Aliens on Our Own Planet

Zbignew Brzezinski makes a strong case against US military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.  He calls military action against Iran "reckless" and very likely to create a number of adverse results for the US and many of its allies.  Among the reasons, all credible predictions based on experience, Brzezinski did not include one very unfortunate result:  America would be alienated from Iran for generations to come.  Iranians are already rightly suspicious of the US as a result of our overthrow of an elected nationalist Iranian government in 1953 and the 26 years dictatorship under the American backed Shah Reza Palavi.  And still, many Iranians have managed to retain at least some admiration for American culture and our professed ideals.  A military attack, especially one serious enough to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities, would pretty much wipe out any remaining favor for America in Iran.

So what's the big deal.  I mean, who needs Iran?  My selfish answer is I need Iran because I want to be part of the entire world, to embrace all as friend and fellow human.  The United States needs Iran for that same reason; my country should not dismiss one of the oldest civilizations on earth as some historical vestige with no current worth, as a nation whose interests and national pride count for nothing, to be marginalized at every turn.  To me that is living in a Fortress America.  Instead of the fortress being behind two oceans as in the late 1930's, the Fortress America of the 21st century is surrounded by its archipelago of military bases and casts its net world wide.

Stepping back from war on Iran can be a step toward fuller and peaceful engagement with the world.

America and the rest of the world would be better off for the change.

At the Close of 2012

A few more bullets dodged.  Another year gained.  Some gain, some loss but always hope.  I'll take that hope into 2013 and find wonder and joy wherever I can.

Thank you to all who come here to read.  May you have a wondrous and joyous new year.

Alternative

Moving your residence on bicycle.

A Point in Time

Friday evening Maggie and I went to hear Melissa Harris-Perry, columnist for The Nation and commentator on MSNBC speak in Aberdeen, Washington which is about 60 miles west of Olympia. Aberdeen is a hard up former logging and industrial town so hearing a progressive speaker of Harris-Perry's caliber in such a setting is surprising to say the least.

Dinner in Aberdeen was an experience of making do with what you find. We had planned to grab a pizza at one of the locations shown on MapQuest of our route into Aberdeen. The only one still extant turned out to be a Quik Mart with a pizza oven. But the oven was real and the place smelled like a pizzeria so we got a take out and ate on the tailgate of the truck in the parking lot at Aberdeen High School, the evening's venue. The pizza was fine even if its provenance was unlikely.

Harris-Perry spoke to about 100 people in the high school auditorium. She noted some very real and positive achievements of the Obama administration along with its notable failures and omissions. But the words that resonated with me were "the struggle continues", which she said was how her father signed her birthday cards as she was growing up. She reminded me that it is unrealistic to expect to live in some perfect world where all problems are resolved. And as frustrating as it is to have to keep fighting for justice, Harris-Perry noted that the struggle is a never-ending one, that my efforts--however ineffective they may seem at the moment--are part of that never ending struggle.

I left with a much renewed sense of purpose. Harris-Perry helped me realize that that I am part of a chain that links back the earliest efforts against tyranny and slavery. I may not live to see the justice I wish for but I know that I have lived to make it happen.

Not bad for an evening in a hardscrabble town.

Of Great Men and Great Events

My previous musing on nations acting naturally came while reading about the post-WWII leaders who initiated the cold war and its attendant arms race. And the much of the spark for what became the National Security State comes down to Stalin’s paranoia and fear. The western allies had their own share of irrationality and fear but Stalin's fears drove them all. After the war’s immense devastation, Stalin was determined that Russia would never again be at risk of German or western attack. Stalin was also a paranoid who suspected everyone and whose own ruthlessness convinced him that those suspected adversaries were equally so, which gave him all the justification he needed for his actions. Stalin was a fearful, paranoid Russian nationalist with immense power and authority. His actions gave the US and its allies reasons to be wary of and hostile to their wartime ally. Allied fear and suspicion of Soviet motives and intent drove the allies to ignore and dismiss any but the most suspicious and militaristic motives behind the Soviet Union's actions even when those actions were a logical consequence of military and political realities of the post-WWII world and the Soviet horrific losses during that war.

The book, The Lost Peace, has received mixed reviews (here and here). I found it well written and interesting. I’m familiar with the major events of the post-war years but The Lost Peace provides much good detail. The book is especially rich in quotations from George Kennan's extensive writing about the Soviet Union during those years. Kennan's sober and realistic understanding of the Soviet Union has always appealed to me; The Lost Peace gave me new insight and appreciation for Kennan's work.

About the only off note was author Robert Dallek ’s musings on how things could have been different. When I encountered them my reaction was something like “yeah and if I had money, I’d be rich.” But one of the less favorable reviews gave those musings some context. The reviewer asked what peace was lost when Europe had been at war pretty much constantly for about four centuries. Dallek’s point is that following WWII, many around the world not only hoped for a lasting peace but felt it necessary to prevent the kind of devastation that the world had just witnessed. That was a time of possibility when leaders could have chosen a different path. The lost peace is the one that might have been possible. If only…

Stalin comes off as the most determined and single-minded of the national leaders which is why I give him credit/blame as the spark for what has become a horribly militarized world. (Maybe I should say he was the steel for the West's flint.) Josef Stalin certainly lends credence to the Great Man Theory of history, remembering that greatness is morally neutral in this context. Stalin not only influenced his own time but also world events six decades after his death. The National Security State that came into being because of America’s fear of Stalin and Communist Russia lives on.

And in whatever hell he’s in, even if only history’s approbation, I am sure Stalin would be satisfied and pleased to be remembered.

