House insisted the only appropriate “action” was war, the “risks of inaction” - we were told - being greater. Now with the costs of war rising on all sides, we are told the only appropriate action is voting Republican.

And beneath this rhetoric is the administration’s greatest conjecture - also reminiscent of 2003 - that more war will bring peace and not more war. The hard - and more accurate - truth is that no one really knows what tomorrow will bring in Iraq, where the realities of civil war and occupation defy simplification and require unmanipulated consideration now.

Andrew Davison
Poughkeepsie, NY

Andrew Davison is associate professor of political science at Vassar College where he teaches courses in political theory and politics in the Middle East. His latest book is Conquering Hearts and Minds:The American War Ideology in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, 1990-2003. For more, see Andy Davison.

Andy Davison :: Oct.28.2006 :: Politics :: No Comments »

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s rejection in Rome of an “immediate” cease-fire appeared to many to be another example of unbalanced U.S. support for Israel, whose current war is taking its toll on Lebanon as a whole, not only Hezbollah. It may look, that is, like U.S. policy is, “Israel first, Lebanon second.”

The United States, of course, considers its policy to be in the best interests of both Israel and Lebanon. But the U.S. stance should also be seen as “U.S. First,” that is, as a policy driven fundamentally by what the White House considers U.S. interests.

Consider a remarkable statement made by Vice President Dick Cheney — probably the most influential Mideast policymaker in the United States — to the press on March 16, 2003, three days before the U.S. war in Iraq began. Cheney justified the war as partly a response to the killing of American Marines in Lebanon in 1983:

“I think the impression has grown in that part of the world. I think Osama bin Laden believes this, and I think Saddam Hussein did, at least up until Sept. 11, that they could strike the United States with impunity, and we had situations in ‘83 when the Marine barracks was blown up in Beirut. There was no effective U.S. response. In ‘93 the World Trade Center in New York was hit, with no effective response. In ‘96 Khobar Towers, in ‘98 the east Africa Embassy bombings, in 2000 the USS Cole was hit, and each time there was almost no credible response from the United States to those attacks. Everything changed on Sept. 11.”

American Marines landed in Lebanon in August 1982 as part of a multinational force that was to evacuate Palestinian fighters cornered by Israel in Beirut. Israel had invaded Lebanon in June to eliminate the PLO, which had engaged Israel militarily in the south for nearly a decade, and to back a government sympathetic to Israel. The evacuation arranged by a special envoy of President Ronald Reagan went smoothly, but subsequent events unraveled the fragile conditions.

The United States and France became involved in the fighting on the side of the Lebanese government, and were then attacked by its opponents, some of whom were inspired by the overthrow of the U.S.-backed monarchy in Iran four years earlier. On Oct. 23, in what one historian calls “the most professional massacre ever perpetrated in Lebanon,” militants car-bombed the French and U.S. barracks almost simultaneously, killing more than 300.

Reagan described the attacks as “bestial,” and Vice President Bush, touring the site, said the United States “would not be cowed by terrorists.” The United States continues to hold Hezbollah and Iran responsible for these attacks.

Since the second week of July, then, the Israelis have been doing work the White House probably thinks should have been done long ago ? the missing “effective response,” in the vice president’s words. Israel’s war on Hezbollah is “an extension of the war on terrorism,” says U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. This is how the Bush administration considers the war in Iraq. The stated aims of this U.S. war strategy are to eliminate the terrorists, and produce conditions for freedom and democracy in the region. Besides the fact its opponents don’t want to be cowed either, one problem with this strategy in Lebanon is conditions have changed since 1983. Then, powerful Lebanese factions initially welcomed the Israelis, and were pleased to see the PLO go. Now, especially in the south, many view Hezbollah as a legitimate Lebanese political movement, one that helped “free” Lebanon by fighting off the Israelis in the 1990s. They don’t appear to support wiping it out the idiom of the “war on terrorism.”

Speaking in Jerusalem prior to the Rome summit, Rice confidently stated, “We will prevail.” These words suggest more a war posture than a diplomatic one. The Bush administration is releasing humanitarian aid to Lebanon, but its stronger support, in the form of its risky rejection of an immediate cease-fire, is for the war on Hezbollah ? the missing “U.S. response” powerful figures in the White House may have been wanting since 1983.

Andrew Davison
Poughkeepsie, NY

Andrew Davison is associate professor of political science at Vassar College where he teaches courses in political theory and politics in the Middle East. His latest book is Conquering Hearts and Minds:The American War Ideology in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, 1990-2003. For more, see Andy Davison.

Photo: www.nytimes.com, 02 August 2006

Andy Davison :: Aug.01.2006 :: Politics :: No Comments »

Antioch University recently sponsored a community meeting following a showing of Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Steve Chase, who is the Director of Antioch University’s Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program (EAOP), was one of the discussants at the meeting. His remarks focused on the ‘other inconvenient truth…corporate rule and global climate change’. His thoughts are well worth reading, and can be found on the EAOP blog, The Well-Trained Activist. You might also enjoy a visit to the the EAOP’s website, www.antiochne.edu/es/eao.

cheers, Bill

Photo: Poster for Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

William Lynn :: Jul.24.2006 :: Environmental Studies, Ethics, Human-Animal Studies, Politics :: No Comments »

With violence in Israel and Lebanon escalating, it was interesting to hear President Bush say on Sunday “the international community must address the root causes” of the conflict.

“Addressing root causes” is usually a demand made by those opposing the use of force to solve conflicts in the region. The idea is if one understands the various reasons and forms of responsibility for the violence, one might be able to address each party’s claims and find ways to achieve peace. Political scientists sometimes distinguish between two different kinds of root causes - immediate and long term. Both kinds are active today.

