Ethos

Please view the latest episode of Animal Inventory TV by clicking here.

When Angelo realized he was about to become homeless, he was determined not to let his cat Simon suffer the same fate. Angelo was heartbroken to imagine being separated from his best friend, but in an unexpected turn of events, and with the help of the Boston-based organization Phinney’s Friends, Angelo has worked out an unusual arrangement — one that enables him to focus on his own needs, while ensuring the very best care for his cat.

To find out more about Phinney’s Friends, or to make a donation, email Carmine Dicenso at: cdicenso@mspca.org

For additional episodes and more information, visit the Animal Inventory TV website.

Lisa Brown :: Feb.15.2009 :: Art, Ethics, Politics, Social Justice :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Global Studies, Politics, Social Justice :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

Camilla H. Fox
Director, Project Coyote
Wildlife Consultant
P.O. Box 5007
Larkspur, CA 94977
cfox@projectcoyote.org

www.ProjectCoyote.org
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.

For over 15 years, Camilla Fox has worked to protect wildlife and wildlands in the U.S. and internationally.  She has served in leadership positions with the Animal Protection Institute, Fur-Bearer Defenders, and Rainforest Action Network and has spearheaded campaigns aimed at protecting native carnivores and fostering humane and ecologically sound solutions to human-wildlife conflicts.

As the Founding Director of Project Coyote and a wildlife consultant, Camilla assists communities, agencies, wildlife managers, and non-governmental organizations in creating innovative solutions to help people and wildlife coexist. A frequent speaker on these issues, Camilla has 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 the book, Cull of the Wild: A Contemporary Analysis of Trapping in the United States. She is also the producer of the companion film, Cull of the Wild: The Truth Behind Trapping. Her work on behalf of wildlife has been featured in several national and international media outlets including the German documentary, Coyote: The Hunted Hunter, and two North American documentaries: American Coyote- Still Wild at Heart, and On Nature’s Terms, as well as the New York Times, the BBC, NPR, Orion, USA Today magazine, and Bay Nature magazine.

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 in 1991. 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 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 Bekoff, M. In press. Ethical Reflections on Wolf Recovery and Conservation: A Practical Approach for Making Room For Wolves. In M. Musiani, L. Boitani, P. Paquet (editors), The World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology, Behaviour and Policy. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta.

Fox, C.H. In press. Predator Control & Ethics. In M. Bekoff (editor). Encyclopedia of Animal Rights & Welfare (revised edition). Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut.

Fox, C.H. In press. Wildlife Trapping: Behavioral & Welfare Implications. In M. Bekoff (editor). Encyclopedia of Animal Rights & Welfare (revised edition). Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut.

Hadidian, J., C.H. Fox, and W.S. Lynn. In press. Ethics and Urban Wildlife. In M. Bekoff (editor). Encyclopedia of Animal Rights & Welfare (revised edition). Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut.

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

Fox, C.H. 2007. Trapping Animals. Pp. 984-989 in: M. Bekoff (editor), 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.

Camilla Fox :: Jun.04.2007 :: Animal Studies, Coyotes, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Politics, Practical Ethics, Wildlife, Wolves :: Comments Off

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 :: Animal Studies, Art, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Politics :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Animal Studies, Ethics, Geography, Politics :: Comments Off

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 :: Animal Studies, Ethics, Politics :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Politics :: Comments Off

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 :: Comments Off

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. For more on the bad press, and lots of it, visit The Consumerist blog.

Photo: www.gapingvoid.com

William Lynn :: Jul.10.2006 :: Ethics, Politics :: Comments Off

Like many of you, I have needlessly suffered through incompetent software from Microsoft (and the Windows world in general). I expect we have all experienced the needless complexity of Word, the inexplicable inabilities of Outlook, the security nightmare of Internet Explorer, and the glacial (and expensive) pace of software updates.

I know. I’m only scratching the surface.

Technology is not the only problem. The dominant culture of computing is also at issue. This culture penalizes the average user. If you exist somewhere between novice and programmer, then your cyber-world is one of endless frustration. It is akin to middle-class taxes. The wealthy and corporations pay comparatively little compared to people with modest incomes. [Of course, the poor shouldn't have to 'pay' in either computing or taxes].

