(no subject)

I'm not even going to try to catch up with two and a half days worth of stuff on my friend's list. If there is something important that you posted this weekend that you want me to see, please comment with a link.

waging war and calling it peace

The Bush Administration and some in the GOP are using the Katrina disaster to push for "reflection" on the Posse Comitatus Act. They argue that it became clear in the disaster's aftermath that the military has the best chance of providing effective disaster response.

( Read more... )

On another level, funds meant by Congress for the development of an effective New Orleans evacuation plan eight years ago went into a study for expanding the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway instead.

( Read more... )

Louisiana officials apparently bear some of the blame for that misdirection (thanks again to iq2hi4uok for the link), but it is hard to miss the overall pattern here, and the similarity it bears to what happened with the USAPATRIOT Act right after 9/11. Government fails in some way in response to a national disaster, and the solution is something that, just coincidentally, looks like another step towards totalitarian rule.

Now we see why the media played up images of looting and lawlessness in New Orleans which many survivors say were overblown. Now we see why FEMA was allowed to languish for years, why disaster evacuation plans for New Orleans were thwarted even when Congress dedicated money for them.

The Posse Comitatus Act has already been gutted, because now there is federal court precedent to allow indefinite military detentions of US citizens in the absence of criminal charges, thus denying the constitutional right to speedy trial.

With Congress, the courts (soon the Supreme Court) and the White House stacked with people who are actively supportive of rolling back Posse Comitatus, what is there at this point to stop the imposition of totalitarian rule? American culture is very strongly opposed to this sort of thing, but we've seen that it can happen anywhere, given enough fear.

One more major terrorist attack or major natural disaster and the United States as we know it is through.

"killing cannot be with Christ"

On Monday, March 17, St. Patrick's Day, four of us from the Ithaca Catholic Worker Community - Peter De Mott, who served in both the Marines and the Army including a year in Vietnam as a Marine, Clare and Teresa Grady and Daniel Burns - went to the Army-Marine Recruiting Center in an act of nonviolent civil resistance to war making. We read the following statement and poured blood around the entrance to the center, including on the flag, to call attention to the horror of war. It may seem strange. You may wonder -- why did they have to pour blood, why on the flag?...

...War is bloody. The blood we brought to the recruiting station was a sign of the blood inherent in the business of the recruiting station. Blood is a sign of life, which we hold to be precious, and a sign of redemption and conversion, which we seek as people of this nation. The young men and women who join the military, via that recruiting station, are people whose lives are precious. We are obligated, as citizens of a democracy, to sound an alarm when we see our young people being sent into harm's way for a cause that is wholly unjust and criminal. Blood is a potent symbol of life and death.

Blood is the sacred substance of life, yet it is shed wantonly in war. As Catholics, when we receive the Eucharist, we acknowledge our oneness with God and the entire human family. We went to the recruiting center using what we have - our bodies, our blood, our words, and our spirits - to implore, beg, and order our country away from the tragedy of war and toward God's reign of peace and justice.

from The March 17, 2003 Action of the "Saint Patrick's Four"

The four argued that their actions were legal because the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Because the United Nations had not approved the invasion of Iraq, the invasion was a series of serious illegal acts that constitute war crimes. And, under the Nuremberg Principles of international law, individuals have international rights and duties to prevent crimes against humanity which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state.

They further argued that if their actions were indeed illegal, they were authorized under the defense of necessity because the harm they caused was far smaller than the harm they were trying to prevent. They talked with the jury about Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, and the Boston Tea Party. They reminded us, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, that everything done by supporters of Hitler in Germany was illegal, it was only those who tried to stop him who were violating the law.

After twenty hours of deliberation, the jury locked up 9-3 to acquit them. As the jury was released, the crowded courtroom gave them a thunderous standing ovation. The power of the people to present their views about justice had prevailed over narrow law. Later, the District Attorney announced he would not re-prosecute them, stating that he thought another jury trial would yield the same outcome.

Recently, however, the federal government jumped into the fray. Last week the St. Patrick's Four appeared in federal court in Binghamton, New York to be charged on four federal charges arising from the exact same action.

They are now charged with federal conspiracy "by force, intimidation, and threat" to impede an officer of the United States - a felony charge that carries punishment of up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine. They are also charged with criminal damage to property and two counts of trespass, charges punishable by up to an additional 2 years in prison.

from The St. Patrick's Four and Resistance to the War in Iraq

Their trial on these trumped-up federal charges starts today.

Today was the first time i'd ever heard of the Saint Patrick's Four. The news media are not reporting on them for the same reason that they were reluctant to say anything about the Pope's condemnation of the war on Iraq or of his criticism of Israel: namely, because the Chaliban desperately wants Catholics to vote Republican. Thinking they can sway American Catholics to vote GOP because they agree on abortion, they have to downplay the potentially more serious issue of disagreement over the war.

When i marched against the War in New Orleans in 2003, the only visibly Christian group with us was Pax Christi. Catholic opposition to the war is a serious threat to the Chaliban, who want to present Christianity as a united force.

(no subject)

I am constantly fascinated by the way perceptions of my gender shift depending on my circumstances and context. I am also interested to note that, mystif-style, the way i move and speak shifts subtly to match those perceptions, probably a survival tactic.

During my recent trip to Niagara Falls with lady_babalon and her kid, i was frequently taken as male. I guess that to people who saw the three of us, we looked like a normal, middle-class, heterosexual family. People were nicer than usual. lady_babalon noted that it felt vaguely dishonest to benefit from that perception, even though we did nothing to encourage it (other than actually being a family).

This weekend, during my trip to Vermont with cowgrrl i was frequently taken as female. As in Niagara Falls i didn't do anything special to promote one gender perception or another, wearing tee-shirt, jeans, and sneaker, and no makeup. Without a kid and with some age difference between us, and perhaps being in what we suspect was a gay vacation enclave (if so, a very closeted one, but not without hints), people just saw us as two women on vacation together.

(no subject)

( that interesting political quiz everyone's taking, with totally non-surprising results inside )