On Anarchy and Utopia

My current non-fiction reading these days is The World That Never Was: a True Story Of Dreamers Schemers Anarchists & Secret Agents, by Alex Butterworth. It’s a well-written account of 19th century anarchism, its early utopian ideals and the evolution of many anarchists into political violence and terrorism. Butterworth does a good job of showing how economic distress and autocratic repression led thoughtful utopians to believe that violence was an appropriate and legitimate expression of anarchism. He also shows that the various nations’ intelligence services, especially Russia’s, contributed to the anarchists’ journey into violence in order to discredit all opposition to autocracy. The intelligence services also made sure to remind the public and their governments of the anarchists’ “inherent” violence and danger to keep their budgets increasing. The World That Never Was covers the period roughly 1870 to World War I and is incredibly complex and detailed—the thumbnail biographies of the many actors runs to 18 pages.

The similarities to present times are intriguing. Then, as now, a small band of violent extremists have frightened governments well beyond the extremists’ actual capabilities. In the process, the extremists’ actions compromise other opponents of unjust and repressive regimes. And then as now, the politicians and opportunists take advantage of the violence to fatten their budgets, spy on their own citizens and resist all change.

But I digress.

Anarchism and the various other utopias grew from the revolutionary thought and ideals of the 19th century, a time when people were beginning to understand their individual worth and identity. This awareness trend began in the Age of Enlightenment and continued through the American (“All men are created equal”) and French (“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”) Revolutions as people challenged their relationship with state authority. In the 19th century people challenged economic systems that concentrated wealth at very great cost to workers. In response to the many miseries of industrial capitalism, visionaries offered their ideal utopias. Whether those ideal societies were ever fully formed, practical or even real does not diminish their power. For better or worse, many were inspired by those visions which could justify any measure of self-sacrifice up to and including homicidal violence. And to be even handed, the state and privileged elites were equally capable of homicidal violence in defense of their wealth and privilege, a utopia they were actually living.

So I got to wondering what are the visions that motivate modern society, to what utopias do we aspire in this age of Obama and Boehner? Here’s what I come up with.

The industrial capitalists pursue a utopia of infinite profit and exploitation at the lowest cost. Capitalism is pragmatically realistic and flexible; it has no inherent form and will adapt to whatever arrangements maximize profits, controlling the arrangements as much as possible. Once gained, the profits are left fully to the capitalist discretion. The capitalist utopia is not actually a utopia since it largely exists. But as long as public policy makes any demands of capital, profits are at risk and must be defended. Since most people in this world are not capitalists or benefit to any great extent from its gains, the capitalist utopia has limited appeal. Those to whom it does appeal have the wealth and connections to successfully pursue their interests but those interests are often risk disapproval or even outright rejection by the many who do not profit or are harmed by capitalism’s relentless pursuit of profit. Something more palatable is needed for the masses.

The Republican Party offers that modified capitalist utopia with its free-market promise of jobs for all if only taxes are lower and government does not interfere with the capitalists or spend much. The Republican utopia conjures an image of growing prosperity as unregulated markets create full employment with good wages for anyone willing to work (the “deadbeats” can just go away) and low taxes on the earnings of those hard-working people. Unlike the full capitalist utopia, this one doesn’t exist and requires a certain amount of self-delusion to believe in. America has experienced three decades of free market ideology that has produced great wealth for a few and growing insecurity for the majority and somehow Americans still believe in the infallibility of market.forces and that somehow everyone will finally be rich just as long as government doesn’t interfere.

The Democratic Party utopia is…well, not much in comparison. The best I can figure is that the party aspires to be relevant to people’s lives much as it was in the New Deal and decades following when public policy did, in fact, reign in the excesses of capitalism. But that utopia clashes with the reality that the party depends on capitalist-corporate money for its survival. The Democratic utopia still flickers in some outposts of party thought—Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Raul Grijalva—but it hardly rates as a mobilizing vision. It does, however, fit the original Greek meaning of utopia: “no place”.

Tea Partiers have as their utopia much the same as the Republicans but with more emphasis on guns and “the Other” (read: non-white persons. Tea partiers don’t trust government at all (except for Medicare and Social Security and National Defense) but they are also suspicious of the large corporate institutions, a healthy skepticism that is the movement’s saving grace. The Tea Party utopia is small-town, Main Street America, where business is local and everyone knows their neighbors and their place.

The Libertarian utopia is also a variation of the Republican Modified Capitalist utopia but for Libertarians, all institutions that infringe on personal liberty are suspect and the more public those institutions, the more suspect. The Libertarian utopia does not accept the even the constrained public sector that is a necessary component of Republican Modified Capitalism.

Once I get past these three, I run out of obvious and easily described utopias. There are certainly many on the Left. I can generically describe a Leftist utopia as a world of free people living in harmony with their environment, a world at peace and with social and economic justice for all. I can’t ascribe that vision to any one group but I think I’ve covered the key bases. Beyond that the ideals will vary in detail and differences that are both the bane of Leftist organizing and at the same time an incubator of creative thought.

Maybe I describe utopia in that broad sense because that is my personal vision of utopia. Paul Signat’s painting, “In the Time of Harmony”, depicts an ideal I to which I can easily subscribe. But I’m not naïve, the painting leaves many important questions unanswered, questions essential to living in any society, questions essential to sustaining life and effecting change. Those unanswered questions are the challenges, the ‘reality”, which renders ideals, if not unattainable, then highly difficult.

Despite the difficulty or even the likelihood that I will never see my utopia, I am still motivated to advocate and pursue it in any way that I can. Just as nature evolves over time, so too does society. I’ve seen attitudes, beliefs and policies contend and change during my life, not always for the best but always changing. Since I strongly believe that all persons are my equal, I am bound to do all in my power to recognize, acknowledge and ensure that equality as the society in which I live changes and evolves .

”All men are created equal” and “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” make a fine set of ideals for me. A call to the barricades or a guide to living this only life I will have. Either way works.

A Time to Break Silence

Martin Luther King speaks out against war in April 1967. You probably won't hear it quoted today in mainstream celebrations but it's easy enough to find online. It's worth taking the time to read or listen. King's analysis is spot on. It's also timeless. Substitute names and ideologies at specific points of the speech and it characterizes, most unfortunately, America in the early 21st century and in many of the years following the speech.

