Sunday, December 27, 2015

Left Side of the Aisle #232

Left Side of the Aisle
for December 24, 2015 - January 6, 2016

This week:

And Another Thing: Why is Christmas on December 25?

And Another Thing: Why is New Year's Day on January 1?

Monday, December 21, 2015

Left Side of the Aisle #231

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of December17-23, 2015

This week:

- Showing the tearing of the social fabric, "The Commons," by comparing the responses to the recent mass shootings at Colorado Springs and San Bernadino

Monday, December 14, 2015

230.8 - Racism of Justice Antonin "Skeletor" Scalia

Racism of Justice Antonin "Skeletor" Scalia

The reason I curtailed my discussion about the shredding of The Commons is that while I was preparing the show, something came up which I decided could not wait a week to get addressed.

The University of Texas admits three-quarters of its students each year in a so-called "race blind" program under which the students who are in the top 10% of their class at their high school get automatic acceptance. The other quarter of the admission class gain acceptance through a qualitative "holistic" review that includes race along with a number of other personal and academic factors, all with an idea of promoting diversity and recognizing potential.

And of course some self-important white kid who wasn't in the top 10% of her high school class and couldn't get in through the other program decided that it was just so totally unfair that some black kid got in when they didn't and so claimed that any consideration of race is just horribly wrong and mean and rotten and stuff.

Justice Antonin Skeletor
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school's program. In 2013, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Circuit Court, saying that court should have looked at the program under a stricter legal standard that it had. The Circuit court did so and approved it again in 2014. And so its back before SCOTUS. Oral arguments were held on December 9.

During those arguments, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Skeletor advanced the argument that affirmative action actually was hurting minority students by getting them into the University of Texas "where they do not do well."

Better, he said, for them to
go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well ... where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too -- too fast for them.
The pauses, which are in the transcript, are significant because, I maintain, they indicate that Skeletor caught himself before he said what he actually meant to say - which is that he thinks that African-American students just aren't bright enough to go to a top-notch school, because I see no other reasonable way to read his statements.

Former US Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who is now representing the University of Texas before the Court, kept trying to interject, arguing that students admitted through the supplemental program, which is what's at issue in the case, "fare better" over time than those entering through the "top 10" policy, but Skeletor just plowed ahead with the claim that
most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas - they come from lesser schools.
Which may well be true and is likely true of most white scientists in the country as well, but context and nuance are of no concern to Skeletor.

Garre did get to finish his summation by saying
I don't think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they're going to inferior schools. I think what experience shows - at Texas, California and Michigan - is that now is not the time and this is not the case to roll back student body diversity in America.
But diversity is of no more concern to Skeletor than context and nuance are. What matters to him is putting an end to any form of affirmative action, even one as slight and limited as this one.

And now it's clear why he thinks affirmative action programs are pointless: He just thinks that overall, black folks just ain't as smart as white folks.

What an amazing pig of a man he is.

Sources cited in links:

230.7 - Shredding of "The Commons"

Shredding of "The Commons"

I have to tell you that Marco Rubio had some serious competition for the Clown Award in the form of Nevada state Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, whose Christmas card this year consisted of a photo of her extended family, all dressed in blue jeans and red shirts - and all of them, except for babes in arms but including a young child, carrying guns.

For her Christmas card. Because, you know, what would Jesus do.

But she lost out because during a recent episode of her radio show this major-league intelligence who earlier this year described cancer as a "fungus" that could be "flushed out" with salt water and baking soda described a conversation with a Nevada GOPper political consultant who asked her why she hadn't signed onto a statement opposing resettling Syrian refugees in Nevada, in which she quoted herself as saying "Are you kidding me? I'm about to fly to Paris and shoot 'em in the head myself!"

She then added on her show "I am not OK with Syrian refugees. I'm not OK with terrorists. I'm OK with putting them down, blacking them out, just put a piece of brass in their ocular cavity and end their miserable life. I'm good with that."

And that is not clownish. That is sub-human.

But this does raise one other thing I want to talk about, but I won't have time this week because of another thing I really want to get to. But I will say something briefly.

It relates to a concept I've talked about before, which I all "The Commons." It refers to the concept of a shared societal space, that range within our social and political culture where the common interests of our society lie; it is the idea of what makes us a society instead of an atomized collection of individuals, each isolated from and in competition with all others.

It is the idea of there being a public sphere in which all can participate, all have a stake, all have a part - and, importantly, all have some responsibility, each to the other and to the whole. For us as Americans we could perhaps sum up the idea in the phrase "We the People."

And I deeply fear that our sense of The Commons, which has already been under continuing attack by the right wing looking to advance its own power and position by cutting others out of that common society, that our sense of The Commons is now being shredded by the sort of paranoid religious hatred and bigotry and bed-wetting Islamaphobia which that same right wing had to know - did know - it was advancing - and of which Michele Fiore is but one isolated example.

Cartoon c. 1875-1880
What the reactionaries in this country have released and spawned in their pursuit of greater power and which they still foolishly imagine they can control is a danger to our survival - not as individuals, but as a society. Because societies which lose their sense, whatever it is in that society, that lose their sense of a Commons very often fragment and can even descend into civil war as parts of that society come to view different parts of that society as "other," as "not us" - which is exactly what is happening.

I have said a number of times that sometimes I do not regret that I will not live to see the world I see coming. Right now, my fear is that I will live to see it. My only consolation is that we have been here before - in fact, it has been worse before and those who exploit bigoted fears are reading from a very old playbook. And we have survived and hopefully we will again. And the best thing we can do is carry on the struggle against bigotry in all forms and for a more inclusive society and, like it said in the movie, "Never give up, never surrender."

I'm sure I will go on more about this, particularly how the media addresses Islamic terrorism as compared to right-wing white Christian male terrorism, which the FBI says is the source of most domestic terror attacks. But having expressed my fear, I will leave it aside for the moment.

Sources cited in links:

230.6 - Corporations and the rich are usually scumbags

Corporations and the rich are usually scumbags

I'm going to spend a couple of minutes here, just so we don't forget, on a couple of reminders that most rich people and most big corporations - no, not all, but most - are self-serving scumbags.

