![]()
18 june
once upon a time, LONG long ago, the first (significant) visible public demand for equality was demonstrated at the first Woman’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, NY. the year was 1848. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, who had met as abolitionists working against slavery, convened a two-day meeting of 300 women and men to call for justice for women in a society where they were systematically barred from the rights and privileges of citizens. A Declaration of Sentiments and eleven other resolutions were adopted with ease, but the proposal for woman suffrage was passed only after impassioned speeches by Stanton and former slave Frederick Douglass, who called the vote the right by which all others could be secured. However, the country was far from ready to take the issue of women’s rights seriously, and the call for justice was the object of much ridicule.
Sometime after 1865, aAfter the Civil War, Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Sojourner Truth fought in vain to have women included in new constitutional amendments giving rights to former slaves. The 14th Amendment defined citizens as "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" and guaranteed equal protection of the laws – but in referring to the electorate, it introduced the word "male" into the Constitution for the first time. The 15th Amendment declared that "the right of citizens . . . to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" – but women of all races were still denied the ballot.
To Susan B. Anthony, the rejection of women’s claim to the vote was unacceptable. In 1872, she went to the polls in Rochester, NY, and cast a ballot in the presidential election, citing her citizenship under the 14th Amendment. She was arrested, tried, convicted, and fined $100, which she refused to pay. In 1875, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett said that while women may be citizens, all citizens were not necessarily voters, and states were not required to allow women to vote.
Until the end of their long lives, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony campaigned for a constitutional amendment affirming that women had the right to vote, but they died in the first decade of the 20th century without ever casting a legal ballot.
The new century saw a profound change in the lives of women, as they joined the workforce in increasing numbers, led the movement for progressive social reform, and finally generated enough mass power to win the vote. Carrie Chapman Catt and the National American Woman Suffrage Association were a mainstream lobbying force of millions at every level of government. Alice Paul and the National Woman’s Party were a small, radical group that not only lobbied but conducted marches, political boycotts, picketing of the White House, and civil disobedience. As a result, they were attacked, arrested, imprisoned, and force-fed. But the country’s conscience was stirred, and support for woman suffrage grew.
The 19th Amendment affirming women’s right to vote steamrolled out of Congress in 1919, getting more than half the ratifications it needed in the first year. Then it ran into stiff opposition from states’-rights advocates, the liquor lobby, business interests against higher wages for women, and a number of women themselves, who believed claims that the amendment would threaten the family and require more of them than they felt their sex was capable of.
As the amendment approached the necessary ratification by three-quarters of the states, the threat of rescission surfaced. Finally the battle narrowed down to a six-week seesaw struggle in Tennessee. The fate of the 19th Amendment was decided by a single vote, that of 24-year-old legislator Harry Burn, who switched from "no" to "yes" in response to a letter from his mother saying, "Hurrah, and vote for suffrage!" The Secretary of State in Washington, DC issued the 19th Amendment’s proclamation immediately, before breakfast on August 26, 1920, in order to head off any final obstructionism.
Thus mainstream and militant suffragists together finally won the first, and still the only, specific written guarantee of women’s equal rights in the Constitution – the 19th Amendment, which declared, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
It had been 72 years from Seneca Falls to victory, and ironically, the most controversial resolution had been written into law first. But many laws and practices in the workplace and in society still perpetuated men’s status as privileged and women’s status as second-class citizens.
Freedom from legal sex discrimination, Alice Paul believed, required an Equal Rights Amendment that affirmed the equal application of the Constitution to all citizens. In 1923, in Seneca Falls for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Woman’s Rights Convention, she introduced the "Lucretia Mott Amendment," which read: "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction." The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress until it passed in reworded form in 1972.
Although the National Woman’s Party and professional women such as Amelia Earhart supported the amendment, reformers who had worked for protective labor laws that treated women differently from men were afraid that the ERA would wipe out the progress they had made.
In the early 1940s, the Republican Party and then the Democratic Party added support of the Equal Rights Amendment to their platforms. Alice Paul rewrote the ERA in 1943 to what is now called the "Alice Paul Amendment," reflecting the 15th and the 19th Amendments: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." But the labor movement was still committed to protective workplace laws, and social conservatives considered equal rights for women a threat to the existing power structure.
In the 1960s, over a century after the fight to end slavery fostered the first wave of the women’s rights movement, the civil rights battles of the time provided an impetus for the second wave. Women organized to demand their birthright as citizens and persons, and the Equal Rights Amendment rather than the right to vote became the central symbol of the struggle.