In the public’s eye, Apple is a stellar exception. It excels in terms of user-friendliness, advanced features and aesthetic appeal. Yet the directors and stockholders of Apple have let personal enrichment sidetrack the original vision of computing for ordinary people like me. So Apple has never become more than a demonstration project for what software and hardware ought to be.

To be fair, Apple is also the maker of some nifty devices like the iPod!

Is there hope for user-friendly computing that is not usurious outside of Apple? I think it may lay with the free and open source movement. This movement emerged in the early 1980s in reaction to the growing corporate control of computing. Its goal is to create platform-independent software with standards of technology that are openly available to the global community. What this means in practice is the replacement of expensive programs and restrictive licensing, with software that is freely available for use, distribution and editing under some version of a public use license.

Examples of this kind of software include operating systems such as Linspire (www.linspire.com; replacing Windows), Open Office and Star Office (www.openoffice.org and www.staroffice.org; replacing Office), Firefox (www.mozilla.com; replacing Internet Explorer), Thunderbird/Sunbird (www.mozilla.com; replacing Outlook), Tufts University Science Knowledgebase (www.tusk.tufts.edu; replacing Blackboard).

There are real differences of opinion within the overall movement. The dominant streams at the time are ‘open source’ and ‘free software’. The primary distinction between the two is that open source emphasizes the technological superiority of its software over that offered by corporate giants. The free software movement emphasizes the liberation of computing from corporate control altogether. Putting it this way may overstate the case, however, and if you are interested in finding out more, look at the relevant articles and links at Wikipedia. One I recommend in particular is an article entitled ‘Free Software vs. Open Source’. You might also want to look at the websites of SourceForge and the Free Software Foundation.

As an ethics advisor and geographer, I am sympathetic to the critique of corporate computing that fuels the movement. Global society needs alternatives of all sorts to wrest control from the homogenizing and repressive elements of corporate culture. I am especially pleased that governments like Brazil are adopting free and open source standards as a way to economize on costs, obtain a better product, and contest monopolistic economic practices.

At the same time, I’m not opposed to proprietary software, private business, corporations per se, or market forces. Properly understood and operated, such products and institutions can contribute to the well-being of the body politic. Nonetheless, we have let propertarian values run amok, and it is time to restore some balance between the economic and other sectors of global society. If different streams of the movement want to emphasize different goals – software liberation versus technical superiority — I think that is just fine. Both will contribute to a better world.

So after yet another frustrating evening of dealing with poorly designed Windows technology, I’ve decided to commit myself to using free and open-source technology. As part of this commitment, I’ve also decided to phase out my use of Microsoft products as much as possible. A metaphorical ‘Kill Bill’ if you will. I made a tentative start several months ago with when I dumped Internet Explorer for Firefox. My ultimate goal is to replace my Windows OS altogether.

I have no doubt this shift will at times be frustrating, but I doubt it can exceed my frustrations to date. And I know this shift will take time. I’m not a computing wizard, and there are many new programs and operations to learn. Yet if the free and open source movement can contribute to a better world, then my small effort in this direction will be worthwhile. True, it may be a drop in the bucket, but then again, that bucket is made up of many drops.

cheers, Bill

Photo: Publicity shot from ‘Kill Bill’ 2003.

William Lynn :: Jun.04.2006 :: Ethics, Politics :: 1 Comment »