A new rule to combat water pollution by extending Clean Water Act protections to millions of acres of wetlands and streams was finalized this year. And of course a lot of corporations want to see it overturned. Obama has pledged to veto any Congressional attempt to overturn the regulation, so trying to insert such a provision into the omnibus budget bill would have attracted a lot of attention.

Note I say "would have." The right-wing-dominated Congress is expected to include a provision to block Syrian refugees from entering the US. In a conference call held the week before Thanksgiving, lobbyists representing a number of polluting industries such as electric utilities, the American Forest and Paper Association, and others agreed among themselves that this, the fight about Syrian refugees, that this is great news for them.

Why? Because it takes the focus off them, giving them the cover they need to slip under the radar and attach a legislative rider to roll back the new rules.

Up to 10,000 refugees, hoping to escape the violence and insanity of the Syrian civil war and resettle in the US, their hopes being slammed against brick walls by xenophobic religious bigots attacking them as mere conduits for terrorists if not terrorists themselves, and the only thing these cretins can think about is how it will help them continue to pollute streams and wetlands.


Martin Shkreli
Next up, you surely remember Martin Shkreli, the smirking little prig of a man who raised the price of a drug used by HIV patients among others to fight a parasitic infection by some 5000%, up to $750 per pill. After a massive outcry, he said he would reduce the price. Remember?

He hasn't. And he's not going to.

The day before Thanksgiving, his company announced it would drop prices for hospitals, create smaller bottles with 30 pills, and provide free starter packs in 2016. The problem? The discounts only apply to bulk orders. The list price of the drug remains the same: $750 a pill.

And Martin Shkreli remains a smirking little prig. And a scumbag.

Last but by no means least, and the thing that prompted me to do this, you unquestionably heard all the raucous fawning over Mark Zuckerberg, the megabillionaire co-founder of Facebook, when he and his wife announced they would donate 99 percent of their worth, the vast majority of which is tied up in Facebook stock valued at $45 billion today.

Mark Zuckerberg
But contrary to what you likely heard, they not donate $45 billion to charity. Nope. Not even close.

What Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, did was set up a limited liability company, an LLC, one which he controls, and then "donated" the stock to it. In effect, Zuckerberg moved his wealth from one bank account to another.

If instead they had set up a charitable foundation, it would have been subject to rules and oversight, it would have to allocate to charity a certain percentage of its assets every year, and it would have to meet transparency requirements. An LLC has none of those requirements. It can invest in for-profit companies. It can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in laws. In short, Zuckerberg can do exactly what he wants with his money, precisely like before.

What this does do is create wonderful tax benefits for him. Here's how it works without getting into the weeds of tax law: The LLC donates appreciated shares - remember, its assets are shares in Facebook - to charity. He gets a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the shares but owes no tax on the transaction because the shares were donated, not sold, so there is no capital gain.

The bottom line is that Mark Zuckerberg has amassed a fortune valued at $45 billion and he may never pay a penny in tax on it. Yes, it is all legal, but that makes it no less scummy, especially when he allows himself to be described as a great philanthropist who "gave away" his fortune.

He would better be described as a scumbag.

Sources cited in links:

230.5 - Outrage of the Week: Prosecutors trying to let cop killer of Tamir Rice walk

Outrage of the Week: Prosecutors trying to let cop killer of Tamir Rice walk

Now, still in a very real way on the topic of guns, we have our other regular feature, this is the Outrage of the Week.

Tamir Rice, I hope you recall, was the child shot and killed by Cleveland cop Timothy Loehmann in November 2014. The video of the event, which I'm sure you've seen, shows Loehmann and partner Frank Garmback skidding up to Tamir in their patrol car, at which point Loehmann jumps out and shoots Tamir in the stomach. Total elapsed time: two seconds. Literally.

The two cops then stood around, offering no aid, as Tamir Rice lay on the ground bleeding.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office has claimed that it is and has been "investigating" the murder, but it has become more than clear that what they are really trying to do is to find a way to justify letting Loehmann walk.

The first hard proof was the so-called "investigation" itself, dragged out month after month with no progress even after a judge found that there was probable cause for charges. As columnist Shaun King wrote,
nobody in their right mind actually believes it takes this long to investigate a shooting which was caught on film and every piece of evidence and every witness is widely known.
Tamir Rice
More proof came in October when prosecutors released statements from two ostensible experts on police shootings, both of who let Loehmann off the hook by saying the shooting was "reasonable" because the only thing that mattered, they said, the only thing that mattered, was if the cop thought - just thought - there was a threat and Loehman did think there was a threat, a conclusion which they reached without ever talking to Loehmann or Garmback.

To show just how shallow their analysis was, other experts hired by the Rice family not only came to the opposite conclusion, they shredded a key argument of the prosecutor's two agents. They had claimed that the fact that the cops put themselves in danger by their reckless approach to Tamir, that the cops by their recklessness had created the very "risk" they claimed they thought they faced, well, these "experts" insisted that was irrelevant.

But in fact, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Ohio, had previously ruled that
Where a police officer unreasonably places himself in harm's way, his use of deadly force may be deemed excessive.
The cops' behavior was relevant to whether or not the shooting was "reasonable" and the prosecutor's hand-picked "experts" didn't know what they were talking about.

It will be interesting to see which expert testimony is presented to the grand jury.

And now, which is what brought all this up again, we have the release of the statements by the cops themselves, both of them - no surprise - emphasizing how much danger they thought they were in, how Tamir was pulling the gun out of his waistband, how they repeatedly shouted "show us your hands" but he didn't listen, and how, Loehmann said, he aimed for Tamir's hand (but somehow, despite being at virtually point-blank range, managed instead to hit Tamir in the stomach) and how and how and how and so forth and so on.

Leaving aside the question of how they could have "repeatedly" shouted anything in two seconds, what most struck me was the fact that the statements were unsworn and, more significantly, were signed and dated November 30, 2015 - more than a full year after Tamir Rice was shot. It took prosecutors more than a year to even get a statement from the cop who pulled the trigger and his partner, who was the only other witness.

If what prosecutors have done so far adds up to anything that sounds like a serious investigation to you, if it sounds like anything other than a whitewash to you, if it sounds like anything other than trying to lay the groundwork for letting a killer cop walk, then this must be a very happy time of year for you, because you must still believe in Santa Claus.