King's vision was inspiring in the tradition of Americans' highest ideals and aspirations. But America did not pursue that vision. Our legacy, which Dr. King predicted, has been four decades of war and militarism. To the many dead of Vietnam, we have added the many dead of our wars in Central and South America, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Today is a day to remember that in matters of war in peace, Martin Luther King got it right. The rest of us did not

Quotes you definitely won't hear highlighted and discussed today (outside of Democracy Now!*):

Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

[...]

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

[...]

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

[...]

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

[...]

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.

[...]

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

[...]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

[...]

Communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.... A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

Discuss.
_______________
* Free Speech Radio News also quoted from this speech in its broadcast today.

Not Quite Declaration

From Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. Among the complaints against the king that were cause "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" was slavery. Congress did not agree.

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

What a Long Strange Trip It Will Be...

The 2010 political season is heading into high gear with all the momentum and enthusiasm on the side of reaction, wholly unencumbered market capitalism and eternal war. It's not a pretty sight. All the more so because for the past two election cycles, the opposite has been true.

This means that a Democratic majority in congress for two years followed by 15 months with both Democratic president and congressional majority, has certainly failed to do its job. The fact that military-corporate-Republican shills like Palin and Gingrich can call Obama a socialist and "the most radical president" in American history and still retain ANY credibility, much less a mass following, shows how ineffective Democratic control of the national government has been.

Unlike the Tea Partiers, Democrats are demoralized and unenthused. I know I am tired of continually finding that my best efforts gain do not secure economic justice or or end war. It doesn't seem fair that after some modest success, that our gains are so tentative and fragile that they can be swept away by a mass movement based on fear and ignorance lead by a bunch of entertainers like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

But that is the nature of our society and our time so, fair or not, we deal with it. History shows that power concedes nothing without struggle, so we shouldn't be surprised that for every gain in social and economic justice, the monied interests will resist and undermine those gains.

Tired or not, if my values mean anything, then I can't simply quit because powerful interests find more profit in an a society characterized by extreme polarization of wealth, exploiting human beings, consuming our planet and constantly waging war. Nor should I be surprised that our supposed two party system offers no real alternatives. It's all part of the landscape. I can either challenge it or acquiesce. Silence equals consent.

The late Howard Zinn taught me that popular movements can, in fact, overthrow the tyranny of entrenched, vested interests. Zinn also taught me that no victory is permanent. Gains must be defended not only against the profiteers who would reverse them in pursuit of their profits but also against complacency that leaves us thinking that the job is done. The job is never done as long as greed is part of the human psyche.

How to continue the fight is a matter of strategy and tactics. The many progressive organizations that fill my email every day offer plenty of opportunity. I can't join every campaign or actively support every cause but I know that I will always be active in support of peace and justice. So let the Tea Baggers have at it. Their challenge simply means that I must demonstrate why my ideas merit consideration and theirs do not.

But constant agitation and controversy are difficult. Everybody needs a break to rest and recover. That's where Edward Abbey offers a good corollary to Howard Zinn.

Do not burn yourself out. Be as I am-a reluctant enthusiast... a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still there. So get out there and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, encounter the grizz, climb the mountains. Run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, that lovely, mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to your body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those deskbound people with their hearts in a safe deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards.

See you on the barricades and on the trail.

Room for Hope

Best quote ever about a coming generation:

"Millennials may be a self-confident generation," the study concluded, "but they display little appetite for claims of moral superiority."

You Have the Right...?

The US State Department's annual report on human rights is taking flak from Russia and China. Both nations are not only objecting to the US judging them. China and Russia fire back with their own accusations: Guantanamo, Bagram, Afghanistan and even in The Homeland.

The Chinese response touched on America's gun crime and prison population and alleged rising problems with crime, poverty, homelessness and "chronic" racial discrimination. It called U.S. college campuses unsafe and said spying on U.S. citizens by their government had reached unprecedented levels.

Russia offered remarks about "domestic violence leading to the murder of children, including those adopted in Russia," as well as "racism and xenophobia toward migrants, and Islamophobia,"

Of course, these countries will object, you say. No one likes to be criticized. You would be correct but simple defensiveness and pride do not gainsay the truth of the Russian and Chinese observations. Both countries make valid points about the US, noting the very real shortcomings of America's social, political and economic systems and highly militarized foreign policies. These days America's credibility on human rights is pretty thin.

Of course, neither Russia's nor China's correct assessment of America in the early 21st century necessarily disputes US reports on human rights in those countries. Safe to say, all three societies ignore and curtail human rights when necessary, with necessary subject to various expedient definitions.

The biggest shortcoming is the absence of any report on the United States in the very long list of nation reports. I mean, if the State Department can report on Canada, it shouldn't be that much harder to look south of our shared border. But that report would be even less credible. Self-reporting is notoriously suspect.

None of this means the State Department reports have no value. They provide a good starting point for understanding human rights. Just have some salt handy.

postscript

Another good starting point for understanding human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A Fundamental Thought

Once again, I see a reference to Republicans decrying Obama giving "new rights" to terrorism suspects by prosecuting them as criminals rather than some form of enemy alien. The "Terror 24/7/365" crowd doesn't seem to understand the fundamental nature of individual human rights: no one "gives" rights to anyone. Human rights are, as boldly stated in the US Declaration of Independence, "unalienable". Unalienable Rights among equals. Something to be respected, to be sure, but not something anyone gives. This nation's founding documents create a system, however imperfect it may be in practice, intended to adjudicate and protect these rights. Hell, we even try to do it in war, too. Used to, anyway.

So instead of calling the Underwear Bomber a deadly enemy and further mobilizing the National Security State (although he did a bit of this, too), Obama called him a criminal and will try him in federal court, just like the other 600 terrorism cases for which prosecutors can claim a 90 percent conviction rate. That's not good enough for the war crowd because it renders terrorism into something routine, something society just deals with. A criminal case successfully prosecuted in court lessens the rationale for extended, costly military deployments.

