Community Unity: Editorial

I have spent a good portion of my children's summer vacation pondering just what it is that we grownups are teaching our kids. It is not necessary to wait for a report card to know that we will receive a failing grade.

Our schools are an abysmal tragedy. Resistant to change, mired in regulations and grossly under-funded, they stand little chance of offering an environment where learning is fostered and valued. As Paul Kivel suggests in Boys Will Be Men: Raising Our Sons for Courage, Caring and Community, we teach our children to get ahead or get along rather than what is most needed, to get together.

But the schools are not to blame. Our educational institutions are part of a culture-wide system of disrespect and neglect of children. Here in the U.S., we have a system that does not put its money where its mouth is. As Marion Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund pointed out last year, for every $1.00 that President Bush proposed to spend on education, he proposed $40.00 in tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy.

Just before the war in Iraq started, the National Priorities Project estimated how much the war would cost per state, based on a $100 billion price tag for the war (a number that we now know will be much higher). In my own state of Kentucky, that number is $792,000,000. California would contribute the most--$10,159,000 in income taxes.

In President Bush's proposed budget for 2004, 34% of our income tax dollars are allotted for human resources, 47% is allotted for military expenses. It is sobering to realize that for the cost of one cluster bomb, Two children could be enrolled in Head Start. For the cost of 1 hour of war in Iraq, 20 schools could be repaired and modernized. The amount needed for one day of war would prevent cuts to education programs and the cost of one year of the nuclear weapons program would provide health care for 7 million children. What an irony that more is spent on defense than the defended.

And the defended are suffering, children most of all. While we are spending ourselves into previously unheard of national debt to fight 'terrorism' we are neglecting the very real needs of children. In this country today, 39% of the homeless are children, even though children comprise only 26% of the total population. Poverty among young children is 50% higher than the average two decades ago and substantially higher than in other western industrialized nations. Almost 20% of children in the United States under the age of 18 live in poverty. In addition, 7.2 million children in this country lack health insurance. That's a lot of children left behind.

Another huge area of concern is the toxins to which we expose our children every day. Although death rates from many cancers are going down, the incidence of cancer and other diseases (such as asthma and obesity) in children is going up. The likely culprit is a bi-product of modern society, toxic chemicals and pollution. There are now some 85,000 chemicals registered for commercial use with the EPA, only a few of which were even in existence in 1960. What is worrisome is that a large percentage of these chemicals have been approved without any safety testing, particularly as to their effects on children.

In addition, a substantial part of our diet now comes from genetically modified foods, foods grown from seeds containing pesticides and herbicides. We spray our lawns with these products as well. And not only are many of these chemicals linked to cancer, but they are also endocrine disrupters, causing premature puberty in girls and increasing testicular cancer and penile abnormalities in boys. Finally, in our homes, cafeterias and vending machines, we are routinely feeding our children junk food and drinks that contain ingredients known to have damaging effects on their health; ingredients such as aspartame, MSG, caffeine and sugar.

It also comes as no surprise that yet another study was just released that reports that only one in four 12th graders can write a proficient story or essay. The average child spends 1500 hours a year watching television but only 900 hours in school. Adding to that the time spent on computer and video games, it is no wonder that their academic performance is suffering.

More insidious are the obvious links between sedentary behavior and obesity and the connections between video violence and violent behavior. By the age of 18, the average American child sees 200,000 acts of violence on television, including 16,000 television murders. It has been well documented that children behave differently after seeing violent acts. They become less sensitive to the suffering of others, more fearful of the world around them and behave more aggressively towards others. When we are confronted with children whose behavior is a result of the physically and mentally toxic environments in which they are forced to live, our solution is frequently to prescribe controversial drugs such as Ritalin or Paxil (despite recent reports that the latter may actually cause suicidal behavior in children).

As every child knows, there is always a consequence for one's actions, a lesson we grownups seem to have forgotten. Despite all our blustering about security, we are raising a generation whose future is anything but secure. In too many respects, we are killing childhood. We need to make some large and immediate changes in values and actions. We need to recognize children as our most important asset and invest our resources accordingly. If we fail to do so, our children's future will become our greatest failure.

VIEW FROM THE STATE FAIR BOOTH BY GARY WATROUS

I worked at the Louisville Peace Action Community booth in the East Wing at the State Fair. Apparently the booth provided a much needed opportunity for people to talk about the War in Iraq. Here are some of the things they said:

"Is the war still going on?" …"Haven't we got that guy yet?" … "I supported the war then, but I don't now." …"I am a Republican, but I am going to wear this anti-war button." … "I don't vote." … "I'll vote for any Democrat, just as long as we can remove Bush."

Two teenage girls were moved by the pictures of wounded children in Iraq hospitals. They asked, "Did we do that to them? Here in America we don't even feel like there is a war going on and look at how it is for those children...IT'S NOT FAIR!"

One gentleman who work at Fort Knox said, "I was given three days to decide to hire on with Kellogg, Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, of which our Vice President own a big piece -- or lose my higher paying civil service job."