Me, I don't believe in Santa Claus except maybe for the Santa Claus that the Cuyahoga County prosecutors are trying to be for Timothy Loehmann. What I do believe is that this is an outrage.

Sources cited in links:

230.4 - Clown Award: Marco Rubio

Clown Award: Marco Rubio

So let's stay on the topic of guns and switch over to one of our regular features, the Clown Award, given as always for meritorious stupidity. And oh do we have a winner this time.

The Big Red Nose goes to the man who was once the GOPpers great Latino hope, Marco Rubio.

One of the bizarre aspects of our laws about guns is that if you are on the no-fly list because you are, at least supposedly, a suspected terrorist, you can't get on a plane. Now, I am no fan of these lists which are often based on flimsy evidence and by definition put restrictions of people based on suspicion rather than knowledge, but that's not the point here.The point is the lists exists and if you are on one you are suspected of a connection to terrorism and so can't fly.

But you can buy a gun. Being on the no-fly list is no hindrance.

So there was a move in the Senate to say if you're on the no-fly list, you can't buy a gun. It lost, of course, because enough of those bozos, despite all their blather about security, are more scared of the NRA than they are of terrorism or terrorists.

Sen. Marco Rubio
When Rubio was asked on one of the Sunday-morning talk shows why he voted against it, he said it would impede too many law-abiding citizens from purchasing a gun. The lists "shouldn't be used as a tool to impede 700,000 Americans or potential Americans - people on that list from having access to be able to fully utilize their Second Amendment rights." Because, y'see, the lists are "imperfect," in fact "the majority" of those on the lists shouldn't be there.

Beyond wondering if Rubio would say that "potential Americans" also have rights under the rest of the Constitution, I also wonder where the 700,000 figure comes from or even if it's supposed to represent the total number of people on the lists or the "majority" that shouldn't be.

But what I really can't help but notice is that Rubio makes no reference to getting rid of the lists or cleaning up the lists or providing people wrongly on the lists to have a way to get off the lists; no, he just thinks we must continue to let suspected terrorists buy guns because, you know, guns.

But you know something, that isn't even what got him the award. This is:

Being interviewed on Faux News after the San Bernadino massacre, Rubio sneered about the left talking about gun control and said Farook and Malik "put bombs and left bombs behind on the scene of attack."

Here it comes....

"I don't hear anybody talking about bomb control."

Um, maybe that's because bombs are already illegal, you moth-brained twit?

Say what you want about him, the thing that you can't deny is that Marco Rubio is a clown.

Sources cited in links:

230.3 - Hero Award: New York Daily News

Hero Award: New York Daily News

As long as the subject of guns is up, let's go right to one of our occasional features, it's called the Hero Award and it's given as the occasion arises to someone who just does the right thing on a matter big or small.

In this case, it is a big thing and our hero isn't a person, it's a newspaper - or, to be precise, the editors of a newspaper. And you could consider it our first double award because there were two things that prompted it.

The paper is the NY Daily News and the first part of the award is for the image on the top right.

It's the front page of the paper from December 3, the day after the mass murder at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, California on December 2. It called out in no uncertain terms the cowards who hide behind platitudes of "our thoughts and prayers go to the victims" in lieu of actually doing anything about the type of weapons that make such slaughters possible.

The paper followed up the next day with the next image, also on the front page.

The picture is of Syed Farook, who together with his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out the attack in California. "He's a terrorist," it says, something with which I think essentially everyone would agree.

But below that, it says "But so are these guys." Pictured are Robert Dear, who shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs on November 27, Dylann Roof, who murdered nine people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina in June, Adam Lanza, the Newtown, Connecticut school killer in 2012, and James Holmes, who perpetrated the attack in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012.

What nails the award is the last photo, labeled "AND this guy." It's a photo of Wayne LaPierre, director of the Nutzoid Rabbit-brains of America, also known as the NRA.

I don't know a lot about the Daily News' overall editorial policy; when I was growing up in New Jersey, the Daily News was the right wing paper in New York City (believe it or not, the Post was the liberal one). Maybe it still is conservative, I don't know. But on this topic, on the topic of guns and gun control, the New York Daily News is, and not for the first time, a Hero.

Sources cited in links:

230.2 - Good News: SCOTUS refuses to hear challenge to gun control law

Good News: SCOTUS refuses to hear challenge to gun control law

Next up on the Good News front comes the fact that on December 7, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by gun nuts looking to overturn a city's gun control ordinance.

The law in question was enacted by Highland Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, in 2013. It bans various semi-automatic weapons, including well-known guns such as the AR-15 and AK-47, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of bullets. In April, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, which now with SCOTUS refusing to hear it becomes the last word on the law, which will remain in force.

Two members of the court, Clarence "Clarabell" Thomas and Antonin "Skeletor" Scalia, said the justices should have taken the case, with Thomas claiming that the fact that semi-automatic rifles are popular is all that's required for them to be exempt from such laws and that by not taking the case, the court was "relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

Clarabell once opined that guards who hog-tied an inmate on the floor and beat him, leaving him with loosened teeth, facial bruises, and a cracked dental plate, had not engaged in cruel and unusual punishment. If only he was as devoted to the other amendments as he is to the Second.

Sources cited in links:

230.1 - Good News: Abortion restriction found unconstitutional

Good News: Abortion restriction found unconstitutional

Getting back in gear (and with thanks for those who sent good thoughts) with some Good News, it seems that on November 20, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Wisconsin law that requires abortion providers to get admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, declaring it to be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to an abortion.

The ruling was not really a surprise, since during oral arguments the three-judge panel peppered the state's attorneys with questions that expressed significant doubt about the law. One, Judge Richard Posner, went so far as to say there was no rational basis for the law, provided no health benefits for women, and was clearly designed to close abortion clinics - which is precisely true on all three accounts.

The issue could come up before the Supreme Court, but traditionally - traditionally, anyway - the Court only steps in to resolve issues where different appellate-level courts have come to different decisions, which hasn't happened here. Six other states have seen their own similar laws challenged in court and those states have lost every time. Such things may seem like small victories in light of the ongoing and often-successful attacks on reproductive rights, but while they may be small they still are victories. And that makes them Good News.