Don't expect Cheney and his echo chamber to stop barking. If they do, Americans may wake up and decide, finally, that we want our national legacy to be peace and justice, not war and predatory capitalism that wreck our military and their families, bankrupt the nation and create more hostility toward America throughout the world.

An awakened America would also know that the human Rights are inherent in all. that on our best days we recognize and respect all others' rights and that days not our best should be less rather than more.

LD and Me

LD is Lev Davidovich Bronstein, more widely known as Leon Trotsky. My relationship is a longstanding one, dating back to college when I learned much more detail about the Russian Revolution than I had learned in grade school and high school during the first couple of decades of the Cold War. In college I learned that the American stereotypes about the Russian Revolution were not particularly accurate. Reading works based on original sources and the words of participants left me with what I can only call a romantic view of a revolution that could have been.

A big part of that revolution that could have been was Leon Trotsky who, despite his intellectual and oratorical abilities, lost out in a power struggle with Josef Stalin. The years since college, lots of reading and the bloody history of the Soviet Union under Stalin dulled that romantic vision but not entirely. The Russian Revolution did create the opening to create a new political order in place of the Romanov autocracy. In all that I have read and learned about those events I see men honestly acting in the belief that they were creating something truly revolutionary. The tragedy is that the system they created evolved into an entirely new form of Russian autocracy.

In my view Trotsksy will always be among those honest believers. I cannot say for certain that Soviet Communism would have been different had Trotsky prevailed over Stalin. The Bolsheviks’ refusal to recognize the legitimacy of other parties or the results of Russia’s first popular elections while Trotsky was a member of the ruling Politburo suggest that the seeds of totalitarianism were already taking root on Trotsky’s watch. He was ruthless as Commissar of War during the civil war. My relationship with such a man has become more difficult as I have come to understand both the futility and evil of war.

Still, I continue to admire Trotsky. Maybe it’s the dashing figure he cut as a wartime leader, or his eloquent prose or maybe just because he became an outcast. I cannot bring myself to sweep him into the dustbin of history with Stalin and all the other murderous leaders in history. Something about the man and his struggles appeal to me.

All this comes to mind as I am reading Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary, by Bertrand Patenaude. This Trotsky is far more of a real, live human being than the Trotsky of many previous biographies and has all the flaws that come with being a real, live human being. Where other biographers deal with the official, public Trotsky, considering his personality and manner as secondary factors, Patenaude focuses on his subject’s final years where many of the same faults and shortcomings were still in play. The details of a somewhat ordinary household provide the perspective to examine Trotsky’s accomplishments and failures. Extensive use of letters, diaries and contemporary accounts of Trotsky’s years in Mexico lend authentic weight to the story, which captures the arc of Trotsky’s life without re-telling its entirety. Patenaude has access to recently released Soviet documents that add new facts—confirming what was long suspected, actually—to the saga.

Patenaude’s Trotsky is brilliant, incisive, petulant and dismissive. At once fascinating and irritable to even his closest associates, Trotsky in this telling is a man who can inspire masses but not a man who invites or accepts the friendship of any other even as he depends on them for his very life. In this biography we get all the details of Trotsky’s years in Mexico, including his affair with Frieda Kahlo and Stalin’s inevitable and relentless pursuit of his arch-nemesis, first through the show trials of the Great Purge and, finally, Trotsky’s murder.

This biography is sympathetic but also unsparing. Patenaude explains well how Trotsky’s personality and intellectual rigidity cost him, and possibly history, dearly. The enmity Trotsky created with his brusque and dismissive manner created many allies for Stalin to use against him. The same traits continued to marginalize Trotsky for the rest of his life. But even with those difficulties, Trotsky continued to speak out, in his History of the Russian Revolution, his Bulletin of the Opposition and numerous articles. Trotsky does all of this on the run from Stalin. In that regard, he never gave up the fight.

Trotsky’s dedication to his ideal and ability to become an agent of that ideal are what inspire me. His belief was total and he made honorable and reasonable choices in an era war and revolution. After all these years, that judgment and my fascination with the man and his times are unchanged.

Forty years ago, in the throes of all that I learned in college about the Russian Revolution, I saw the event (which actually began in 1905) as a moment of hope despite its ensuing violence. I saw its architects as men of character and action in pursuit of a worthy ideal. Contemporary accounts describe the excitement of creating a new society, a new equality, a better life for all. My reservations about the violence and the ultimate result of their actions tempered but did not change my conclusion. My take on Trotsky is that he was an honorable man who followed his conscience and understanding in a life-long battle against exploitation that at times led to great violence. I can recognize and admire Trotsky’s contributions to history even as I regret the violence and repression that followed in the wake of his actions.

postscript

For a full review of Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary go here.

(Un)Civil Dialogue

The shouters and screamers at this month’s congressional town halls are pretty much the same ones who give me the finger or yell at me during peace vigils. In neither case are they trying to discuss an issue, define expectations or explore ideas. No, they just want to prevent anyone else from doing so because… because…well, because they are correct and anyone thinking or acting otherwise is worthy only of contempt and scorn. The difference between the health care mobs and the drive-by haters is simply time and scale—a fleeting gesture versus a full-on, in-your-face rant played nationwide.

Now, I grant you that a street corner vigil isn’t exactly a forum for extended discussion. It is, however, an exchange of ideas; I, expressing my hope for peace and justice, and passersby, reacting. Many honk and wave, which is always fun. Most just drive by.* But some express hostility with words or gestures, the drive-by equivalent of the health care shouters. Clearly, they impute some dangerous and evil motives behind my action. What is lacking is any willingness to engage me in any sort of dialogue. Their hostility is just part of taking a public stand. At least, they are not physically dangerous.