Finally, organized labor and an increasingly large number of mainstream groups joined the call for the ERA, and politicians reacted to the power of organized women’s voices in a way they had not done since the battle for the vote.
The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. But as it had done for every amendment since the 18th (Prohibition), with the exception of the 19th Amendment, Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process. This time limit was placed not in the words of the ERA itself, but in the proposing clause.
Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year. But the pace slowed as opposition began to organize – only eight ratifications in 1973, three in 1974, one in 1975, and none in 1976.
Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual
marriages would be upheld [ed: oh my!]
Opponents surfaced from other traditional sectors as well. States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by fundamentalist religious groups.
Pro-ERA advocacy was led by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and ERAmerica, a coalition of nearly 80 other mainstream organizations. However, in 1977, Indiana became the 35th and so far the last state to ratify the ERA.
That year also marked the death of Alice Paul, who, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony before her, never saw the Constitution amended to include the equality of rights she had worked for all her life.
Hopes for victory continued to dim as other states postponed consideration or defeated ratification bills. Illinois changed its rules to require a three-fifths majority to ratify an amendment, thereby ensuring that their repeated simple majority votes in favor of the ERA did not count. Other states proposed or passed rescission bills, despite legal precedent that states do not have the power to retract a ratification.
As the 1979 deadline approached, some pro-ERA groups, like the League of Women Voters, wanted to retain the eleventh-hour pressure as a political strategy. But many ERA advocates appealed to Congress for an indefinite extension of the time limit, and in July 1978, NOW coordinated a successful march of 100,000 supporters in Washington, DC. Bowing to public pressure, Congress granted an extension until June 30, 1982.
The political tide continued to turn more conservative. In 1980 the Republican Party removed ERA support from its platform, and Ronald Reagan was elected president. Although pro-ERA activities increased with massive lobbying, petitioning, countdown rallies, walkathons, fundraisers, and even the radical suffragist tactics of hunger strikes, White House picketing, and civil disobedience, ERA did not succeed in getting three more state ratifications before the deadline. [In 1980] The country was still unwilling to guarantee women constitutional rights equal to those of men.
The Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in Congress on July 14, 1982 and has been before every session of Congress since that time. In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), it was introduced as S.J.Res. 10 (lead sponsor: Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA) and H.J.Res. 40 (lead sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY). These bills impose no deadline on the ERA ratification process. Success in putting the ERA into the Constitution via this process would require passage by a two-thirds in each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states.
An alternative strategy for ERA ratification has arisen from the "Madison Amendment," concerning changes in Congressional pay, which was passed by Congress in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The acceptance of an amendment after a 203-year ratification period has led some ERA supporters to propose that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA’s existing 35 state ratifications. The legal analysis for this strategy is outlined in "The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States," an article by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon, and Danielle Stager in the Spring 1997 issue of William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.
Under this rationale, it is likely that Congress could choose to legislatively adjust or repeal the existing time limit constraint on the ERA, determine whether or not state ratifications after the expiration of a time limit in a proposing clause are valid, and promulgate the ERA after the 38th state ratifies.
The Congressional Research Service analyzed this legal argument in 1994 and concluded that acceptance of the Madison Amendment does have implications for the premise that approval of the ERA by three more states could allow Congress to declare ratification accomplished.
In her remarks as she introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in Seneca Falls in 1923, Alice Paul sounded a call that has great poignancy and significance over 80 years later:
"If we keep on this way they will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of the 1848 Convention without being much further advanced in equal rights than we are. . . . If we had not concentrated on the Federal Amendment we should be working today for suffrage. . . . We shall not be safe until the principle of equal rights is written into the framework of our government." [ed: Alice was wrong, of course, we have exceeded the 150th anniversary]
the above information is from the website of The Equal Rights Amendment where you can also find additional information.
as of 17 june 2009, ratification by 3 states is still needed. those whose legislatures have not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. (Florida and Louisiana recently voted AGAINST ratification)
to find out more information and to help get the ERA ratified in the above 15 states you can go to FB or
or myriad other sites. You can help by circulating flyers or your own story. (For an electronic flyer, please email ryan@howlstudios.com)
To read accounts by this generation's heroes, start with Zoe Nicholson's "The Hungry Heart, A Woman's Fast for Justice." Zoe
more to come until the Amendment is ratified.