Sources cited in links:

Left Side of the Aisle 230

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of December 19-16, 2015

Sorry for no show last week; I was felled by asthmatic bronchitis and thanks go to those who sent good wishes.

This week:

Good News: Abortion restriction found unconstitutional

Good News: SCOTUS refuses to hear challenge to gun control law

Hero Award: New York Daily News

Clown Award: Marco Rubio

Outrage of the Week: Prosecutors trying to let cop killer of Tamir Rice walk

Corporations and the rich are usually scumbags

Shredding of "The Commons"

Racism of Justice Antonin "Skeletor" Scalia

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

So sorry

So sorry for no posts this week. I have been felled by asthmatic bronchitis.

Yes, it's getting better and I hope - emphasize "hope" because my wife keeps giving me dirty looks when I raise the possibility - to have a show done and some stuff up this week.

Friday, November 27, 2015

229.2 - The source-based story of the "First Thanksgiving"

The source-based story of the "First Thanksgiving"

Speaking of being thankful, this show is on the week after Thanksgiving, so it seemed the right time to engage in what has become for me sort of a yearly tradition, where I say gather 'round, kiddies, I'm going to tell you the real story, the based-on-actual-historical-sources story, of the first thanksgiving. By which, of course, I mean the event that occurred in what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts in the fall of 1621 which is the basis of our now-traditional thanksgiving holiday.

One of the reasons I do this every year is that it is truly amazing just how much misinformation, mythology, and general muddle-headedness there is out there on this topic and I like to try to bring some hard historical reality to the discussion.

I had thought of skipping it this year because there are so many other topics to cover from xenophobia and racism to war fever to global warming to new developments on things I’ve talked about in the past such as civil asset forfeiture and tasers and a lot more.

What convinced me to do this instead is that I sat down to watch a heavily-hyped special on NatGeo channel about the voyage of the Mayflower and the establishment of Plymouth in 1620.

The fact that it was called by the ahistorical name "Saints and Strangers" gave me pause, but it was supposed to have been researched carefully, so I was looking forward to it.

Literally and I do mean literally within the first two minutes there were at least four clear historical errors, at least two of them significant. At that point I gave up and decided that yes, I would do this again since it appears there is still cause.

So to start our Thanksgiving tale, consider this:
Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruits of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And though it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.
That comes from a letter dated December 11, 1621. It was written to a "loving and old friend" in England by Edward Winslow, a Mayflower passenger and a leader in the early years of the colony. It was contained in a book published in England in 1622 under the rather ponderous title of A Relation or Journal of the beginning and proceedings of the English Plantation settled at Plimoth in New England, by certain English Adventurers both Merchants and others.

The book is popularly known today by the less cumbersome name of Mourt's Relation and consists of eyewitness accounts of various events during the first year of the settlement.

Here's why that letter is important here: It is the only contemporaneous account of what we know as the "First Thanksgiving" which is known to exist.

The only other even near-contemporaneous account comes from William Bradford, long-time governor of the settlement, who wrote about it in his journal at least 10 to 12 years later. Even there he just sort of brushes by it, endorsing Winslow by referring to "not feigned but true reports."
They now began to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses against the winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took in good store, of which every family had its portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which made many afterwards write so large of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.
That's it. That's all of it. That's what the entire "First Thanksgiving" story is built on. Everything else is speculation, interpretation, and guesswork, some of it informed, all too much of it not.

Some things we can tell from the accounts: For one thing, based on other references in those same sources, we know that the event took place after September 18 and before November 9. Mostly likely, it was in late September or the beginning of October, as that would have been shortly after harvest.

In considering the event, the first thing to realize is that this was not a "thanksgiving." In the period, a thanksgiving was a religious occasion, a day set aside for prayer to give thanks to God for some special and unexpected blessing.

The first public day of thanksgiving in the town actually came in the summer of 1623: A crop-threatening drought had lead to a day of "humiliation," a day of fasting and prayer to beg forgiveness for whatever they had done to cause God to bring this on them. Literally immediately after, the same day, there came a soaking rain which saved the crops and so a day of thanksgiving seemed appropriate.

So no, this was not a thanksgiving. Such days would occur occasionally as the cause arose; to plan for one in advance, much less to plan for one every year as we do now, would be regarded as a gross presumption on God's will and intentions.

What this was instead was a very traditional, very secular, English harvest feast, a celebration of a good harvest to which it was customary to invite those who had been helpful to you over the course of the year (which is very likely why the natives, who had indeed been helpful, were there). True, the settlers didn't have a good harvest - Bradford describes it as "small" - but they had a harvest. That surely raised everyone's spirits: It indicated they were going to make it. Reason enough for a celebration, especially considering what they had been through so far.

I want to make a quick aside to explain a rather subtle point more clearly: Europeans of the 17th century - especially the more religiously-conservative sorts, such as those that lead the Plimoth (as it was often spelled at the time) settlement - did not make the sort of clear distinctions between what is "religious" and what is "secular" that we do today. The sense of, a feeling of an awareness of, the "hand of God" or the "will of God" was much more central to their lives than it is to the vast majority of us now.

What that means here is that the 1621 harvest feast would surely have included prayers of thanks to God and perhaps a sermon from their religious leader, Elder William Brewster, as significant features of the event, just as prayer would have been a frequent feature of their everyday lives, from meals to musket drills to mucking about in their fields, tending the crops. However, they would not have regarded this as "a day of thanksgiving" as they understood the term: While the prayers would have been significant features of the event, they would not have been the central features; not the purpose, not the point, not the driver behind it. Celebration was, feasting was.

Put another way, had we been able to witness the 1621 feast, to our modern eyes there would very likely have been more than enough praying, giving thanks, and singing of psalms and hymns to make it look like a religious or at least religiously-inspired event, but to a person of the 17th century it would have looked about as secular as such a thing got.

Anyway, back to our story. As for the eternal question of what they ate, we can confident they had fowl such as duck or goose (as the governor "sent four men on fowling" in preparation) and yes, quite possibly turkey ("of which they took many," Bradford said) They very likely also had fish, specifically cod and bass, and quite possibly deer.