This work reveals the systematic militarization of public opinion by the three successive American Presidential administrations under whose leadership the United States confronted its most militant opponents in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, namely, the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda Islamist movement. Focusing on the period beginning with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and continuing through the U.S. campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, the work exposes how each administration undermined democratic deliberation by outfitting the citizenry exclusively with those understandings that would make war seem both obligatory and inevitable. Together, these understandings represent what I call the “official American war ideology”: an obfuscating system of beliefs that enabled the “war on terror” to proceed without significant domestic dissent until its controversial extension to Iraq in 2003. The work demonstrates how the terms of this ideology – repeated time and again in televised Presidential speeches, press conferences, and mainstream news programs – have been strategically deployed by top administration officials. It argues that a concerted interrogation of these terms is necessary in order to counter their corrupting influence. The work also situates the official American war ideology in the larger context of conflict over governance in the petroleum-rich gulf. It demonstrates how the terms of this ideology functioned to defend and extend US dominance, in part by undercutting the conditions for democratic debate in the U.S. over energy policy and over the militaristic and religiopolitical foundations of global American power. Despite the readily apparent damage they have done to democratic deliberation and despite their central role in the intensification of conflict in the gulf, the terms of the American war ideology have yet to be adequately questioned. By extending understanding of the ideological manipulations that have functioned to justify war since 1990, this work seeks both to challenge the dominant terms of the public debate on U.S. foreign policy in the gulf and to promote a genuinely deliberative reconsideration of the terms and implications of the “war on terror.” …[T]he American people have been shepherded into war under highly debatable terms, thinking that wars in the Gulf, or in parts of Asia and Africa where its opponents to its Gulf presence conduct their operations, are wars over existence, not over a highly troubling, unaccountable organization of power in the Gulf, “wars on terrorism” not “wars over the Gulf.” The people were told that America’s most militant opponents took up arms against them out of hatred alone, that the world produces evil and it is within their sense of responsibility to rid the world of it. They backed war because they believed that the conflict had nothing to do with earthly considerations of power and human needs. These beliefs must be corrected, and the tide reversed’.

Andrew Davison. 2005. Conquering Hearts and Minds: The American War Ideology in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, 1990-2003. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press. Available through tulumba.com and amazon.com

Andy Davison :: Feb.01.2006 :: Politics :: Comments Off

Andy Davison, an ethics advisor for Practical Ethics and a professor of political theory at Vassar College, has a new book out on war and ideology and the United States.

Andrew Davison. 2005. Conquering Hearts and Minds: The American War Ideology in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, 1990-2003. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.

Available in North America through www.tulumba.com.

Here’s what the back cover has to say about it….

This book by Andrew Davison offers an exposition of the official American ideology of war in the Persian/Arabian Gulf: an ideology whose principal aims have been the manipulation and militarization of US public-political culture and the imperial reassertion of American global power.

The book shows how the official war ideology was put in place by successive American presidents in order to justify the wars in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and against the Al Qaeda Islamist movement more generally.

It also compellingly displays how these wars, fought primarily over petroleum and political power in the Gulf, were characterized, since 1990, in terms of biblical and civilizational significance that mobilized the militarized support of the American public but distorted the contexts and stakes of the conflict in which the US remains violently involved.

Two especially distinguishing qualities of this analysis are, first, that it draws our attention to the pervasive nonsecular character of Presidential rhetoric in the United States; and, second, that it demonstrates the continuity of militant, religious Presidential rhetoric across the spectrum of the American administrations for over two decades, despite the appearance of sharp antagonisms between Democrats and Republicans.

Written for a broad audience, Conquering Hearts and Minds offers an accessible analysis for a wide variety of readers interested in the relationship between America and the Middle East, the “war on terrorism,” the troubled state of international affairs and politics, and alternatives to endless war.

“Conquering Hearts and Minds has immediate relevance to understanding what has been happening in the United States and the world and invites us to revisit and rethink not only how things might have unfolded differently but also how they may be different if we seek to move the world in the direction of much less violent and much more democratic futures.”

Taha Parla
Bogaziçi University

Andy Davison :: Dec.29.2005 :: Politics :: Comments Off

The author of the previous post, ‘Thank you Rosa Parks’, is Steve Chase. Steve is one of the most remarkable activists in highter education. We met years ago while we both lived in Minneapolis, and he had deeply influenced my understanding of environmental justice, as well as nonviolent action. His activism is akin to that of the abolitionists of slavery and child labour, the early union movement, and in his time, the civil rights movement. At his core is a moral sensibility about the dignity of human being, our mutual responsibilities to each other, and our wider obligations to other animals and the natural environment. He became an ethics advisor for Practical Ethics (www.practicalethics.net) in 2005.

Steve earned both his MS (1996) and doctorate (2005) from the environmental studies program of Antioch New Englad Graduate School. He also directs Antioch’s innovative program in Environmental Advocacy and Organizing — the only graduate program in the US specifically tailored to the training needs of public interest advocates and community organizers. Taking a broad view of environmental politics, the program addresses the overlapping issues of environmental protection, corporate accountability, and social justice.