now for floating - that's how i spent the day - floating. for 4 hours. it was amazing. fell in and out of sleep right there on the water. i don't know what was more surprising - that i could just do nothing for 4 hours and float or that my feet and hands didn't look like prunes at the end of the 4 hours. but it was lovely.
12 june
updated: 'yes we can' & art
enough
10 june 2009
Dear American people – all American people – rich, young, brown, Buddhist, deaf, happy, unemployed, imprisoned, fat, poor, elderly, white, catholic, healthy, depressed, just married, widowed, ex-Pat, politician, independently wealthy, black, gainfully employed, tax-paying, homeless, juvenile diabetic, teenager, Muslim, schizophrenic, privately schooled, new mom, paralegal, student, PhD, MD, CPA, ABC, LMAO or WTF – this is for you and me.
memorial day 2009
in a perfect world, the memorial day tradition would never have been needed. we would have been able to settle disagreements by way of dialogue, trying to better understand others' points of view, arriving at accords that were good to all parties even if not perfect in everyone's mind's eye. there would be occasions - no doubt more than less - where people & countries had to agree to disagree - but not to slaughter their sons and daughters; fathers and mothers; nieces and nephews.
but the fact remains that even if wars were to miraculously stop this very second, we would still have memorial day for the thousands and thousands and thousands who have already died in the service of their countries.
personally, i pray there are no more such honorees to join the ranks.
war is not the way to peace. peace is the way to peace.
there are centuries and centuries of debate over that with far greater minds than mine presenting their arguments.
there's been a movement trying to restore memorial day to a solitary day of observance rather than the "attached to a weekend for a 3 day holiday' one we now have. the point being that it's turned into more of a holiday that many people don't understand the origins of and it's not treated with the reverance it deserves.
i think returning it to a single day - only adjacent to a weekend when the last monday of may falls there naturally - is a good idea for the single purpose of reminding everyone of the scope of the devastation caused by war and the casualties wars have caused. i would like to see some sort of demonstrable, tangible "widget" that reflects the magnitude. like the aids quilt, or the crosses you see some religious groups plant to demonstrate the number of abortions. there is great power in the visual. there are also more casualties than just those killed on the battlefield or hospitalized just after a conflict.
my maternal grandfather is buried at arlington. he served in WWI. he was among those gassed with mustard gas and died some time after being brought home to the states. the only veterans hospital or care was in a city other than where my grandmother and my mother (an infant at that time) lived. they couldn't relocate - they didn't have the funds and there was no assistance available from the military. for the most part she received updates on her young husband's condition via telegram and letters. that is also how she learned that he died. i can't even begin to imagine what that must have been like and it was happening over and over and over again across the u.s.
so, i think of my grandfather on memorial day - and veteran's day - and i wonder what it would have been like for my mother to have known her father. for my brother and sister and i to have known our grandfaterh. i mostly think about how incredibly sad it is that this man in his early 20s, along with thousands and thousands of others, never had the opportunity to live their lives. that they lay down their lives for a greedy, insatiably greedy, planet who didn't learn from that war and went on to have many, many more - formally declared or not. all wars boil down to greed; whether the greed and related power-tripping of one individual (hitler, pol pot) or a society.
i will never be able to fathom resorting to war as a means to peace. putting the precious lives entrusted to us and to others on a field with knives, guns, and other weapons of murder. i believe that those who believe we should go to war should go fight it themselves. they and their loved ones first. i wonder if we'd be in iraq if george, laura, barbara and jenna bush; dick, lynne, mary and elizabeth cheney had to lead the charge on the front line. of course, there would always be the concern that cheney might take out more of his own camp than the "enemy."
we call ourselves civilized. i say bullpucky.
i've known very few individuals who have actually died in war. one of my best friends from high school went to viet nam. he didn't die there but his death began there. bobby was the kind of person who couldn't kill another living thing for anything. viet nam was a nightmare for him and even for others who weren't in the same philosophical place he was. bobby returned from the war so devastated that he had to start medication to be able to even walk down the street and hear the backfire of a tire. we went on a trip to cincinnati a year after he returned from viet nam. he was a shell of the person he used to be. there was such fear and sadness in his eyes - he never recovered. thanksgiving day in the mid-70s, i got a call during thanksgiving day dinner that bobby had died of an overdose. they ruled it accidental but i personally believe - accidental or not - bobby just couldn't live one more day with the torture of where he'd been, what he'd seen, what he'd been asked to do.
