the best resistance

Die beste Art sich zu wehren, ist sich nicht anzugleichen.
–Marc Aurel (121-180)





The best form of resistance, is not to adapt.

King for a Day

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. –Dr. Martin Luther King

These words and others like them (taken from Dr. King's letter from a Birmingham jail) were words read this morning by the congregation where I attend church services. I decided to copy the wording from the hymnal before leaving but forgot because an amazing singer, Desiree Roots Senteio, had sung for us. I had to stop and thank her for sharing her vibrant voice. So, when I got home I searched the web for "mutuality" and "king" and found a number of sites, none of which quote the letter as it was written, but which, like the reading in my church hymnal, have combined a collection of inspiring sentences from that letter into a couple of paragraphs. (The link from the title of this entry goes to the full letter.)

I have a memory of seeing Dr. King on a black and white television giving his "I have a Dream" speech. I remember how strong and vibrant his words were. "I have a dream..." When I heard him and saw him my heart said "At last!" At last someone was brave enough to stand up with strength and compassion against the tide of corrupt prejudice. At last someone had the skill to lead with bravery and idealism instead of with anger and violence.

I've heard the question before, in school (where I was asked to write an essay), "What would the world be like if you were king?" Well, what would it be like?

beauty or something like it

I'm listening/watching Leonard Bernstein deliver a lecture about "The Poetry of the Earth" in 1992. I picked it up at the library (VHS tape!) to learn something about poetry. And I have. I've also learned something about music and trends across artistic endeavors.

Bernstein breaks down and analyzes the combinations of phrases that make up a composition. Finally, after about 45 minutes, he talked about poetry in relation to music which actually was quite enlightening but also raised my hackles against formula. By breaking down how music and poetry are put together, he constructs a formula for what is appealing or beautiful.

It's okay that formulas are found and used. It's not okay when the formulas become standards—when only creative works that fit the formula are right, okay, acceptable or beautiful. It's interesting to discover how my experience of beauty breaks down and knowing that might even help me find other beautiful things to enjoy. That knowledge also tends to make a box that I then, somehow, feel compelled to live in.

I now recognize that sometimes I search for understanding so that I can have a short cut to creativity. I take the short cut at the risk of losing my own sense of beauty and limiting my creative flow. There is no easy way to manifest art. There's no one right way. Creating is an experience. Experiencing beauty is a subjective act—not something someone can tell you how to do. Nor can someone else tell you what is beautiful.

Beauty, like Truth, may not exist or, if it does, has a purpose that has nothing to do with yardsticks.

The U.S. is not at war

While traveling back from Cancun, I heard an interview on the plane "radio" with a lawyer in New York who stated that George Bush has taken the U.S. back to pre-Magna Carta days. Deeply disturbed by this I have investigated if this is in fact the case. Apparently not. But I'm not a lawyer.

After reading the opinion of one of my senators, John Warner whose statement is obviously biased and who is a huge proponent of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), I googled the MCA and found a somewhat more even tempered opinion at Wikipedia. One of the references quoted there led me to Joanne Mariner, who is a lawyer (and a smart one presumably since she trained at Yale Law School and is a regular contributor to FindLaw's Writ) with a sobering, if mildly biased, opinion. Nonetheless, she points out the major flaws of the MCA and sees ways it can be misinterpreted.

After reading these sources, my opinion is the MCA does not give the president the right to try U.S. civilians in a military court, but it does allow him to grab any foreign national he considers a threat as he defines it. Excuse my limited imagination. King George does not wish to rule the U.S. He is preparing to rule the world. Almost everyone (except the defendant) who participates in the arrest, incarceration and trial must have a security clearance. This eliminates a lot of civilian lawyers and also makes it generally impossible for the defendant to learn what evidence there is against him (since it is classified).

"The recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate confirms that U.S. policies have spawned deep-seated Muslim resentment, and that terrorists are using this resentment to draw recruits." Joanne Mariner

The saying goes that you can catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Wouldn't it benefit us to be as friendly as possible with Arab and other Middle Eastern nations so that together we can find the unlawful extremists who turn to terrorism? The U.S. policy toward the Arab countries is (and has been) based on prejudice and a serious lack of understanding of cultural and local political information.