Another aside: I say "quite possibly" to raise the issue of using historical sources without running too far ahead of them, a sin of which too many of the revisionist accounts are guilty: Even though Winslow says the natives "went out and killed five deer, which they ... bestowed on our governor ... and others" we can't tell if those deer were brought soon enough to be butchered, dressed, and presented as part of the feast or if they were brought afterward as a sort of thank you, a reciprocal gift in return for having been "feasted" for three days. Bradford's mention of venison doesn't resolve things because in the period, "venison" meant "hunted meat," which obviously includes deer but isn't limited to it. So while they quite probably had deer, either from the natives or their own hunting or both, we can't say it definitively.

Edward Winslow
Getting back to the menu, lobster and other shellfish is another real possibility; elsewhere in the letter that I quoted Winslow mentions that they are abundant in the area - as are eels, of which, he claims, they could take "a hogshead in a night." If you think "eels, eew," know that an English person of the period would have responded "They're just another sort of fish." (A hogshead is a cask holding about 63 gallons of liquid. Yeah, Winslow was likely exaggerating; he was like that.)

By the way, that portrait of Edward Winslow was done in 1651, 30 years  later, after he had returned to England. It is the only verified picture of a Mayflower passenger known to exist. As for the rest of them, we have no idea what they looked like beyond the traditional description of Myles Standish as short with red hair, a description given some backing by the fact that in a book called The New English Canaan, a nasty satire of the Plimoth settlement written in 1637 by Thomas Morton, Standish is identified by the name "Captain Shrimpe."

Beyond that, we can reasonably argue for some others foods such as a sort of pie made from squash from their gardens, sweetened with dried fruit which they would have brought with them from England, salad from other stuff from their gardens, and a sort of coarse corn bread. Water would have been the major and perhaps the only beverage: Their supply of barley would be limited (Winslow says the "English grains," which would mean such as wheat, rye, and oats as well as barley, "grew indifferent good") and there is no mention of hops. No hops, no beer; no much barley, not much ale. Even if they did have some barley, there may well would not have been enough time for brewing since harvest. And while they did bring beer with them on the voyage, it is highly unlikely that there was any significant amount of that left nearly a year later. So they might have had a little ale or even maybe a little wine brought from England and reserved for a special occasion, but again is was likely mostly water.

So that is pretty much it, pretty much everything we know or can reasonably assume about the event. Not much to build a whole mythology on, is it?

Even so, it drove the pap we got fed as children, marked by images of picnic tables laden with turkey, mashed potatoes, and apple pies surrounded by natives dressed like they just came from the great plains and smiling "Pilgrims" dressed in the fashions of the 1690s.

And that same sparseness of detail - and one of the reasons I go through this every year - is probably a good part of the reason the event provides so much latitude to those who want to replace the childhood (and childish) image of noble settlers and savage natives with one of noble natives and savage settlers, who every year, regular as clockwork, treat us to the historical revisionism that has become as traditional as turkey and cranberry sauce. In place of the happy talk mythologies of peace, love, and harmony we were spoon-fed as children we find people snarling out dark tales of drunken, murderous, bloodthirsty settlers facing off with natives "crashing the party" at the feast and doing it in such numbers because Massasoit feared he'd be kidnapped or killed otherwise. It is a vision that, as much as the earlier one, is an attempt to overwrite history with ideology. It is, in other words, pure bunk.

In point of historical fact, relations between Plymouth and the neighboring natives were reasonably good for several decades. There were stresses and strains and disruptions, yes, but for the most part they managed to keep intact the peace agreement-mutual defense pact they made in the spring of 1621.

Things gradually got worse and I won't go into all the reasons why but the biggest two were population pressure and disputes over land that were rooted in vast cultural differences between the natives and the English. The native culture had no concept of land ownership. Not just they didn't own the land or that everyone owned the land, or the Great Spirit owned the land; no, the idea of land as something you could possess just didn't exist. To own something, for the natives, meant you could pick it up and carry it away with you. How could you own something if you have to leave it behind anytime you go anywhere? Which makes real sense, especially for a semi-nomadic people who live in one area for part of the year and another area the rest of the year. But for the settlers, for any European, land ownership was an everyday concept. That cultural chasm was a source of repeated conflict.

The peace finally, irrevocably, completely broke down - but that was in 1675, more than 50 years after the so-called "First Thanksgiving." The point here is that at that time, in the fall of 1621, native-settler relations were good.

In fact, the very next sentences of the Winslow letter I quoted above are these:
We have found the Indians very faithful in their covenant of peace with us; very loving and ready to pleasure us. We often go to them, and they come to us; some of us have been fifty miles by land in the country with them.
Winslow also says that all the other native leaders in the vicinity have made peace with Plymouth on the same terms as Massasoit, as a result of which, he asserts, "there is now great peace amongst the Indians themselves, which was not formerly." He goes on to say that:
We for our parts walk as peaceably and safely in the wood as in the highways in England. We entertain them familiarly in our houses, and they as friendly bestowing their venison on us. They are a people without any religion or knowledge of God, yet very trusty, quick of apprehension, ripe-witted, just.
(Just to be certain you know, "trusty" means trustworthy, not trusting, and "quick of apprehension" does not mean quick to be apprehensive. It means quick to understand, quick to grasp the meaning of something. As for "religion," in his later book Good News from New England Winslow says "therein I erred" and goes on the describe the native religion, as least as he understands it.)

That does not sound either like bloodthirsty settlers eager to kill natives or like natives who feared contact with those same settlers or felt they had to display mass force to avoid being kidnapped or killed. If you're still not convinced, consider that in June 1621, three or four months earlier, the town felt it necessary to send a message to Massasoit requesting that he restrain his people from coming to the settlement in such numbers. This is from Mourt's Relation, this is the message they sent to Massasoit.
But whereas his people came very often, and very many together unto us, bringing for the most part their wives and children with them, they were welcome; yet we being but strangers as yet at Patuxet, alias New Plymouth, and not knowing how our corn might prosper, we could no longer give them such entertainment as we had done, and as we desired still to do.
That's how "afraid" the natives were of the settlers.