last year, the nephew of a good friend of mine from work was killed in battle in iraq. a brilliant, beautiful young man in his early 20s. he wasn't the only casualty of war from that family. my friend ended up having to take personal leave he was so devastated.
then there was my dad. my dad was also the type of person who, even though he could hurt people in other ways, had a hard time killing anything. the only exception being the cockroaches in our house when he and mom built a home in houston in the middle of what was a thickly wooded area (now wilcrest @ memorial). he didn't even like doing that.
my dad was in WWII. i may get some of these details wrong but you'll get the gist of it. dad received two purple heart medals. the first time he was shot he said he was barely healed when the put him back in to fight. that time he was shot in the "hip" to put it nicely and he would joke that it's what kept him off his butt so much of the time. the second time he was shot in the head. again they put him back in when he was healed enough to wield a gun and see well enough to shoot the "enemy" instead of those on his side. dad was at the battle of the bulge. dad would never talk about his experience in the war until the very last years of his life. maybe the last year. i don't know about my brother or sister or their children - perhaps he spoke to them.
when we were growing up, dad had 3 specific rules that were related to his experience in the war. 1) he refused to eat anything out of a can; 2) he refused to camp and 3) he refused to stand in line. he also hated the cold with a bitter passion.
he did talk to one of my sons the last time he was in houston, in fact he voluntarily made a comment about the war. i was shocked and i didn't say anything. until the last week of his life, that was the only time i heard even try to pass along information about his experience there.
his description of war was that it was a nightmare and that proved true until the day he died.
dad was diagnosed with squamous cell cancer in 2002. he and his partner, marlene, came to houston and stayed with ali, kelleen and me. he had surgery at methodist and they did a magnificent job of removing the cancer and the reconstructive surgery. when it reached the point that they wanted to begin radiation, dad was agreed to do it but he had to go home to florida to do so. i didn't understand that at the time but i do now.
dad did pretty well for the next 2 1/2 years but in late 2004/ early 2005 he developed a cough and was more tired than usual. long story short, what we know now, is that the cancer had returned elsewhere and was metasticizing. i had seen him in january of '05 then, when i went back in april (after having to cancel a trip in march), he wans't even the same person. literally, he was a shadow of his former self. i was supposed to be there for a week but ended up staying almost 2 weeks.
i'll never forget the day we went to the doctor's office a day or so after i got there. the doctor had taken some x-rays of his lungs because of the cough. it wasn't a bad cough but what was causing the cough was bad. very bad. when i showed the films to my cousin who is a doctor later she told me she didn't understand how he'd held on so long and claimed he had no pain.
when the doctor told him the cancer was not only in his lungs and throat but inoperable, he looked up at the doctor almost like a child trying to understand. it didn't take long for him to do so. then he looked at marlene, grabbed her hands very gently and simply said, 'what do you think we should do, dear?" she was so strong in front of dad and the doctor and me. she said, 'there's nothing we have to decide or say at this very moment. we should go home and talk about it after you've had time to think and i'll support you no matter what you decide.' dad told her, 'i don't need to think about it. i don't want to do anything that involves more tests, more procedures, more running around. it's worn me out and, worse, i see the toll it's taken on you. all of this the past few years has come down to you taking care of everything. enough is enough.' i could see marlene fighting back her tears and i was unsuccessful at my own attempt at that. marlene said, 'let's go to scully's (their favorite restaurant) and then take a nap. you'll feel better then.' she knew him better than anyone. this was on a thursday. my brother was going to come down as soon as he could but my mother was to be receiving some prestigious lifetime girl scout award on saturday. rick was her escort. it was a very big deal for mom. rick was dying to be with dad but he wasn't going to disappoint mom. rick and my sister had been there the week before so that was really good for dad.
so, the doctor was on thursday, mom's coronation was saturday. dad didn't seem any different on thursday after he woke up from his nap. my sister had brought several laurie notaro books with her on her trip. she and i went down to the beach one day just to have a few moments and to let dad and marlene have some time together. she started reading one of the books and laughing so hard that i turned to her and asked, "how can you be laughing at a time like this." she ignored me, kept reading, kept laughing, and finally i playfully grabbed the book out of her hands to see "what could be so damned funny" and before i knew it, i was cracking up and people walking the beach were coming up asking us what in the world was so funny. i swear, we could have sold two dozen laurie notaro books if we'd had them on us that day. i had never even heard of her up until that point.