"As a result, detainees who have been tortured or otherwise mistreated are forever barred from going to a U.S. court to seek redress and to air what has happened to them." Joanne Mariner Loc cit

Seems to me, that passing a U.S. law that allows the President to capture foreign nationals and then hold them forever on foreign soil without access to any kind of fair trial or communication resources would be a great breach of international law. Is no one complaining? What about the UN? What about the European Union? Googling "Military Commissions Act" and "international law" I selected the transcript of a speech by John B. Bellinger, Legal Adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State as published by the Harvard International Law Journal online. Mr. Bellinger answers questions about the MCA on a regular basis and put together a pretty comprehensive summary of the main objections, which he lists:

"First, what is our detention authority to hold these people to begin with? Second, were we required to release them all after the war in Afghanistan seemed to end in 2002? Third, can we and do we have the legal authority to hold these detainees indefinitely without trial? Fourth, why not simply try them in our criminal courts? Fifth, are these military commissions unfair? And lastly, do we finally have it right, now?" John Bellinger

His answers seem fairly reasoned and stated without much bias. During war prisoners can be captured and held without recourse. He concludes that although the war on Afghanistan ended in 2002, the war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda is still going and therefore the U.S. is still at war.

"Now, the problem is that the current situation is obviously different from any kind of normal armed conflict because we do not know how long this war will continue." John B. Bellinger Loc cit

The solution is to keep a war going at all times and then the president can arrest any foreign national he chooses and detain them for an unlimited, unspecified time (and take advantage of his other special war privileges). This definition of "war" seems more like an analogy than an actual war. For example, we have the "war on drugs." Is this a war? No. Likewise I don't see the "war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda" as a war. It is a police action. It is a rounding up of loose ends following a sloppy dispatch of a gang of criminals harbored in the wilds of Afghanistan. Rules of war do not apply.

Likewise, I don't consider the "peacekeeping" occupation of Iraq as war. It is interference in the internal affairs of an independent nation. The U.S. should not be there and should get the troops out. If things don't go the way we think they should, then too bad. It's not our job to run other countries – especially if they don't have weapons of mass destruction aimed at King George's head.

scripts

While hanging out at Barnes and Noble looking for a self-help book and generally wasting time and relaxing, I opened a book to a statement that suggested getting over depression by giving up the scripts – the ones that we all inheirit from society and family and fairy tales and movies and stories. Because living those scripts is what makes you unhappy.

I spent some time years ago giving up dreams I had about how life should be. A couple of dreams were painful to give up because they were so nice and sweet. But they were never going to happen so there was no point in making myself miserable over them. Today I've been thinking about how my life would be without scripts. I know about expectations and how they can destroy a normally good experience for me. But the scripts thing is totally different somehow.

These words – scripts, dreams, expectations – are all descriptions of the same thing yet somehow each word lights up a different aspect of the meaning. Scripts bother me most because they are fixed and immutable. They are like tiny programs running my life for me. Without the scripts I see just what is in front of me. Not bad but I prefer the long view. Not sure what I'm going to do about that.

What you can become is the miracle you were born to be through the work that you do. – Kurt Vonnegut
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living somone else's life. – Steve Jobs

Forget what you know. Trust where you would not.

On days like today I'd prefer to write poems about why tomatoes don't like being wrapped up in plastic rather than get ready for work. There's a poem there, you know.

Yesterday I wrote what's below. That led to the title you see above. I know how I got there. I do it all the time. Do you know how I got there?

---

An Actor's Choices
Actors discover, easily or uneasily, that who they are and what they feel are what keeps them in work. They learn that pulling up something from inside themselves and projecting it is what others come to see. It's a powerful realization. As they practice and master themselves (and characters like them) they can move on to work that lets them become someone else. They still use who they are and what they feel but recombine it into someone they are not and would never be. A different choice is to use this opportunity to project idealized or perfected images of themselves (through the scripted character). Acting is an art form and a lot of work -- even for "naturals."

A lucky actor or actress (thespian) will get to choose a good a script from many offers instead of having to look really hard for just one. There are many variations on "good." There's good emotionally, good for skill development, good for publicity, good for the company, instinctively good, etc. Hopefully the good will be in all areas. That's the ideal choice.

There comes a time when the thespian discovers limits and fears. Some accept these limits. Others see them as challenges and put themselves continually in the way of opportunities to face their fears and push their limits. Some are successful. Some are moderately successful and some fail miserably. Some lose their instincts in the process. Some their feeling. Some decide they were never any good to begin with and leave the profession. Some keep battling, digging a deeper and deeper pit until they find themselves trapped.