Assigning the role of angel or demon to either side is trash: Neither of these peoples were either. Neither were saints, neither were devils.

So I reject the revisionist history, indeed I resent the revisionist history. I resent it first because it’s lousy history. It's based on ideology, not information; it looks to satisfy demands of politics, not of scholarship, and it is every bit as full of false tales and mythology as the nonsense and pap that we got fed as schoolchildren.

Plymouth in the fall of 1621 genuinely was a scene of peaceful and friendly relations, of good feeling, between English settlers and their nearest native neighbors. The "First Thanksgiving" was a moment of celebration when everyone on both sides, even if they were still wary each of the other, believed that yes, this was going to work out. That wasn’t going to happen; it was a false hope, even a foolish hope. It was brief enough moment, lasting by even a generous understanding no more than a few decades, and a rare enough moment in our nation's history of cruelty toward and genocide of the native peoples of this continent such that while "the First Thanksgiving" shouldn't be a source of happily-ever-after "why can't we all just get along" fairy stories, neither is there any need to co-opt it into the service of ideology-driven revisionism.

Because that moment of hope did exist. And frankly, I resent the attempts to strip away that one moment of hope in pursuit of a modern political agenda.

I remember a friend of mine some years ago talking about “the urge to find angelic forces in the world,” that is, the seeming need many of us have to fix on some group, some movement, some something that we can convince ourselves is utterly pure in its motives and behavior. In our attempts to find some better balance in our understanding of what was done to the natives of North America, the cruelties inflicted on them, the racism and bigotry which targeted them, too many of us in considering the “Pilgrims” of Plymouth have chosen to simply swap one mythology for a perhaps more satisfying but equally false one.

Balance, it seems, is still a long way off.

So anyway, I hope you enjoyed your Turkey Day, I hope you had time to spend with your family or friends or better yet both and I hope you can understand why I celebrate the day as an expression less of thankfulness for the past (or even the present) than as an expression of hope for the future. That hope, too, may prove as foolish as that of 1621, indeed these days I often think it is - but the blunt fact is, hope is also the one absolute, indispensable requirement for any effort to make that future a better one.

Sources cited in links:

229.1 - Rejecting Syrian immigrants is xenophobia

Rejecting Syrian immigrants is xenophobia

I would say I'm outraged, but I'm not. I'm frustrated and depressed. I said last week that the attacks in Paris had resulted in old questions - what do we do - getting old answers - more bombs.

But those aren't the only old answers we're hearing become louder by the day. No, we hear cries from a very old playbook, one we seem to refer back to whenever we feel pressed, a playbook of knee-jerk fear, a playbook of bigotry, a playbook of xenophobia, so that even when, decades later, we have the decency to feel at least embarrassed by what we did, we still turn right back to it every time some event somewhere turns us again into a nation of bed-wetters, sniveling about how all of "them" - whoever the current "them" may be - are all out to get us.

So we have seen calls for internment camps, we have seen proposals for a national database of all Muslims, for closing mosques, we have seen refugees compared to rabid dogs.

We have seen governors not only declare they will keep Syrian refugees out of their state, but at least one, Mike Pence of Indiana, has told a specific family, in effect, to get out - even though they have neither legal nor constitutional authority to do any of that.

And we have seen, most recently, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly pass a bill that has the single and deliberate intention of keeping Syrian refugees from entering the US by hardening the requirements for admission under the refugee resettlement program. Pres. Obama has proposed admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees under the program this fiscal year, a fraction of the hundreds of thousands Europe is dealing with but still 10,000 too many for the bigots and mouth-breathers of the US House.

And - you need to know this - this bill was passed with the help of 47 Democrats, including several who would claim to be liberals, who voted for this piece of bigoted, xenophobic trash.

One way they'll justify this, you can be sure, is claiming that their constituents want it - although what their constituents want never seems to matter when the interests of a rich donor are involved. According to a recent Bloomberg poll, 53 percent of Americans - although it seems odd to call them Americans when they seem to have forgotten what America is supposed to be about - but 53% want the resettlement plans be stopped and another 11%, really letting their bigotry hang out, said the program should continue but only admit Christian Syrian refugees.

Oh, but it's all for "security," we'll be told. It's all for "protection" because some terrorist might slip in among the refugees. We don't want to keep them out, we just want to make sure that there are no terrorists among them!

Anyone who tells you that is either lying through their teeth or has no idea what they are talking about. There is no third option.

The refugee resettlement program involved here has been going on for about 40 years. Over 3 million refugees have been resettled in the US and not one of them has ever committed a terrorist act against the US.

Terrorists coming in? Seriously? Are you really going to argue that Daesh is going to try to bring in terrorists through a program with background checks so extensive that it takes 18 months to 2 years to get through them and which already turns away half of applicants? Seriously?

Gov. Dannel Malloy
Which is why that House bill has nothing to do with security and everything to do with blind panic - along with, I strongly suspect, some making use of that panic for their own political and ideological ends.

The only upside I can find here is that Sen. Harry Reid says that bill will not pass the Senate and whatever his faults and they are many, he knows how to count.

Oh, and that family that effectively got kicked out of Indiana? They resettled in Connecticut, where they were personally greeted by Gov. Dannel Malloy, calling accepting them "morally the right thing to do."

They say be thankful for small favors, and these really are small in the face of the sweeping waves of brain-dead paranoia rushing across our nation, but they are favors and so I will be thankful.

Sources cited in links:

Left Side of the Aisle #229

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of November 26 - December 2, 2015

This week:

Rejection of Syrian refugees is xenophobia

The "first Thanksgiving"

Sunday, November 22, 2015

228.5 - Footnote: Vigilers in French city of Lille drive away right-wing xenophobes

Footnote: Vigilers in French city of Lille drive away right-wing xenophobes

Just as a footnote to that: The day after the Paris attacks, hundreds of people attended a silent vigil in the French city of Lille.

About 15 minutes into the vigil, it was interrupted by a group of around 15 people claiming to be supporters of the National Front, a far-right political party lead by notorious anti-immigrant bigot Marine le Pen.

The group set off firecrackers and screamed "Expel Islamists" while unfurling a large banner with the same message.