when we got home, i read dad the chapter entitled something like "shmorglyborglynorgly" he laughed so hard he had tears in his eyes. for the next week, even afer colleen left, he would have me reread that story (we stole colleen's copy from her). intermittently, marlene and i would hear him say, "shmorglyborglynorgly - oh that's a good one" and then laugh. as things would turn out, i tried to get in touch with laurie when i returned to NY to thank her for the joy and laughter she had unknowingly brought to my dad the last few days of his life. one thing led to another and i now am blessed to call her and her husband friends of mine. and i'll forever be grateful to her and for her and what she gave my dad.
friday evening - day after the doctor - dad started speaking in german and kept telling me about how we were surrounded and things like that. i had been around enough people whose mental capacity diminished toward the end of their lives to know what was going on so, rather than tell him 'no' - everything was fine - i made sure he knew i was doing something about it. just after dark on friday, he'd been asleep and he bolted up right and said, 'they're back. they've got us surrounded.' and started saying some things in german. i walked him and marlene to the bedroom and told them to stay in here, that there were some people i knew who could help. the noise was actually some young men playing basketball in the parking lot. i told them about dad being so ill and asked them if they'd mind playing at the other end. they didn't mind at all. i went back into dad and told him that they'd been rounded up and were gone. he said, 'thank you, dear. i can't believe the germans are back.'
throughout the night he had several "conversations" in german. at one point he was shouting in german in a way that sounded like he was telling someone he'd had enough. defending himself or marlene . . . i don't know.'
the next morning he wanted to talk to rick. later he wanted to talk to my oldest son, nowell. dad called him noey. he kept saying he wanted to speak with noey so i finally called him. what i remember of the conversation was that he told him, 'noey, i want you to know something and really know it. i love you, noey, through and through and through. do you understand me?" i didn't hear the other side of the conversation but dad had tears in his eyes. then, all of a sudden, dad stood up, went in the other room, came back in (all very unusual because he hadn't been able to get up or walk on his own) and, as he approached the bed, he grabbed the dresser like he was dizzy. i asked him if he was alright. he said he was a little dizzy. i asked him if he'd like me to help him down on the bed and he said, 'yes, please.' i put my arms under his shoulders and turned him around and he said, 'let's just sit here on the end of the bed a minute, sha. just give me a minute.' so i sat on the bed and scooted back a little and dad sat on the very end of the bed.' marlene got a washcloth and wiped his face. then he said he needed to lay down but couldn't get there so i asked if he'd like me to just scooch him back little by little and he said, 'would you please, dear?" we had just about made it to the pillow when he said,' sha, dear, would you just hold me right here?" i looked at marlene and she nodded. so i was holding dad, my sitting up, his laying down with his head on my lap and he was looking at marlene. i won't share those final moments' conversation but he left this world a few second later with love and gratitude on his lips and in his heart and soul.
earlier, he'd asked me to remind him why rick wasn't there yet and so i reminded him of mom's ceremony. he got tears in his eyes and said, 'that's so wonderful. she deserves this. i'm glad rick's there with her.'
when marlene and i thought enough time had gone by for dad's spirit to be settled, i called rick. he was literally just walking back with mom from her receiving her award to their table. i told him dad had died. he said, 'he couldn't have timed it better.' it still makes me sad because my dad loved rick so much and i know he wanted to see him and i know it gutted rick not to be there. as much of a shmuck as dad could be with responsibilities and all - and as opposite to that as rick is - i know they were closer than anyone. i kept reminding dad that rick was there and how much colleen loved him and his grandkids. he knew.
so, anyway, i think of my dad on memorial day more than anyone. my brother has dad's flag and purple heart. i'll never forget his conversations with the germans that week before he died. it was a nightmare that stayed with him his whole life but he was released from it that day. you could feel it. what my dad had to say about war was consistent throughout my life and until the day he died. he would say "war is a terrible, terrible thing."
i love and miss you, dad. warts and all.
this weekend i watched 'the great debaters' again.
the debate toward the end where wiley college debates harvard for the national championship (even though in reality i believe it was a university in california that they actually debated) sums it all up very beautifully for me.
you can see the movie clip of the final debate by clicking on the resolution below; the resolution for the debate was:
Resolved: Civil Disobedience is a Moral Weapon in the Fight for Justice
James Farmer, Jr (Wiley College): Resolved: Civil disobedience is a moral weapon in the fight for justice.