A booth worker asked a middle-aged woman, "Are you interested to know where the weapons of mass destruction are?" She replied, "No -- what I really want to know is where the booth with the permanent lipstick is."

Most people who stopped by the booth were against the war and President Bush. Many saw the war as Bush's war and not theirs. Many admitted that they found it difficult to talk about the war even with friends. Some shared their fears about what this war has done to our country.

Some expressed support for Bush and the war saying, …"I'm for war." … " Bush is a man of God and so am I; that's why I support the war." …" Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack, so we had to take him out." … " I'm into murder and killing."

We could not persuade this pro-war group that there was no link between Saddam and 9/11. They seem unconcerned that weapons of mass destruction have not been found. They were secure in their beliefs.

Overall the booth was an uplifting experience for me. I was pleased to learn their were so many solid Americans who had grave misgivings about our occupation of Iraq.

Gary Watrous is a Louisville Solar Architect and a member of LPAC who worked at the State Fair Booth this year.

The patriarchal reality of war is blatantly reflected in the staged photo opportunities that are daily paraded in front of us. Men shaking hands, men shaking fists; the decision-makers of war. Except for a few very visible tokens, the voices and lives of women are trivialized, if not simply cropped out of the scene altogether, and this is the crux of the problem. The needs, concerns and wisdom of women are literally not seen as being as important as those of men. When they are seen at all, women are relegated
to supporting roles, wives and sweethearts bravely sending their men off to war; or we see them as the victims of war, crying women with dead children in front of their burned homes, begging for help. But the reality is that
until and unless women fully participate in the process of making peace and
the impact of violence on women's lives is fully considered, there will be
no peace.

To fully understand why women have a different vantage point on the issue of
war, you must realize that the women of this world live in a perpetual state
of war every day. This violence takes many forms, including: female
infanticide, female genital mutilation, incest, dating and courtship
violence (e.g. date rape drugs, acid throwing and bride burning), rape,
institutionalization and labeling with mental disorders, sexual assault and
murder. There is no city on this planet where it is safe for a woman to
walk alone, even in her own home. We women are living in a state of siege.

While we know this, we simply refuse to grasp the dimensions and
implications of the problem. Worldwide, millions of women are assaulted
every year. The statistics are staggering. 51% of those assaults are on
young women between the ages of 16 and 21. At least one in three women will
experience sexual assault within her lifetime, yet rape and sexual assault
is the violent crime least reported to law enforcement. Between 11-42
million women experience serious assault by an intimate partner each year.
Those are unlivable numbers.

During times of conflict, terrorism against women is seriously exacerbated,
both by 'enemy' and 'friendly' forces. In addition to the violence women
already experience, during conflict they are much more likely to be gang
raped and young girls are at far more risk of sexual violation. Women are
frequently forced to trade sex for survival; for food, shelter or
'protection'.
Military sanctioned rape is commonplace and is frequently used as a method
of 'ethnic cleansing'. The incidence of domestic violence in the families
of military personnel also rises dramatically as a result of military
actions. It can easily be said that the mindset of militarism, of
institutionalized, government sanctioned violence, encourages domestic
violence. In 2002, four women at Fort Bragg, NC were brutally murdered by
their spouses who had recently returned from serving in Afghanistan.

War also substantially destroys the infrastructure and services necessary
for women to care for their families. Lack of electricity, water and
sanitation make it impossible to run a home. Destruction of medical
facilities leads to greater maternal, child and infant mortality.

Perhaps the most unseen damage inflicted upon women during war is from the
toxic pollution that results from the use of biological and chemical weapons
such as Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium; both in the areas they are used
and the locales where they are produced and tested. They contaminate the
air, soil and water. The pollution does not recognize borders or security
checkpoints and therefore becomes an unintended export, its consequences
shared by all. In addition to directly causing death of innocent civilians,
ample evidence exists that these military toxins cause all manner of disease
and cancer including birth defects, miscarriages and reproductive cancers.

We have finally reached a critical crossroads where the damage done to women
by violent conflict must be brought to a stop. The mechanisms for making
this happen exist and we need to insure that they are fully utilized.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 provides a framework for
making gender perspectives an integral part of all UN peacekeeping efforts.
Among its mandates are provisions for:

     Respecting the human rights of women and supporting local peace
initiatives.

     Increasing representation of women in all aspects of conflict
resolution and peacemaking including the appointment of women as special
envoys and representatives.

      Ensuring that international law applicable to the human rights of
women is respected.

      The Adoption of special measures to protect women from gender-based
violence and mandating that Security Council missions take into account the
rights of women.

In addition to UNSC 1325, the Charter of the International Criminal Court
provides a critical tool in the protection of the rights of women during war
by designating sexual violence as a war crime.