Even as I may disagree with what I think they believe—remember, all I have to go on is an aggressive gesture—I must still be willing to ask why they believe what they believe and listen to what they say. They, too, are human beings with a free will that I always respect. In turn, I expect the same and from there we can explore and debate an issue. That’s not happening at the August town halls. What’s happening there is political theater. And it works. Everybody and his dog is talking about it.

What’s happening is nothing new. Read the comment strings of all too many blogs and you will find ill-mannered vitriol instead of facts. Ranters and screamers abound in those forums, so why should we be surprised when it boils to the surface, especially when called to action by the usual conservative-corporate activists?. Remember Howard Beale and how he “wasn’t going to take it anymore!”? He was Everyman raging against the corporate manipulation. Now it’s Joe and Jane Sixpack outraged that some Americans believe public action is necessary to deal with a national problem, that they are oppressed by government, that all will be well if only government were to disappear.

It’s all part of a political charade that convinces ordinary people that their interests lie with corporate control and vast accumulation of wealth by a few rather than with the many Americans who share their own economic fears and challenges. It’s an old game; southern politicians bamboozled poor whites into ignoring their common economic interests with black Americans. Corporations pit workers against each other to minimize labor costs. The players and cards may change but the idea is the same—keep the economically disadvantaged separate and powerless. It’s worked pretty well during the past century. Just look at the distribution of wealth in this country.

Speaking to the issue at hand, health care, Those of us seeking reform are not asking for a government handout or a magical solution. We—I, at least—seeking to use our combined strength and resources as a nation to solve a very pressing problem, providing effective health care for all. It’s a massive undertaking and definitely fraught with uncertainty. That’s why health care calls for a public solution. Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, I am unwilling to leave my health care completely to the whims of for profit entities. We’re talking about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness here. Without health, these unalienable rights don’t exist. Without health, America is not a strong nation. These are all good reasons to address health care as a matter of vital public interest.

That’s what I would tell the shouters if I could get a word in. Since they won’t listen, I’ll tell my representatives in Congress.

* Their dogs almost always react. You can see their heads turning to watch us as they pass by.

God and a Man Named Abraham

This being the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln, I came across a recent article on Lincoln’s religious beliefs that ends with this quote,

Lincoln believed God was the author of his life and history," said Jack Van Ens, a Presbyterian pastor, historian, and actor. "God drew out the plot and allowed Lincoln to punctuate the sentences.

The quote is an ironic end to a story that discusses Lincoln’s less than formal relationship with organized religion and the battle among Believers and non-Believers to define Lincoln’s beliefs in their favor. Giving the last word to one participant doing just adds a note of finality that I don’t think the article supports.

I don’t have a stake in this debate but it does interest me. Lincoln was a true wordsmith and some of his most profound words came from his spiritual beliefs; from his soul as well as his intellect. When I hear his words and reflect on the ideas underlying them, I recognize “the better angels” of religious faith: justice, compassion and sacrifice. I do not see the false gods of power, organization and control which have devalued religion throughout history.

What I know of Lincoln’s spirituality is limited but I do know that he was a man of his times. His times accepted the old doctrines of literal Scripture because that was the literature for most people. The explosion of scientific knowledge and mass distribution of information and ideas of the 19th century had not yet happened when Lincoln and his contemporaries began their careers. Unlike many of his contemporaries, though, Lincoln did not require a church or minister to understand the world and his place in that world.

Lincoln’s gift, in my opinion, was his ability to transcend the limitations of his times, to understand how the old certainties were no longer quite so certain, to realize that new knowledge and realities required new thinking. His intellectual suppleness is evident in his changing attitude toward slavery and its African-American victims. What started and the recognition of the inherent unfairness of a “you work, I’ll eat” system evolved, with reluctance, toward recognizing former slaves’ political and civil rights. No part of this evolution is inconsistent with the ideals of any religion.

Lincoln’s spirituality surpasses religious belief. It is the humility of a man who knows that, however powerful or exalted by others, he is human and prone to error and greed. Knowing this, he seeks other wisdom. Lincoln sought that other wisdom from many sources but at heart, that wisdom was a sense of right and justice that did not allow one man to exploit another.

Of course, that’s just my view, written to appropriate the Lincoln icon in accord with my own beliefs. Like all the others, I guess.

I do, however, take exception to the idea that God was the author of Lincoln’s life and history (or anyone else’s for that matter) and all he did was punctuate. Randomness and human agency are major drivers in life and history and, unless I am willing to believe in a heavenly being directing all that chance and all those human motives, I cannot believe in that god-written script. The idea has merit, though, in acknowledging the limits of human power and ability. I fully acknowledge and understand those limits. Knowing those limits, I recognize why Lincoln is exceptional among American presidents.

Still Dreaming

Since coming out as a conscientious objector to war and violence, the most difficult challenge for me is the propensity of others to foment war and violence. Self-defense, both personal and national, is justified when an adversary is capable, willing and clearly demonstrating intent to employ force. Perhaps a true pacifist would stand and die in the face of such threat but I personally am not likely to do that nor can I as an individual ask my country to allow its citizens to be put at risk by other nations’ or groups’ willingness to employ violence. As a nation we have a responsibility to defend our legitimate interests.

War and violence are extremely common among nations and sub nations. It’s a fact of life that conscientious objectors must factor into our thought and beliefs. Although I maintain a complete abhorrence of war, I don’t expect the US to ignore or idly dismiss grave international threats. What I do expect is that America’s leaders will evaluate those threats realistically and then find ways, preferably allied with other nations, to alleviate threats and avoid violence. As a conscientious objector, I want my country not to introduce violence into any dispute; when force is unavoidable, it must be proportionate and limited to the threat at hand.