But how can disobedience ever be moral?
Well I guess that depends on one's definition of the words -- word.
In 1919, in India, ten thousand people gathered in Amritsar to protest the tyranny of British rule.
General Reginald Dyer trapped them in a courtyard and ordered his troops to fire into the crowd for ten minutes.
Three hundred seventy-nine died -- men, women, children, shot down in cold blood.
Dyer said he had taught them "a moral lesson."
Gandhi and his followers responded not with violence, but with an organized campaign of noncooperation.
Government buildings were occupied. Streets were blocked with people who refused to rise, even when beaten by police. Gandhi was arrested. But the British were soon forced to release him. He called it a "moral victory."
The definition of moral: Dyer's "lesson" or Gandhi's victory. You choose.
First Harvard Debater:
From 1914 to 1918, for every single minute the world was at war, four men laid down their lives.
Just think of it: Two hundred and forty brave young men were hurled into eternity every hour, of every day, of every night, for four long years.
Thirty-five thousand hours; eight million, two hundred and eighty-one thousand casualties.
Two hundred and forty. Two hundred and forty. Two hundred and forty.
Here was a slaughter immeasurably greater than what happened at Amritsar.
Can there be anything moral about it? Nothing -- except that it stopped Germany from enslaving all of Europe.
Civil disobedience isn't moral because it's nonviolent.
Fighting for your country with violence can be deeply moral, demanding the greatest sacrifice of all: life itself.
Nonviolence is the mask civil disobedience wears to conceal its true face: anarchy.
Samantha Booke (Wiley College):
Gandhi believes one must always act with love and respect for one's opponents -- even if they are Harvard debaters.
Gandhi also believes that law breakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions.
Does that sound like anarchy?
Civil disobedience is not something for us to fear. It is, after all, an American concept.
You see, Gandhi draws his inspiration not from a Hindu scripture, but from Henry David Thoreau, who, I believe, graduated from Harvard and lived by a pond not too far from here.
Second Harvard Debater:
My opponent is right about one thing: Thoreau was a Harvard grad; and, like many of us, a bit self-righteous.
He once said, "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one...."
Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words.
The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: No idea prevails without the support of the majority.
The People decide the moral issues of the day, not "a majority of one."
Samantha Booke:
Majorities do not decide what is right or wrong. Your conscience does.
So why should a citizen surrender his or her conscience to a legislature?
For we must never, ever kneel down before the tyranny of a majority.
Second Harvard Debater:
You can't decide which laws to obey and which to ignore.
If we could, I'd never stop for a red light.
My father is one of those men that [sic] stands between us and chaos: a police officer.
I remember the day his partner, his best friend, was gunned down in the line of duty.
Most vividly of all, I remember the expression on my dad's face.
Nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name we give it.
James Farmer, Jr (Wiley College):
In Texas, they lynch negroes.
My teammates and I saw a man strung up by his neck -- and set on fire.
We drove through a lynch mob, pressed our faces against the floorboard.
I looked at my teammates. I saw the fear in their eyes; and worse -- the shame.
What was this negro's crime that he should be hung, without trial, in a dark forest filled with fog?
Was he a thief?
Was he a killer? Or just a negro?
Was he a sharecropper? A preacher?
Were his children waiting up for him? And who were we to just lie there and do nothing?
No matter what he did, the mob was the criminal.
But the law did nothing -- just left us wondering why.
My opponent says, "Nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral."
But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow South, not when negroes are denied housing, turned away from schools, hospitals -- and not when we are lynched.
Saint Augustine said, "An unjust law is no law at all," which means I have a right, even a duty, to resist -- with violence or civil disobedience.
You should pray I choose the latter.
the full text of "civil disobedience" by henry david thoreau can be found here: HDT
some history around memorial day
(note: the information here is focused on the U.S. memorial day (although not on the same day) is celebrated in many countries across the globe.
Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who died in our nation's service.
There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War:
a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead" (Source: Duke University's Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920).
While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966,
it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day.
It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868.
It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established.
Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.
Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers
at Arlington National Cemetery.
The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states.
The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war).
It is now celebrated in almost every state on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 - 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis' birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee. (srr: no comment)
In 1915, inspired by the poem "In Flanders Fields," Moina Michael replied with her own poem:
| We cherish too, the Poppy red That grows on fields where valor led, It seems to signal to the skies That blood of heroes never dies. |
She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war.