Of those who see their limits, some think they are facing their fears when, actually, they are merely increasing their skill at facing a previously overcome fear and using that activity to avoid facing a real fear. For example, an actor who has a fear of being overcome by the publicity machine and also a fear of hatred. He has worked for years to master his fear of hatred by playing many hateful characters. Rather than facing his fear of the publicity machine by starring in large mainstream films, he will take on more roles that let him face down hatred over and over again. So, the actor feels like he's really having at it when he is not. (Nothing looks more attractive to me than doing the dishes when it is time to edit my novel.)

---

Something doesn't feel right, but there it is anyway.

The Best 20 Years of Your Life (A Cautionary Tale)

A few years ago as I was standing in line at the post office I had a serious epiphany. It was a rainy day. I was more than damp. I was next in line. The clerk suddenly reached behind the counter and proffered an umbrella with a big smile on his face.

"Here. Take this," he said holding it up in my direction. I beamed a smile at him (thinking it had been a long time since anyone had shown such kindness) but before I could do anything I heard a voice behind me. I turned around to see a young, beautiful woman animatedly talking to the clerk (who was about 20 years older than her and had a pot belly for heavens sake). At that moment I took an entirely new view of my past.

I had gone blissfully through my younger days thinking of myself as one of the luckier people on earth. My life went well and many things fell into place. Others were kind and caring. Life was good. I wondered sometimes about the harsh attitudes of some others I saw in the distance but decided they were just that way. I seldom worried too terribly much about anything as someone was always there to take care of things. Often just what I needed arrived at just the right moment. Clerks were kind to me. Men spoke gently with me.

I'm sure I was lucky. I'm pretty sure I have some people skills (on a face-to-face basis) that can soothe the troubled beast and bring out the best in others. I know I'm capable of avoiding some of the obstacles many blunder into and that I'm better than some at getting out of snarls.

But ...

The real reason my younger life went so well was that I was young and beautiful (or at least strikingly attractive). As I have looked back since that day, I have understood that puzzling behavior of my ex-husband when we entered a crowded room. I understand now why others suddenly turned their heads, swiveled their eyes in my direction and often smiled. I understand why it was so easy for me to find a man willing to love me. I see now that my easy ride through many situations was greased by biology and youth. I'm now able to translate those expressions I once saw on women when I entered a group for the first time. I know why many of them later softened because I was unaware of my effects and because I was nice. Oh, I knew I wasn't ugly. But I figured I looked okay, you know, just okay.

Undoubtedly some of you women are snorting and clicking on to other more significant pages. But that was me, unaware, coasting through life without a second thought. That's just the way life worked – in my favor.

My advice to those of you in this predicament is take advantage of your assets. Parlay the good will of others into opportunities to build skills you can use later when you are old(er) and less attractive. Build your brains and develop useful talents because some day you will lose your looks and need to stand on your merits alone. Gone will be the kind drivers willing to hold the bus for you, forgiving policemen will vanish and men will be a lot harder to come by. Like me, you may wonder where you luck has gone. On the plus side, women will be miraculously easier to deal with. Although I have to admit, when surrounded by women in my same age group, I sometimes still get those looks.

Of course, my life wasn't totally charmed and I have had my share of grief, but that wonderful magical carpet ride is most definitely over. You take advantage of it while you can and good luck!

answers to v.m. - 102306

v.m. has posted some questions at Perceval Press, which I have the audacity to answer here.

Q: Do we have a relationship to anything that we do not immediately perceive?
A: Yes. We have creative imagination and memory to construct and reconstruct things. We also have relationships to things we do not perceive. This is unawareness.

Q: And in that moment of perception, do we remain ourselves, or do we, rather, become the connection itself, purely the vantage point we have in a given instant?
A: Both. Quantum mechanics teaches us that we change the thing we perceive. Surely the thing perceived changes us as well. The universe is a dialogue, not a static mirror. A connection entails at least two vantage points and the flow of the common perception(s) between them. We are the connection and the vantage point. How can we separate this? Should we? We are not only what we see, we are also all the things we have ever seen and what we were before we began seeing, which can be transformed by the seeing. We are also everything we have ever experienced and what we were before we began experiencing. Perception flows. Can we also be everything we have the potential to see and experience?

Q: Maybe the why, where, or when of things is irrelevant; only the what matters. Can we forget difference or desire that separates us and leaves us longing or repelled?
A: Perhaps, but if we forget that which separates us then we also forget that which connects us. If we forget our differences and desires we forget who we are. To what purpose? Being who we are is all there is. Longing or repulsion are not bad of themselves. It is what we transform them into and how we judge them that makes the snare.

Other solutions? Let me know.