This concept is largely ignored by most nations and by any number of groups with grievances to avenge. Force and violence are as much a part of human relations as the blood that pumps through our bodies. Nations have been at war since they were created. Before nations, tribes and clans fought. About the only significant difference to modern war is its potential scope and staggering costs. Nineteenth century warfare could lay waste to a region or individual nation. One hundred years later war could destroy an entire planet even as its ineffectiveness in resolving serious disputes was demonstrated time and again. Our greatest failing as a species is our inability to reject violence.

We justify our attachment to violence, pointing outward and claiming that “they” threaten us. It is true that some “they” may actually pose a threat but these days, “their” threats, while deadly and destructive, are limited and so is “their” ability to carry out those threats. Growing up in the 50’s and 60’s, “they” were the Soviet Communists who commanded a powerful military. However distorted those views of Soviet power actually were, they posed a serious existential threat to the US. As a result, we embarked on National Security Race and have hardly looked back. In the Age of Terror we apply that same metaphor to a very different threat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney simply took a well established policy, rooted in human fear and weakness, to extremes at a time when the great military threats of yesteryear had been defeated or dissolved. The threat that did emerge—sophisticated determined terrorist networks--was nowhere near the existential threat of the Soviets, Nazis or Japanese. Yet Cheney and Bush presented the terrorists in those terms and marched the nation into endless war and occupation. As much as they bear personal responsibility for their overt and covert wars, secret operations and criminal policies, foreign intervention, arms dealing and use of force is nothing new in American policy.

That is what I want to change. Long before force is contemplated, I want my country to engage its adversaries and to defuse tensions. I want to eliminate the word “enemy” from our diplomatic lexicon. America should have no enemies, only adversaries or, better yet, allies. I personally do not have an enemy in the world—all people are my kin—so I am at a loss to accept that America has enemies who want to kill, maim and destroy us. I am not naïve; I know that economic and strategic interests give rise to opposition and attacks on American interests. I know, too, that many other nations have a strong sense of identity and may legitimately object to the United States intervening or otherwise interfering their affairs. In a nonviolent world, this intercourse among nations would occur as a mater of mutual interest and satisfaction. We wouldn’t need an army to enforce it.

That’s my dream. Human nature being what it is, I may not live to see it come true but simply understanding this ideal gives it a force in my consciousness. It will be a part of me and inform my actions and associations in coming years. Although I am writing in 2009, the idea isn’t new. What I recognize now is how long I have been a conscientious objector and that, more than ever, I need to speak with fellow Americans about nonviolence as a legitimate policy that in world and national affairs.

The “practical minds” and “realists” will dismiss me as deluded, bent on a quixotic quest. We must be prepared and take resolute action in this dangerous world, they all say. In return I say that simply because an idea is difficult, its truth is no less clear. In all things, I seek only that all people recognize the humanity of their fellow human beings. Once this recognition takes place, non-violence is the only ethical and moral alternative. After all, if I don’t want someone to harm me, how can I justly take that same action against that other person.

It’s true that I have not always acted as a conscientious objector. When my nation said “kill”, I took that rifle and pursued other human beings. I certainly did not live up to my ideal then. But the experience has haunted me ever since because I knew that I had no right to go halfway around the world to attack other people. Even more, I knew that I was waging war in someone’s home and my mind conjured the image of soldiers making their way through my backyard in Virginia. It was then that I realized my connection with my so called “enemy”. The connection is part of my consciousness to this day.

So, yeah, I got it wrong back then. I did not have the courage to act on my beliefs. Nothing I can do will ever change that fact. Everything I can ever do in the future will make sure I don’t fail again.

Future Dominance

Neil Howe and Richard Jackson write in the Washington Post that

All told, population trends point inexorably toward a more dominant U.S. role in a world that will need us more, not less. ...In 1950, six of the top 12 [most populous countries] were developed countries. In 2000, only three were. By 2050, only one developed country will remain -- the United States, still in third place. By then, it will be the only country among the top 12 with a historical commitment to democracy, free markets and civil liberties.

Their premise is a scary one: exploding population in the Third World overwhelming Western values and ideals held dear by aging societies no longer able to defend those values. Only one nation may survive--the United States. It certainly sounds like a cry for help that only America can provide.

The authors' facts sound impeccable. they marshal sociological studies of violence,crime and demographic trends. They project population changes and offer data on fertility and birth rates. I'm not in a position to verify or dispute the facts but they certainly sound true based on what I do know about demographics and economics.

What doesn't sound impeccable to me is the sense of mission that the authors impart. I certainly believe that America has a unique role in history as the incubator of popular democracy. I further believe that, as a nation we have an obligation to share our wealth--financial and intellectual--with the world. That much of the authors' mission makes sense. In fact, only three words--"more dominant rol"--give me pause. What I hear in those three words is "Forget any idea that America can retreat into isolationist safety. America must become more dominant if Western civilization is to survive." In the world of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where the authors are research analysts, dominance equals force. The CSIS board is a pantheon of American hawks, intellectual home of the National Security State. When I hear "more dominant role" from that quarter, I expect missiles to fly and bombs to fall.

Since I don't dispute the authors' facts, what is my answer to the dire future they predict? First off, I would not assume that American military power can change the demographic or economic trends that give rise to the poverty,instability and violence. Second, I would not assume that the rest of the world will welcome a "more dominant role" for America. This nation may have much to offer but that is only me, born and raised in America, projecting my values on the world. Instead, I would demonstrate the utility and advantages of American ideas by addressing directly the causes of poverty and despair, marshaling a variety of public, private and non-profit initiatives to create a sustainable economy for the nation and the world in the 21st century.

If the world will be changing in ways that threaten us and future generations, then we have a duty to deal with those changes in ways that preserve our fundamental liberties and economic security. For CSIS, force and dominance will protect America and by extension Western democratic values. For me, utility and results will be America's strength in competing with other values and ideas even as those societies out race us in population. Let's face it, the world is constantly changing--always has and always will. If not for constant change, America would not have emerged as a powerful nation. So nothing in history guarantees that this country will always retain that position.