Steve currently teaches courses in Patterns of Environmental Activism; Corporate Power, Globalization, and Democracy; Organizing Social Movements and Campaigns; Organizational Leadership in the Nonprofit World; and Environmental Justice Along the Mississippi. He also supervises Advocacy and Organizing student practicums, and is developing a course on Popular Education for Social Change, as well as a summer on-line reading seminar in Radical Political Theory.

Steve’s research interests include activist education, ecological politics, environmental justice, corporate globalization, and democratic social movements. His publications include being guest editor for a special Orion issue on “Nature and Justice” in 1996, as well as editing and writing the introduction for the book Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman. His essay “Changing the Nature of Environmental Studies: Teaching Environmental Justice to ‘Mainstream’ Students” was recently published in The Environmental Justice Reader, a University of Arizona Press anthology. Other articles and essays of his have appeared in Orion; Terra Nova; The Trumpeter; Whole Terrain; Z Magazine; Race, Poverty, and Environment; Environment, Place, and Ethics; and The Journal of Multicultural Environmental Education.

A long time activist and activist educator, Chase is currently a member of the National Organizers Alliance, the Boston-Area Popular Educators Network, Human Rights Educators Network, and United for a Fair Economy’s National Trainers Network. He also does consulting for the New England Grassroots Environmental Fund and Training for Change’s Strategy Project.

You can learn more about his advocacy program, or request Steve as a guest speaker, through the contact information below.

Steve Chase, PhD, MS Director, Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program Antioch New England Graduate School 40 Avon Street, Keene, NH 03431 603.357.3122 x298 steven_chase@antiochne.edu www.antiochne.edu/es/eao/

cheers, Bill

William Lynn :: Nov.19.2005 :: Politics :: 1 Comment »

Four years ago, I founded a one-of-a-kind master’s program at Antioch New England Graduate School to train public interest advocates and grassroots organizers working for environmental protection, corporate accountability, and social justice. People have occasionally asked me what inspired me to dream up the Environmental Advocacy and Organizing program. My answer is always the same: Rosa Parks.

Parks, who died at home last week, became famous in 1955 when she refused to move to the back of a segregated bus for a white man. She was immediately arrested, and her act of defiance sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which won the first major victory against legal segregation in the South and launched a national movement for civil rights.

People can usually see how Rosa Parks sparked my interest in nonviolent activism for the common good. What they don’t get is how she inspired my interest in activist training and education.

Like most people, I used to think that Rosa Parks was just a tired, middle-aged seamstress who got fed up with the indignities of racism on the evening of December 1, 1955. However, when I was a teenager, an older Quaker activist told me the real story of Rosa Parks.

For starters, Parks was a seasoned activist, not a novice. She had been an active member of her local NAACP chapter for over twelve years before refusing to move to the back of the bus, and she had participated in many discussions about how to launch a successful campaign against segregation. Contrary to the conventional story, her act of civil disobedience was pre-planned and aimed at sparking a powerful movement for freedom.

Secondly, Parks was a trained activist. The summer before her famous act of civil disobedience, Parks attended a ten-day activist training workshop at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. During a radio interview years later, Studs Terkel asked Parks what role Highlander played in her decision to act. Parks answered, “Everything.”

Highlander Folk School was founded in the 1930s by Myles Horton. His vision for the school was to bring poor and oppressed people together, encourage them to grapple with their everyday social problems, provide an arena for deep political reflection, and, ultimately, provide training workshops in the skills and strategies of social movement organizing.

During the 1930s and the early 1940s, Highlander focused its educational programs on the southern labor movement. By the early 1950s, Highlander moved into civil rights activism and Horton brought together blacks and whites interested in confronting the problem of segregation.

To deepen the effectiveness of this work, Horton hired Septima Clark, the School’s first black staff member, as his Education Director. A public school teacher who had been fired and blacklisted because of her volunteer work with the NAACP, Clark cemented Highlander’s ties over the years with many of the people who eventually became leaders of such groups as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.