She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need.
Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women.
This tradition spread to other countries.
In 1921, the Franco-American Children's League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium.
The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help.
Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans' organization to nationally sell poppies.
Two years later their "Buddy" Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans.
In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.

Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years.
Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day.
At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected.
Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day.
While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades.
Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.
There are a few notable exceptions.
Since the late 50s on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery.
They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing.
In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day.
More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights (the Luminaria Program).
And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years.
To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans "To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps."
The Moment of Remembrance is a step in the direction to returning the meaning back to the day.
What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance.
Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country.
But what may be needed to return the solemn, and even sacred, spirit back to Memorial Day is for a return to its traditional day of observance. Many feel that when Congress made the day into a three-day weekend in with the National Holiday Act of 1971, it made it all the easier for people to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day.
As the VFW stated in its 2002 Memorial Day address: "Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day.
No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public's nonchalant observance of Memorial Day."
On January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of "the last Monday in May". On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform.
To date, there has been no further developments on the bill.
the full article above including other links, editorials, etc. can be found here.
on behalf of First Lieutenant Dan Choi/ dan.choi@knightsout.org
29 june 2009
more letters to/ for dan. as of the time of his hearing this morning, he had over 260,000 letters from military personnel (including generals and admirals), friends, strangers, americans, spaniards, gay, straight . . . he opened his remarks at the hearing in arabic . . . one of the best pieces on 1st Lt. Choi was in the guardian (courtesy of my cousin, cat).
i have permission to share the letters below but i'm leaving the closings off as they give personal information. the first letter was from the mother of a friend of mine - exceptional woman.
Hello Lt. Choi:
I am writing this on behalf of all the courageous service members targeted
by this discriminatory rule. The Gay Community is the last segment in our
society to be lawfully discriminated against for something they have no
control over. If President Truman could see how segregation of the African
Americans in the military was reprehensible, I don't understand why
President Obama and our elected representatives in Washington can't.
For the life of me I cannot understand why people focus on the sexual habits
of Gay men and women. As a heterosexual woman I have never been asked what
my sexual practices are in order to do my job. I also don't understand the
contradiction, if not ignorance, of those who call themselves Christians
advocating the hatred and discrimination against a fellow human. Not only
is this how the Christians disconnect to their own beliefs, but it is a
direct contradiction to Christ's teaching and this country's, our, Bill of
Rights. Their behavior saddens me for it was just this type of ignorance and
blind hatred that led to my brother's death.
Being a sensitive soul, my brother Doug chose to end his life rather than
continue to live in a world/country that didn't accept him as the man/person
he was, but rather saw him as an object of hate, ridicule, and contempt. If
Doug thought death was safer than living in this country, then I ask you,what does that say about us as a people? Our country was built on the principles of liberty and justice for all, but you want to deny these same basic human rights to a segment of society because they were born
differently from the so-called norm.
The discrimination these so-called Christians show toward gays and lesbians
is no different than the prejudice experienced by African Americans,
Japanese Americans, American Indians, Mexican Americans, Chinese Americans,
Middle Eastern Americans, female Americans, disabled Americans, elderly
Americans, homeless Americans, Muslims Americans, Catholic Americans,
Jewish Americans--no one is safe so long as we can arbitrarily hate someone
based on the insignificant difference as who they love.
This great country of ours was created by people from all over the world,
and that was only possible because of tolerance and respect for what others
contributed to the making of this country, not who they had sex with. If a
person can't find tolerance, respect and acceptance in their own country,
where are they to find it? It is up to us, straight and otherwise, to ensure
that all Americans share in the "dream" and live life to their fullest
potential, rather than having another loved one's life cut short.
I will keep you in my thoughts tomorrow as you face the officers who will
determine your fate. May peace be with you.
LCR/ California
29 June 2009
Dear Dan Choi,
26 June 2009
Lieutenant General Clyde A. Vaughn
Major General Raymond W. Carpenter
Colonel Christine A Stark
CW5 Thomas M. O'Sullivan
Command Sergeant Major John D. Gipe
and Members of the Army National Guard Board
Dear Army National Guard Board Members:
The year is 2009. It is time for our nation to employ practical intelligence in our military. An individual’s ability to serve and defend their nation should not be based upon their sexual orientation any more than it should be based on the color of their skin, their faith, creed, or gender.