The United States was fortunate to acquire a large land mass with vast resources and protected by great oceans. These days that land mass is well occupied, its resources depleted and no longer protected by the oceans. In much of the last century, the US was banker and manufacturer to the world. Now we are deeply in debt, devoid of industry beyond the manufacture of a vast arsenal and rapidly aging. Howe and Jackson correctly describe one key challenge Americans will face in the coming years. The only "more dominant role' that will succeed for America will be one where our ideas demonstrate real results, not simply project force.

Perhaps the most truly American trait has been an unwillingness to accept limits; when confronted by an obstacle, Americans typically find a way to work around it. Elsewhere in the WP another article invokes Alex de Tocqueville

"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations," he wrote. "In democratic countries, knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others."

In the 170 or so years since that was written, Americans have demonstrated an amazing agility in overcoming problems, not just because of our economic and resource advantages but also because of our ideas, ingenuity and ability to cooperate toward common goals.

This is the "more dominant role" I would like to see for my country, not more bullets, bayonets and bombs. This is a legacy of hope we can leave for future generations. I hope we are up to it.

From Solstice to New Year

For me this dark time of year is the time of the Solstice and change to the New Year. It's a time to celebrate another year of life and look forward to the next. Since America was formed by men of Western Judeo-Christian tradition (some more so than others but all tolerant of it), the nation has long since celebrated Christmas. In my lifetime this winter holiday has come to be recognized as something far more universal than the Nativity Story. That has been certainly true of my own life. I long ago abandoned Christmas as a religious celebration. Somewhat later, as I became aware of our environment, Planet Earth, the solar system, galaxy and the immense vastness of the universe, I reverted to the spirit of the Pagan Yule. I also celebrate the Summer Solstice but that is a more personal observance since much the world ignores it or notes it only in passing. The near universal celebration and festiveness of this time of year seems to reinforce my own sense of joy and wonder.

So I observe the holiday along with the culture that surrounds me. Maybe it's the idea that somehow we can live in harmony with all other beings, all life, our environment and the planet that supports it all. But it's also about reconnecting and touching base with old friends and celebrating with those close to me. So I decorate, send out cards and emails. Hell, I've even bought a couple of gifts.

So it's only right that I wish the blessings of the season to all visitors to this space. I would remind all of you that you are among the most privileged and well-to-do people on this planet just by virtue of owning a computer. And because you possess resources, what better way to join the spirit of the season than by sharing with others, each in his or her own way.

Anyone who has been reading this space for any length of time will also know that this time of year is inextricably linked to Vietnam, arriving one year and leaving the next that's why this Christmas story speaks so directly to me.


Peace be with you and with your spirit.

Book Time

If you’re looking for an illuminating history and discussion of Islam, I recommend No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam (2005) by Reza Aslan. I heard Aslan on radio and found his approach to Islam very understandable. His book is no less so despite providing what for me is the clearest and most detailed history of Islamic thought and culture, not to mention its widely varied development as both religious and state institution. I can’t begin to do justice to the logic and completeness of Aslan’s work other than to say I learned how a philosophy based on the teachings of a single prophet who spoke of equality, tolerance and community became married to tribal loyalties, state institutions and clerical privilege yet remained sufficiently adaptable to accommodate a variety of cultures as it spread throughout Europe, Asia and Africa.

Aslan sets the birth of Islam in the context of Western religious tradition; Mohammed linked his teachings to the Abrahamic traditions of Judaism and Christianity, recognizing their authority and support for his monotheism that challenged the prevailing polytheism of the Arabian Peninsula. Islam challenged the ruling powers and came under attack, which gives rise to warlike language often associated with the Koran. And once Mohammed gained a following that could sustain itself, it became part of the power structure.

Like the Bible, Islam’s holy book was written after the fact, not by Mohammed. Mohammed did not even designate a successor to what was more than just a religious community. Once The Prophet was gone, tribal divisions created the first rift in the community and interpretation fell to The Companions, those who walked with Mohammed (much like Jesus’ apostles) and then those they mentored. The written Koran came much later, produced by those well removed from The Prophet and considerably influenced by their times.

Aside from the history, which is still too complex for me to follow without a genealogical chart, Aslan also presents the intellectual traditions of Islamic thought. It is here where I see the both the zenith and nadir of Islam. On the one hand, is a vibrant, adaptable tradition, not fully individual as in the western democratic tradition but offering the individual the security and support of a shared community. That’s the zenith that was so evident during the Dark Ages in Europe for which we owe a cultural debt to the Muslim world for preserving much of our knowledge and heritage (not to mention mathematics and some inspiring architecture). The nadir is the closed thought of fundamentalists who insist on a form of “pure” Islam that resembles nothing so much as 7th century Arabia.

Much of the rhetoric in the so-called “war on terror” has centered on the “clash of civilizations” between Islam and (depending on your perspective) Judeo-Christianity or western democracy. Aslan sees this as a false dichotomy. For him the issue comes down to competition between many divergent strains of religious thought—something not uncommon to all religions—and how to accommodate religious thought within a community. He finds his answer in pluralism and the distinction between secularism and secularization. Aslan disputes the western idea that

… [T]here can be no a priori moral framework in a modern democracy; that … the foundation of a genuinely democratic society must be secularism. The problem with this argument, however is that it not only fails to recognize the inherently moral foundation upon with a large number of modern democracies are built, it more importantly fails to appreciate the difference between secularism and secularization.

As the Protestant theologian Harvey Cox notes, secularization is a process by which “certain responsibilities pass from ecclesiastical to political authorities,” whereas secularism is an ideology based on the eradication of religion from public life. Secularization implies a historical evolution in which society gradually frees itself from “religious control and closed metaphysical world-views. Secularism is itself a closed metaphysical world-view, which, according to Cox “functions much like a new religion. (italics in original)

Aslan defines democracy as pluralism, not secularism. “A democratic state can be established upon any normative framework as long as pluralism remain the source of its legitimacy." He notes, America’s “Judeo-Christian—and more precisely Protestant—moral famework” and reminds Americans that Alexis de Tocqueville recognized religion as the foundation of America’s political system nearly 200 years ago.