Immediate root causes are the most direct reasons for the violence. Bush pointed to this kind of cause when he said “the cause of the crisis” was Hezbollah’s decision “to capture two Israeli soldiers and fire hundreds of rockets into Israel.”

Long-term root causes refer to deeper conditions, habits and strategies formed over time that lie behind the immediate causes. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, the long-term root causes are the competing Israeli and Palestinian national claims. In the current crisis, the Bush administration says Iran is the root cause. Other causes at work may be expectations about prisoner exchanges formed during years of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

Just after Hezbollah captured the Israeli soldiers, experts explained the action as part of an older strategy to free prisoners held in Israel. This strategy also prompted the capture of another Israeli soldier by a militant group in Gaza in late June.
Issues of prisoner release may appear marginal when the politicians are talking of “terror/counterterror,” but, they are central to the parties in conflict - Israelis, Lebanese, and Palestinian alike. Each is prepared to go to great lengths to free their captured compatriots. In January 2004, the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon exchanged hundreds of prisoners for one abducted citizen and the remains of three soldiers. This exchange was coordinated with Hezbollah.

Israel values image

Those who have captured the Israelis hoping to deal have, however, encountered another long-term cause of the violence: Israel’s determination to avoid being placed or perceived in a position of weakness. For its survival, Israel consistently seeks to maintain the military-strategic advantage and to punish those who make it appear vulnerable. It has thus responded to the abductions with overwhelming force, hoping to eliminate or deter those waging war against it.

This strategy may reduce attacks in the medium term, but it also preserves the cycle of violence and expands the scope of conflict. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to eliminate the PLO and was induced to withdraw partly by Hezbollah, whose military successes inspired Palestinian uprisings in the West Bank and Gaza. Hezbollah’s recent attacks have reached farther into Israel than ever. Israel is charging Iran with complicity. This reflects the Bush administration’s instincts. The scope of the conflict is growing. If the war expands, the United States (in Iraq) will be drawn in somehow.

Addressing root causes means addressing with creative policies the reasons that lie behind today’s violence. In addition to a cease-fire, it requires finding alternatives to the uncertain and permanent detention of captured combatants on all sides. One of the brokers of the 2004 deal wisely said, “With this agreement Israel and Hezbollah have achieved a breakthrough in seeking to soothe one of the most painful consequences of the Middle East conflict.”

That swap was very instructive: Positively, it proved that agreements over root causes between sworn enemies are possible. Negatively, it was a brokered deal, not an agreement to institutionalize internationally just and standardized rules of captured prisoner treatment and release. Such processes must be found, both for the captured and those concerned about them on the outside, where the pain remains and decisions to try to liberate their compatriots through force are made.

Unaddressed, long-term causes linger and promote further violence - today’s “most painful consequences” become tomorrow’s immediate root causes. Bush’s demand on the international community, if implemented seriously, could help stem the deadly and scary violence in Israel, Lebanon and Gaza today - and prevent more in the future.

Andrew Davison
Poughkeepsie, NY

Andrew Davison is associate professor of political science at Vassar College where he teaches courses in political theory and politics in the Middle East. His latest book is Conquering Hearts and Minds:The American War Ideology in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, 1990-2003. For more, see Andy Davison.

Published in the Poughkeepsie Journal.

Photo: Israeli/Hezbollah prisoner exchange of January 2004. From the Sydney Morning Herald.

Andy Davison :: Jul.18.2006 :: Politics :: No Comments »

If you haven’t seen or heard Vincent Ferrari’s run-in with AOL, please do. A former customer of AOL, Mr. Ferrari tried to close his dial-up internet account. In the process he received AOL’s notorious customer care treatment. This included patronizing and scornful remarks from AOL’s representative as part of an obvious attempt to frustrate the goal of Mr. Ferrari’s call. The company has in the past been forced to sign agreements with federal and state regulators to reform abusive customer retention practices, but this is the first time it was caught-out in public. You can link to the coverage from Mr. Ferrari’s blog, Insignificant Thoughts, at www.duggmirror.com/technology/MP3_Recording:_Trying_to_cancel_AOL.

I felt a touch of deja vu while listening to and reading about this. Several years ago EarthLink ignored my repeated requests to cancel an internet account, and then claimed that because the account had not been cancelled, they did not have to refund the charges to my credit card. When I moved last fall, Verizon failed to disconnect my landline service, charged the new residents’ phone to my bill, and even then refused to clear the charges from my account. My unsuccessful attempt to clear-up this snafu took over an hour of long-distance phone time, during which I was transferred from one office to another, and repeatedly ‘reassured’ that their record-keeping systems were infallible. Funny, but the broadband and wireless division had successfully altered my service after receiving the same, centralized notification. There is HSBC, which until a few weeks ago refused to acknowledge repeated requests to close my bank account. They did, however, keep deducting service charges in the meantime. Only a written threat to contact a private attorney as well as the NYS Attorney Generals Office turned that behaviour around. And lets not forget Dell, whose spontaneously combusting laptops and miserly customer service are grabbing headlines. Flying under the radar is Dell’s decision to make its computers incompatible with third-party power-adapter like those produced by iGO and Targus. Dell’s inferior substitute means that if you have left your adapter elsewhere during a commute or trip and need a replacement, you are screwed. Unless you wait days for a special order from Dell at exorbitant cost.

Truth be told, in most of the instances I cite above, a customer service agent did their best to help me. But they were frustrated in their efforts by the help system - they were not empowered to make ‘that kind of decision’, did not have access to the right ’screen’, or they could only proceed with the ‘clearance’ of a supervisor who was currently ‘unavailable’. One might speculate that this is unofficial corporate policy, knowing that the meager penalties meted out by weak regulatory bodies is more than offset by the incremental, volume-based profits of accounting overcharges.

So long as you can avoid too much bad publicity.