At Highlander, these people were encouraged by both Horton and Clark to take what they learned and apply it in their own communities. As Horton said to generations of participants at Highlander’s training workshops: “The way to use this information is not to say that we have learned a lot, and isn’t it wonderful and great to have been at Highlander…. You’re here to act on it. This is education for action. Now, how are you going to act on this? Let’s just plan what you’re going to do when you go back.”

In her own recollection of Parks’ first visit to Highlander, Septima Clark reports how Parks struggled with her fears over taking the kind of daring action against segregation being discussed by workshop participants and Highlander’s trainers. As Clark remembers it: “Rosa Parks was afraid for white people to know that she was as militant as she was. She didn’t even want to speak before the whites that she met at Highlander, because she was afraid they would take it back to the whites in Montgomery. After she talked it out in that workshop that morning and she went back home, then she decided that ‘I’m not going to move out of that seat.’”

With her dramatic action a few months later, Parks earned her “diploma” from Highlander and rightly became revered as the grandmother of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Unknown to her, she also inspired the creation of a two-year activist training program in Keene, New Hampshire a little over 46 years after her big day.

Thank you, Rosa Parks.

Steve Chase is the director of the Department of Environmental Studies’ Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program at Antioch New England Graduate School.

Reprinted with permission from the Keene Sentinel, November 1, 2005

Steve Chase
Program Director
Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program
Department of Environmental Studies
Antioch New England Graduate School
40 Avon Street
Keene, NH 03431
603-357-3122 ext. 298
603-357-0618 (fax)
Steven_Chase@antiochne.edu
www.antiochne.edu/es/eao/default.cfm

Note: The following opinion column on Rosa Parks’s activism was first printed in the Keene Sentinel on Tuesday, November 1, 2005. The Keene Sentinel grants full distribution or reprint rights to this piece as long as credit for first publication in the Sentinel is given.

Steve Chase :: Nov.05.2005 :: Ethics, Politics :: Comments Off

Dear Friends,

On Friday, I talked on the phone with my friend Marylee Orr, who lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Marylee is the director of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network–a coalition of over 100 grassroots citizens groups throughout the now devastated state of Louisiana. I got to know her on the Department of Environmental Studies’ field studies trip to Louisiana last March when 13 of our students got up close and personal with environmental justice issues in “Cancer Alley.” Marylee helped our students out a lot during our trip and I have been fast friends with her ever since.

Here is why I love her. Marylee hasn’t been up late every night out for the last week out of aimless worry about the many victims and the environmental tragedy left in the wake of the hurricane and official mismanagement of both the disaster prevention and response efforts. She’s been up late because she is working hard to do something about the situation. As she told me on the phone on Friday afternoon, the federal government is not really on the ground doing much yet and, in some of the hard hit parishes in the state, even the Red Cross is not much of a presence yet. In the time honored tradition of grassroots citizenship for the common good, this gutsy woman is using the local contacts with grassroots activists, local officials, and Louisiana faith communities she has built up over 20 years to help close the dramatic gap between the intense need of the people of the Louisiana and the official response so far.

Just this Thurday, LEAN members provided an airdrop of food, water, and medical supplies to the trapped residents of St. Bernard and Plaquemine Parishes, two of the most inundated areas in the state. Saturday, LEAN dropped more supplies for stranded people in Washington Parish. LEAN is also working hard now to raise more funds to allow local people, working with local government leaders to provide direct, immediate assistance with all the efficiency that comes from not being a bureaucrat or an outsider. I’ve already made a contribution to the Red Cross to offer some assistance to the hurricane victims in Louisiana, but I’ve decided to write a check for ten times that amount to the Louisiana Environmental Action Network in order to support people that I know have both the big hearts and the local knowledge needed to help meet the crying humanitarian needs in Louisiana. I also know that LEAN won’t just leave the area when the immediate crisis is over. LEAN will also work to address the toxic cesspool and chemical contamination that will be left behind when the water finally recedes. I’m asking everyone I know to join me in contributing money directly to LEAN for their local efforts in disaster relief. Every penny will be used well. I would trust Marylee with my life and I know her effort will save lives. Please dig deep and give as much as you can to: LEAN, 162 Craydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806.