Despite what schoolchildren read in their the history books, the reality is that the separation of “Church and State” is not so much the foundation of American government as it is the result of a two-hundred-fifty-year secularization process based not upon secularism, but upon pluralism.” (italics in original)

This is a new perspective for me but one that is consistent with my longstanding values. I am a secularist because I believe in pluralism, the right of all to believe and practice as they see fit. Allowing any one group of religious authorities to dictate the norms of society violates that pluralism in a way that an underlying moral framework does not. My experience is that underlying moral frameworks are pretty universal: don’t kill, don’t steal, treat all with respect. In that context, tolerance and freedom are possible.

Aslan leaves the reader with an understanding of the intellectual and theological context for the debate within Islamic society. His perspective is hopeful—he looks to the words of tolerance and respect in Koran and to the varied development of Islamic thought for his hopes. Aslan is keenly aware that the struggle for the soul of Islam that began with The Prophet’s death continues:

When fifteen centuries ago, Muhammad launched a revolution in Mecca to replace the archaic, rigid and inequitable strictures of tribal society with a radically new vision of divine morality and social egalitarianism, he tore apart the fabric of traditional Arab society. It took many year of violence and devastation to cleanse the Hijaz of its “false idols. It will take many more to cleanse Islam of its new false idols—bigotry and fanaticism—worshipped by those who have replaced Muhammad ‘s original vision of tolerance and unity with their own ideals of hatred and discord. But the cleansing is inevitable, and the tide of reform cannot be stopped. The Islamic Reformation is already here. We are all living in it.

No god but God also covers a wide range of western and Arabian history marked by conquest, exploitation, subversion, colonialism, nationalism and how it all intertwines with Islamic tradition to create the world in our times. The content is far more than I can relate in what is aleady a pretty long piece. I hope his guardedly optimistic prediction holds. The entire world could use a lot more tolerance and religious dogma is no place to find the tolerance that will allow all to live in peace and security.


Bonus Book

My fiction reading these past days has been Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson. I never actually read the book but know the story—pirates and treasure—from English literature courses and from a Disney production on TV that was hard for me to follow completely at a young age. I just knew it as a dark and mysterious story. I’m pretty sure I read the Classics Illustrated version (number 64). Even so, I knew only the barest snippets of the story before finding a copy at the library. Treasure Island is an easy, suspenseful read. The characters evolve from the start and the story quickly adds layers and a back story that unfolds with the main plot. The narrator is a teenage boy, which I guess is why Treasure Island is often considered juvenile reading. The story, though, is anything but juvenile: conspiracy, murder and double dealing. Only six of ship’s company return to England; 16 are dead and three marooned. Long John Silver who is both hero and villain escapes with some gold and the remaining five, all of whom are good and proper Victorians, end the story with great wealth.

The story seems quaint compared to modern fiction but it reads well and offers a good perspective of the world from 19th century Britain, a time when all was right and proper with the world. Stevenson does a good job with seaman’s language—sometimes it’s a bit dense and takes a while to figure the exact meanings. Long John Silver does not say “shiver me timbers”, however. The text is “my timbers” which sounds funny to my media-trained ears.

MDMA

The Washington Post Magazine today has an article about research on MDMA in treating post-traumatic stress. MDMA is a psychedelic drug known on the street as Ecstasy. The story is interesting for its exploration in some detail of how MDMA allows subjects to recover the sense of inner peace and safety that was lost during the trauma. One researcher was quoted about what the limited studies to date actually demonstrate. “The plural of anecdote is not data.” The difference being, to my analytical mind, confidence that what you see actually represents reality.

That’s a good thought to bear in mind because all too often what we have are anecdotes. Real data is hard to come by, requiring careful planning, execution and analysis. Real data is expensive and depending on the market we cut corners. For the health and safety market like drug research and approval we cut fewer corners (supposedly) than say, in the political market, where anecdotes and image make up much of the media content.

The distinction is also important to me as an auditor/evaluator. I’m somewhat hesitant to use the auditor title since most think it means accountant. The word has other meanings, my favorite being those related to the Latin verb audire, to hear. To listen. My skill set is investigation, analysis and reporting. I can track down and piece together a story. Anecdotes (ie, interviews) aren’t worth much as evidence. What counts are facts. What Is. What you can demonstrate and prove. Someone may give you a heads up but that tip is worthless for proving anything. There has to be something there. Finding what’s there makes the work interesting.

Speaking of work, now that I am properly relocated, I am seeking work so that I can finance this adventure. I applied for a research position that looks interesting, maybe even worth working full time. I am networking to see what freelance work I can find. I will also market my skill as an investigator, analyst and writer to anyone looking to solve problems. That’s what my career as an analyst/auditor taught me to do.

Thirty-three years ago when I began working as an assistant legislative analyst for a newly-formed investigative committee, my colleagues and I called ourselves “bureaucratic guerrillas”, a small, elite band of investigators working behind enemy (ie, the Commonwealth’s various departments and agencies) lines, fighting waste and fraud in government. The years since have taught me that other state workers are not the enemy and that truth is elusive in government. I still like the idea of the bureaucratic guerrilla as someone who can fight through the maze of regulation, obfuscation and stupidity that seems inherent in so many human endeavors and certainly in government.
.
My first assignment is a volunteer one. I hope to work with the local Veterans For Peace chapter here in Olympia in establishing a veterans advocate program. This is a program where advocates are trained to assist veterans and GIs in securing benefits they have earned that the military seeks to deny them. I only know a little about the program but think I’ll be a natural for it. I’m a veteran. I know government. I believe my country–that is, me–owes this generation of veterans a great debt. I will do what I can to help. After all, I am a bureaucratic guerrilla.