They got more than they bargained for: The crowd turned on them, shouting "Go away fascists." The fascists were forced back across the square and had to leave under the protection of police, who kept things from getting too far out of hand.

After they had gone, the crowd broke its silence to sing the French national anthem La Marseilleise.

Frankly, I would love to see an occasion where our sick 31, those governors who want to deny Syrian immigrants a chance to enter, get treated the same way as their cousin xenophobes were in Lille.

Sources cited in links:

228.4 - Outrage of the Week: using the Paris attacks to close the door to Syrian refugees

Outrage of the Week: using the Paris attacks to close the door to Syrian refugees

Now for one of our regular features. This is the Outrage of the Week.

I mentioned a few minutes ago the weaponization of grief. Closely related to that, of course, is the weaponization of fear. And we are seeing that in full bloom as well over half the nation's governors - 31 as of the time I'm preparing this, the night of November 17 - have called on the federal government to stop admitting Syrian refugees. Most of those governors, all but one of them GOppers, have promised to do everything in their power to prevent such refugees from being settled in their particular state.

While most of the states involved are from the traditionally so-called red states of the south and the plains, they do include even some blue states such as Massachusetts and New Jersey.

This is driven, it shouldn't be necessary to say, by plain old-fashioned bigoted xenophobia with a side order of specifically Islamophobia.

None of this anti-immigrant frothing arose now, of course, immigrants, even legal ones, have been a favorite punching bag of the right and the nativists for decade upon decade. But now there is a new claim, a new way to dog-whistle your rejection of immigrants, documented or otherwise, without admitting that's what you are doing:

Example of anti-immigrant cartoon
Every one of these governors cited the terrorist attacks in Paris. Every one of them warned darkly of terrorists sliding in among the immigrants to bring desolation to our shores. The argument for this is based essentially entirely on a Syrian passport found on or near one of the suicide bombers.

That passport was traced back to a crossing into Greece and proved to be either a copy or a forgery when police in Serbia arrested a man with a passport identical to the other in every way except for the photo.

So it certainly appears that the passport was a fake, which is not surprising considering the active trade in fake passports and other documents among people trying to get out of Syria. But this one, it appears on available evidence, was used by someone somehow connected to ISIS to get into France.

So why is the argument of the governors still such bullshit?

For one thing, the passport itself is a red flag. The migration correspondent for The Guardian said that "analysts find it strange that a bomber would remember to bring his passport on a mission, particularly one who does not intend to return alive." More pointedly, Charlie Winter, an analyst focusing on Islamist extremism, tweeted
Why would a jihadist who expressly rejects all notions of modern citizenship take his passport on a suicide mission? So it gets found.
Which makes real sense in the context of an observation by Iyad El-Baghdadi, an activist who keeps and reviews a private Twitter list of around 200-300 Jihadist accounts. He tweeted that:
You know what pissed off Islamist extremists the most about Europe? It was watching their very humane, moral response to the refugee crisis.
That is, the passport was used and brought to the scene of the attacks specifically so it would be found for the precise purpose of provoking exactly the reaction that our jackass governors have had: paranoia and suspicion about all Syrian refugees with the intent of driving a wedge between them and the West, to convince those trying to flee that there is nowhere to go, that the West will never accept them, that they have nowhere to go except the imaginary caliphate.

The heinous attacks in Paris had nothing to do with Syrian refugees. Not a damn thing.

The suspected "mastermind" behind the attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is a French citizen. At least five of the eight suspected militants are French or Belgian nationals. Even French president Francois Hollande said the attacks had been "planned in Syria, organized in Belgium, perpetrated on our soil with French complicity."

As for the US resettlement program the governors are demanding be stopped, the Obama administration plans to admit just 10,000 Syrian refugees this fiscal year as compared to the hundreds of thousands coming into Europe. What's more, those 10,000 will have to get through security screenings that typically take 18 to 24 months. And the resettlement program, which has been going on for about 40 years and has resettled more than 3 million people here, has never seen one of them commit a terrorist act.

These - I can't think of what to call them that is fit for air - these scumbags, these foul, ugly, venomous, toads occupying and defiling the governors' mansions of the nation, panderers to the bigotry of nativism, more interested in a self-serving soundbyte than in what is good in our nation's heritage, ready to throw the huddled masses yearning to breathe free back into the maelstrom of desperation and war rather than offend some right-wing donor, ready to feed our fears and muzzle our morality, they are contemptible. They are despicable. They are an outrage.

Sources cited in links:

228.3 - Considering the attacks in Paris

Considering the attacks in Paris

Okay, we have to talk about Paris.

On Friday, November 13, terrorists who appear to be connected to Daesh, or ISIS, killed 129 people and wounded hundreds more in a series of attacks involving suicide bombers and, more deadly, automatic weapons and explosives aimed at crowds of people at sidewalk cafes and at the Bataclan theater.

Daesh has claimed responsibility for the carnage, even though there remain questions about how much the plan was controlled from Syria as opposed to organized locally and so how much was ideologically rather than organizationally driven.

That distinction, of course, does not matter to the dead and wounded, nor does it matter to their families and friends. Nor should it. Nor should it, except as part of some overriding political calculation, matter to any of the rest of us.

What matters is the pain and the suffering and the blood and the death. More death. More blood. More suffering. More pain.

As always happens, as is natural to happen, the first question that arises is "why?" Why did this happen? And the answer to that question, an answer thought through to get past the simplistic, is important because it can direct us toward an answer to the bigger, more important, question: what now?

But the first thing to do, the very first, even if it's only for a short time, the first thing to do is mourn. To mourn and to condemn the attackers, who, no matter how many injustices real or imagined they may cite in their defense, are still responsible for their actions and they are still cowardly murders.

And then, after, we can ask why. There are, of course, lots of official officials and expert experts already making statements and sopping up ink and air time with answers that run the gamut from "they hate us" to "they are fanatics" and back again as if such a puny range represented thoughtful thought and analytical analysis.