At the very end of our phone call on Friday, Marylee thanked me for pledging money and for my offer to encourage other folks to contribute to LEAN’s disaster relief efforts, but she also asked for one more thing. She said, “We need financial contributions from all our friends around the country for sure, but we could also really use your prayers. It means so much to know that people around the country care.” For people who want to send good wishes as well as their checks, please write to Marylee’s group at lean@leanweb.org. She likely won’t have time to write back, but it will mean a lot to this hard working, non-sleeping group of local heros to know that our hearts and prayers are with them.

Below is an email I received from Marylee after our phone call.

Best, Steve

[Steve Chase is the Director of the Environmental Advocacy Program at Antioch New England Graduate School. He is also one of the ethics advisor of Practical Ethics.]

Steve Chase :: Sep.04.2005 :: Politics :: Comments Off

Dear Friends of Louisiana,

Due to the catastrophic event of Hurricane Katrina there is an enormous need for life-saving and life-sustaining supplies. At this time, the most needed items are tetanus shots, insulin, IV fluids, as well as financial resources to purchase and transport medical and food assistance directly to victims.

Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is working closely with the Office of Representative Brasso of St. Bernard Parish. Our contributions are being immediately given to the residents of St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, two of the most inundated areas. LEAN feels that by working directly with the parish representatives we are best able to assist in meeting the critical needs of these victims and addressing the crisis in our communities.

The situation in Louisiana is heartbreaking and we hope that by working together we can help save lives and improve the lives of those who have survived this disaster. We would appreciate donations of medical supplies, food and water, or funds to purchase these supplies. For example, yesterday, September 1, 2005, we purchased medical supplies such as aspirin, neosporin, syringes, hand sanitizer, gloves, tylenol, bandages, and so forth. These supplies were directly air dropped down today on September 2, 2005, to people stuck in St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish.

We can not thank you enough for caring about what is going on in our region. Your prayers and support are greatly appreciated. Words can not describe the suffering and courage of the people here. Please help us help our neighbors in our home state. May God bless you for all your support, concern and prayers during this tragic time.

With warmest regards,

Marylee Orr
Executive Director
Louisiana Environmental Action Network
162 Croydon Ave
Baton Rouge, La. 70806

[You can visit LEAN's website at www.leanweb.org]

William Lynn :: Sep.04.2005 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics, Politics :: Comments Off

One of the ways that the American and British official ideology for war functions is to divert attention from violence-engendering policies Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other undisclosed sites globally to questioning intensely whether or not the attackers of America and Great Britain are good or, as both Prime Minister Blair and President Bush tend to put it, “true Muslims.”

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, professing competence in Islamic theology and with Muslim partners to the debate by their side, constantly implore us to see the attackers of America and the UK as non-Muslims who falsely act in the name of Islam. “We know Islam is a religion that teaches love and peace and compassion. No, our struggle is against evil people – evil people that claim they’re religious, but are not,” Mr. Bush said after the 9/11 attacks (10/16/01). “It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam,” Mr. Blair said after the London attacks (7/13).

It will take a lot of time to settle this important dispute between official Anglo-American Islam and its Muslim allies, on the one hand, and its Islamist opponents who see themselves as acting righteously, on the other. Islam is comprised, like the two other great Abrahamic traditions, of vast and internally complicated sub-traditions that are sometimes greatly at odds with each other.

While this debate goes on, one should note how the declarations of “true” Islam function publicly, like snappy emails from Karl Rove, to divert discussion away from the conditions and ongoing sources of the war that the Bush and Blair administrations call “on terror” and their opponents call “on Islam.” For the former, the problem is “evil terrorism.” For the later, the problem is “US/’Crusader/Infidel’ Aggression against Muslims.” The war might be better characterized as a horribly violent contest for control over power in mostly Muslim societies, especially the petroleum rich areas of the Persian/Arabian Gulf.

The official declarations of true and false Islam, eloquently delivered by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, and then repeatedly recycled nearly everywhere by others, continuously turn the causes and stakes of the conflict into religious questions. First, they reject the attackers’ faith-based intentions to be struggling on behalf of oppressed Muslims: “This is not Islam.” Second, they declare the attacks to be evil. So heavily based in the devotional commitments of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, this second move rhetorically rips the terror attacks out of any possible earthly political context, especially those where the attackers seem to want to direct attention, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Moreover, all the while, the political leaders officially declare that the “war on terror” is about freedom and civilization, not religion. “We don’t view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form,” Mr. Bush said on September 16, 2001, correcting his description of it the day before as a “crusade.”