Removing gays and lesbians from the military serves two purposes and two purposes only:
Consider this, please. If there were a war on our home turf, and a US solider suddenly came to the aid of you and your family who were trapped by the “enemy” and the first thing this US soldier said to you is, “I am here to help you and more help is on the way,” and then they told you they were gay, would you really say “you cannot defend me?”
The men and women who have been excused from the military have proven themselves to be incredible soldiers who love their country every bit as much as any other soldier and who have served it and defended it with equal integrity, passion and intelligence. They have also displayed an even greater attribute which, in my mind, makes them all the more amazing -- they have served their country under the duress and implied shame of “don’t’ ask don’t tell” and, now, many of them are engaged in the even more heroic actions of being truthful about their situation despite the consequences. Lt. Choi is foremost among them.
Why are we teaching our children that lying is acceptable? The majority of the opposition to gays in the military comes from the “religious right” and the “moral majority” which, in my book, is neither. One of their primary tenets is “Thou shalt not lie” yet we are teaching all of the children in the United States of America that it is OK to lie by Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. We have drafted, and currently practice, the ultimate Lie of Omission in this country and are teaching our children that it is acceptable to lie to their country, to lie to their leaders, to lie to the people they may serve and defend and with our government’s encouragement and approval. We are teaching our children that lying is an acceptable and expedient means to circumvent doing the right thing. Shame on us.
If your child, niece, grandson or relative of a family friend were gay and they wanted to serve in the military and came to you for guidance, would you advise them to lie? For how long are we going to perpetuate this egregious behaviour and example?
I implore you not to discharge First Lieutenant Daniel Choi from the Army National Guard. I am writing to ask you to set the precedent for ending this oppressive and archaic way of thinking. First Lieutenant Choi has proven himself a capable soldier and a leader to his countrymen, countrywomen, and in his personal life. He served in a very important role in time of war and has skill sets, linguistic and otherwise, that are lacking in the US Armed Forces. He is an inspiration to us all, just as was Rosa Parks, John Hope Franklin, Helen Keller, Orville & Wilbur Wright, Christopher Reeve, Alice Paul, Grace Hopper, Susan B Anthony , Cesar Chavez and Jody Williams, to name a few. His name will go down in history as a hero, just as theirs, regardless of your decision. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will be overturned at some point in time – please be the ones to make that happen now and ensure it is part of our country’s past history.
Lt. Choi could have accepted his discharge and gone to work for a corporation earning a significant salary based on his linguistic and other skills but his dedication and heart is with the military. This is worthy of consideration as well.
I have never been in the military although my four children used to question that when they were growing up. I am a tax-paying, law-abiding, gainfully employed business executive. I work for a Fortune 100 company. I am also a lesbian. My company does not discriminate against me; they offer domestic partnership benefits and recognize our partners. Our military should afford our soldiers the same. Can you imagine this country if the businesses – small or large – employed the same mindset as the military? Again, shame on us. Who we choose to love has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on our ability to serve and perform our jobs with integrity and excellence. In fact, the ability to do so openly and without shame increases and enhances our ability to serve and perform our roles and to the fullest.
I only know Lt. Choi second hand. He is the friend of a friend of mine. I have only encountered him through her words and his own in the media. I would be proud to call him my son. I am proud to have him serve our country in the military. He is a hero to me and many others, gay and straight. Please allow him to continue to serve and to serve with the respect, honor and support he so very much deserves.
Rosa Parks said, “a hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles . . . “ First Lieutenant Choi is such an individual.
Even former President Bush said, “We thank the coalition forces for their bravery and courage. America will lead by defending liberty and justice. For too long American policy looked away while men and women were oppressed. Deep in the American character there is honor, courage, compassion, strength and resolve. When I called our troops into action, I did so with complete confidence. I thank them for the sacrifice they’re making and we must act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas.” President Bush made his statement without qualification as to sexual orientation.
End the oppression in our own military. Allow all soldiers to serve and to serve freely and with honor. Allow our country to return to dialogue around the positive and moving this country forward. Enough time, lives and energy has been spent debating a protocol that shouldn’t be in place to begin with.
Thanking each of you for your service to our great country.
Sharron Reed
Austin, Texas
cc: President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
The White House
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
General James E Cartwright, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
General George W Casey, Jr. Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of U.S. Naval Operations
General James T Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Joint Chiefs of Staff
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington DC 20301-1400
Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
General Norton A Schwartz, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force
1690 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330