Instead of speculating on why they hate us or dismissing the question with some version of "haters gonna hate," how about we ask them? Writing in The Nation recently, Lydia Wilson, field director at Artis International, which she described as a consortium for scientific study in the service of conflict resolution, described her experience of questioning ISIS members who had been taken prisoner:
Many [people] assume that these fighters are motivated by a belief in the Islamic State, a caliphate ruled by a caliph. ... But this just doesn't hold for the prisoners we are interviewing. They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate. ...

There is no question that these prisoners I am interviewing are committed to Islam; it is just their own brand of Islam, only distantly related to that of the Islamic State. Similarly, Western fighters traveling to the Islamic State are also deeply committed, but it’s to their own idea of jihad rather than one based on sound theological arguments or even evidence from the Qur'an.
In other words, it is not a commitment to any radical Islam that drives them. That's a judgment seconded by Doug Stone, a retired American general who spent over two years in Iraq during the US occupation, interviewing prisoners on a daily basis. He said that 80 percent of the prisoners he interviewed had the same profile as the ISIS prisoners Wilson saw: men in their late 20s who had come to age during the US occupation of Iraq and had the same complaint, that the US invaded, threw out Saddam, and it lead to civil war, leaving them, as Sunnis, oppressed and abandoned.

These men now are not driven by the idea of an Islamic caliphate; rather, ISIS is now the one group that offers them a way to defend - or at least a way to feel they are defending - their dignity, their family, their tribe.

How may times have I said it? ISIS, Daesh, grew out of disaffected Sunnis who felt abandoned and then betrayed by the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, a government that existed due to the United States. Maybe it's a step too far to say we created Daesh, but it's not too far to say we created the conditions in which it could take root and flourish.

And that points to the answer to the question "what now?" And the first, the most important, answer is what not to do: not to engage in what one writer pointedly called "the weaponization of grief," the turning of this crime into an excuse for other, additional, even greater crimes.

Beirut bombing
But of course, that's already what's happening, as French president Francois Hollande declares that France is now "at war" - as if France had not been bombing ISIS-held areas in Iraq and, more recently, Syria since last year. Old questions - what now - getting old answers: more bombs.

It won't work - that is, unless your goal is to, to slightly misquote Mark Twain, "drown the thunder of the bombs with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain," unless your goal is more senseless killing, more blood, more anger, more fury, more militants ready to die, ready to commit havoc on the innocent, ready for terror.

That new anger is already being generated by another event, just one day before the attacks in Paris: A pair of suicide bombers, who appear to have been sent by ISIS, blew themselves up in separate attacks in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. Forty-three people were killed, nearly 250 more wounded.

To the almost complete silence of the West. No Lebanese flags were flown, no cries of "We are all Lebanese now" streamed across social media, no buildings were lit in the red, white, and green of the Lebanese flag. Oh, it was reported, surely enough: For example, the New York Times carried one story. On page 6.

In response to the Paris attacks, the Times ran six stories the first day, three of them on the front page, two of them above the fold. There were 20 follow-up stories the next day, four of them on the front page. The day after that, there were 15 more follow-ups, again four of them on page 1. Forty-one stories in three days, 11 of them on the front page. One story on page 6 for Beirut.

Perhaps even more telling was the fact that in covering the terrorism in Paris, the Times headline was "Paris Terrorist Attacks Kill over 100." In covering the terrorism in Beirut, the single story on page 6 was initially headlined "Deadly Blasts Hit Hezbollah Area in Southern Beirut," later changed to "Hezbollah Stronghold." Hezbollah, as I expect you know, is regarded by the west as a terrorist group. Reuters, NPR, and MSNBC all joined in shouting "Hezbollah." This was despite the fact that the New York Times article itself says the neighborhood "typifies working-class Beirut, where Palestinians, Christians and Syrian refugees (mostly Sunnis) live, work and shop" and later calls it a "bustling area with narrow streets, many small shops and vendors selling fruits and vegetables from stalls and pushcarts."

Even Daesh, in claiming responsibility for the attacks, said the target was Shiite Muslims, who it views as apostates, and mentioned Hezbollah almost as an afterthought.

But no matter. Somehow, in the eyes of major western media, the presence of a Hezbollah office in the area made all those civilians disappear into a terrorist "stronghold." They became "other." Well, then, no wonder we couldn't be bothered to mourn them. Or even remember them, once someplace we think of as "us" was attacked.

Do you think people in the Middle East don't see that? You think they don't see that difference? You think they don't see that difference as demonstrating the West's indifference to what they live every day? You think that doesn't fuel anger, rage, fury?

How long can we keep making the same stupid mistakes? How long can we keep charging down the same blind alleys? How long can we tell ourselves that - Democrats' version - a little more bombing or - GOPpers' version - a lot more troops will do what bombing is failing to do in Syria, what 140,000 troops failed to do in Iraq, what 100,000 troops failed to do in Afghanistan?

We've got to find another way. We've got to take another way. It has been said, quite truthfully, that those who deal in vengeance tend to become that which they oppose. So we have got to stop imagining that vengeance, that "get them back" is the answer or even an answer. We have got to find the courage to say we will not be terrorized, we will not be afraid, we will not be intimidated, but we will not become what we oppose. We will not become, or, if I'm to be completely honest here, we will stop being, terrorists.

No, that won't be easy and no, it won't be safe. But the hard truth is that while you can kill terrorists, you can't kill terrorism, as the recent history of the Taliban to al-Qaeda to Daesh should have taught us but has yet to do so. Terrorism can't be killed and ultimately it can't be bombed or invaded into submission except at most temporarily. It can only be overcome by being dried up, desiccated to the point of, like Voldemort in the movie version, turning to dust and blowing away - and that requires not attacks but aid, not ultimatums but understanding, not bombs but bread; it requires, bottom line, justice. It requires acting with justice - and not the kind of "justice" that is just a code word for vengeance, for "get them back," for tit for tat, but true justice. It requires acting justly, even when it's not convenient, even when it's inconvenient.

The dead everywhere deserve no less of an honor.

Sources cited in links:
// I Support The Occupy Movement : banner and script by @jeffcouturer / (v1.2) document.write('
I support the OCCUPY movement
');function occupySwap(whichState){if(whichState==1){document.getElementById('occupyimg').src=""}else{document.getElementById('occupyimg').src=""}} document.write('');