Let us see the situation more clearly: The leaders of the US and UK are declaring truths about the traditions of their Muslim enemies and allies. They are declaring who is and who is not a good and un-”perverted” Muslim in a fight waged against “evil” from both sides.

The political question of the hour is not only, however, whether or not the violence is the work of evil. Rather, it is — and needs to be — also whether or not there are alternatives to the present, stress-inducing policies designed to preserve the power arrangements in political milieus where the majority population practices Islam. We don’t need to know that the “war on terror goes on,” as Mr. Bush said right after the attacks in London. We need to hear, and debate, more about specific policies governing specific parts of the world – including, but not only Iraq and Israel/Palestine – that engender so much violence and counter violence. The political demand of the present needs to be less perverted policy, not more true faith.

One dangerous consequence about the current debate over true Islam is that, as it intensifies, everyone gets increasingly self-righteous about correct religion. The political and earthly interests and stakes get further buried as the holy warriors for true faith argue and battle it out what they believe to be higher goods. The present debate over the content of Karl Rove’s advice to the media is long overdue; so, too, is one over the content of the official ideology of the “war on terrorism.”

Istanbul
July 22, 2005

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.

[As first published in Common Dreams, www.commondreams.org.]

Andy Davison :: Jul.25.2005 :: Politics :: 1 Comment »

People across the political spectrum have expressed deep concerns about the impact of anti-terrorism law and action on civil liberties and political expression. For an example of why, visit E-Magazine and view Steve Chase’s commentary entitled ‘Free Willie’. Steve is one of the ethics advisors at Practical Ethics, and the Director of the Environmental Advocacy and Organization Program at Antioch New England Graduate School. His commentary in E documents the use of anti-terrorism as an excuse to suppress concerns about environmental injustice. Such incidences should force us to examine how we protect our citizens and act against terrorism, without resorting to political repression ourselves.

cheers, Bill

Steve Chase :: Jul.23.2005 :: Politics :: Comments Off

Two weeks ago when I arrived in Istanbul for my annual summer visit, I was surprised to encounter people wearing buttons urging President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to come to Turkey. “Gel Bush,” “Gel Blair,” they read. “Come Bush,” “Come Blair.” I was shocked. Last year at this time, just before both leaders came to Istanbul to attend the NATO summit, the emphasis was just the reverse. President Bush was the focus of a large campaign whose buttons told him to stay away from the country: “Gelme Bush!” – Don’t Come! The President’s visit took place after revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib. Posters plastered throughout the country described him as a mass murderer and torturer.

So what had changed? Why were people urging him and Mr. Blair to come now?

What had changed was that the culminating session of the year long, global World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) was taking place here between 23rd and 27th of June. The WTI has had several purposes gathered into one essential goal: the trial by conscience of Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair for the abuses of power and violations of international law and norms of human decency that have taken place in Iraq since the American-led invasion of 2003. The buttons I saw this year were calling on the leaders of the war coalition to come to Istanbul and face their accusers. These included eyewitnesses and survivors of the violence against civilians and the civilian infrastructure; social and natural scientists who have studied the cultural, environmental, and ecological destruction caused by the war and its weaponry; lawyers, scholars, and experts on international law, the United Nations, ethics, politics, and war from Iraq, Turkey, Europe, and the United States. These were not supporters of Saddam Hussein. They were opponents of illegal war and military occupation who made the case against Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair to an expert jury of conscience, led by notable ethicists and public figures from around the world, including Arundhati Roy and the prominent Turkish public intellectual, Murat Belge.

A few personalized notes, to add to the record: The evidence and argumentation were extremely powerful. I attended two full days of the conference. After each day I was both engaged and exhausted by what I heard and felt. I have known the American case for and against the war through exposure to the national media in the US; but I had not been exposed in such an enduring fashion to the experience of the war from the other side, or to the meticulous research on the international standards and conditions of human decency that have been breached by the war.

The tribunal was not adequately covered in the US media. On the Saturday night of the conference, after listening to a full day of presentations, I surfed the Internet to read the day’s news. With some pleasure, I perused Paul Krugman’s essay, “The War President” (June 24, 2005), in which he, too, called on Mr. Bush to be held accountable for fabricating evidence for the war. The timing between Krugman’s call and the participants in the conference in Istanbul could not have been better, I thought. So, I immediately drafted a short letter to the Times, in which I noted Mr. Krugman’s call for accountability and a broader discussion on “the need to get out” of Iraq, and I wrote: “Just such a discussion has been occurring since Friday in Istanbul, at the World Tribunal on Iraq, where scholars, activists, lawyers, journalists, and witnesses from many countries have gathered to demand that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair be held accountable for their aggressive violations of the rule of law and fundamental norms of human decency. Participants are expanding the historical record from various perspectives and express unity on the need to end the harmful American presence in Iraq. With the Jury of Conscience’s verdict due on Monday, the participants are engaging right now in the kind of exchange Mr. Krugman hopes to see in the US. For the presentations [and the final judgment of the jury] see www.worldtribunal.org/main.”

One can still visit that site and read the proceedings. The letter was my own effort to participate in the work of the conference by getting the word of the WTI into the news. I wanted others to know that the conversation that Mr. Krugman and many others in the US are now calling for had already begun. The Times did not publish the letter, nor to my knowledge did it cover the WTI. But the friends to whom I sent it were pleased to learn of the Tribunal. Several expressed shock at not having heard about it.

Mr. Bush, who along with Mr. Blair did not turn up for the Tribunal, has said in defense of the war and occupation that he believes that the US is “laying the groundwork for peace.” It is a strangely optimistic point of view, one that asks us to look steadfastly beyond all the daily violence, committed by all sides, to a post-conflict period of peaceful resolution. In effect, he suggests that we put aside all that is happening in front of our eyes with methods and tools of mass violence and coercion – including those he’s commanded into battle – and trust in his capacity to see through the daily carnage and terror, bombings and beheadings, to a brighter day. In this context, the work of the WTI should be noted and studied, for its participants asked us to see and know the violent war condition we now inhabit – its illegality, its assault on ethical relations between us – and to demand justice on behalf of all those suffering and all that is being destroyed in the current era of global war. Gel Bush… It’s never too late to get caught up with what’s been happening on your path to peace.

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: An unattributed photo of an American Tank in Iraq. Click on the photo and note the words ‘New Testament’ on the Tank’s barrel.

Andy Davison :: Jul.17.2005 :: Politics :: Comments Off

Some people mistakenly believe Practical Ethics and the blog are solely about animals and the natural world. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are just as concerned with the questions that bedevil people, as we are in our relationship to the non-human world. So it gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend and colleague who will be posting to the Practical Ethics Blog as an occasional contributor.

Andrew Davison is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Vassar College (New York, USA) and teaches during the summer in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Bogaziçi University (Istanbul, Turkey). He is the author of Secularism and Revivalism in Turkey (Yale, 1998), The Philosophic Foundations of Modern Ideology: Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, Islamism (with David Ingersoll and Richard Matthews, Prentice Hall 2000), the documentary “Leaps of Faith: Views of American Power, the Invasion of Iraq, and Citizenship in a Time of War” (with Benjamin Kalina, 2004), and Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey (with Taha Parla, Syracuse, 2004).

Andy is one of the foremost scholars on ‘theopolitics’ in the world today. Theopolitics, the intersection of religious and political ideologies, has been studied by the most important of social theorists — e.g. Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, RH Tawney, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Mulford Sibley, Charles Taylor, Elaine Pagels, Michel Foucault, Georg Gadamer. With this theoretical bent in mind, he is a leading interpreter of Turkey and the comparative lessons it has for religious-political tensions in contemporary societies. His work focuses on the ideas, lived norms and political-economic contexts that inform the normative politics and policies of culture-groups and nation-states. In this way, he speaks to the larger ethical dynamics that inform the work of everyday life. And of course, practical ethics!

William Lynn :: Jul.11.2005 :: Politics, Practical Ethics :: 3 Comments »