Whenever the need for women's participation in reclaiming peace is
discussed, it is inevitable that someone will mention the women who are
supportive of war as a means to an end. Whether for patriotic or religious
reasons, there will always be women trying to survive in and support a
system that was never meant to value life or foster peace, despite the usual
rhetoric to the contrary. Yet women rarely run the governments or the
organizations that sanction war. In sharp contrast, they constitute a large
percentage of the membership in and leadership roles of most peace
organizations.

Be that as it may, what is most of value is that women tend to bring to the
discussion systems of value that derive a sense of power from within and by
interaction, rather than by the power-over, domination thinking that
justifies violence and patriarchy. Women consistently demonstrate an
ability to factor in the compassionate, interconnected and emotional aspects
of life in their problem-solving efforts. Making the leap to this sort of
radial thinking is mandatory. We cannot afford to continue to try to make
the system work. We need to reclaim the paradigm and redefine it as one
whose core values the lives of women.

Lucinda Marshall is moderator of the Feminist Peace Network

On the Value of Public Demonstration by Natalie Polzer

Some people contend that vigils, marches, rallies and other demonstrations of public activism do nothing. Not so.

While it is true, in my opinion, that this kind of public activism is almost always (I won't say never) ineffective on the political level to influence and oppose the oppressive progress of the powers that be, it does have a real purpose and effect.

First of all, group participation in public actions creates a sense of
purpose and solidarity for the involved individuals. A positive,
proactive, effervescent energy is created which boosts a participation
individual's confidence, commitment and which allows them a safe
sphere in which they can be proactive. Alienation, passivity,
isolation, and despair are powerful weapons in the hands of the enemy,
and every time anyone leaves an activist event feeling energized and
positive, this is a victory, albeit, a very small and ephemeral one.

Secondly, every public act is an example of open defiance for the
community at large, not simply because we oppose the powers that be, but
because we oppose them bodily and in person. Another weapon, a more
deadly one to my mind, of the powers that be is the notion that a
mechanical, economic or media interface is inherently a more effective
means of opposition than those employing direct, bodily manifestation
and personal contact.

We are made to believe that passive, or "once removed" modes of
opposition, or modes requiring a mechanized interface between one human
being and another, are inherently more effective than public activism.
This belief abets the general inertia and passivity of contemporary
North American culture.

I do not mean to say that passive and impersonal modes of communication
and resistance are not effective. They are. On the immediate, broader,
political scheme of things, boycotts and effective websites and media
communication are probably much more effective than vigils and marches
and other kinds of "street theatre." But to say that the latter are
meaningless and ineffective is simply inaccurate.

As an educator of over 12 years in higher education, I know that there
is a reason why computer learning and televised lectures on video have
not taken over, as indeed they should have considering decreasing
budgets, employment conditions in higher education, and the pressure of
the computer and software companies. In my experience, people learn
their most important skills and values by example and imitation of
real, embodied people. Embodied human beings standing in front of class
rooms are not merely a dwindling survival of archaic educational modes;
live teachers still stand before classrooms and deliver lectures
because, in the present state of the human condition, real humans teach
most other humans more successfully than machines do.

For this reason, any public street theatre will have a real effect on
some of the people who witness it, and although this effect cannot be
verified or quantified, it is real nevertheless.

Finally, it is necessary to examine the underlying ideological
underpinnings of a mode of generalized, long term, resistance
prioritizing boycotts and other kinds of economic resistance manifested
in the withholding of funds. Yes, I agree, we are all imprisoned in
the iron cage of the machinery of capitalism, which, willy-nilly, sucks
us in and spits us out of its mechanical grinders. I agree, as well,
that boycotts, withholding taxes, other modes of breaking the iron
monster's teeth as we are spewed through its gullet, may certainly be
effective in slowing down its metabolism or changing its diet. But this
does not mean we have to restrict ourselves to modes of resistance
defined by the iron cage of capitalism itself.

One of the wonderful things about vigils, marches, and all that, is
that they are totally irrelevant in terms of economic productivity, and
thus, when we participate in these activities, we stand outside the iron
cage. This alone makes them worthwhile.

Reporting These Days by Josh Cook

Something isn’t right these days. 41% of Americans think that the United States has found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when in fact we have not. How could so many Americans think this? Could it be the fact that the media has been feeding us biased and false information?

Sadly enough, news outlets these days don’t seem to care if they are providing good and accurate news anymore. The first example that comes to mind is Jayson Blair who was recently fired from the New York Times for making up information and plagiarizing work. The sad part of that story is that Times' editors knew that it was happening. Instead of dealing with the issue right away, they ignored it and didn’t fire him. Rather they gave him a promotion.

This sort of thing doesn’t just happen now and then. This has been happening a lot recently and no one knows about it. Just about a month ago, John Stossel became the new co-host of the ABC show 20/20. John Stossel is known for slanting facts and citing sources that don’t exist to support his claims. You would think that this type of work wouldn’t be applauded. When a source at ABC was asked about its decision to promote Stossel, they told TV Guide, "These are conservative times... the network wants somebody to match the times."

ABC is not the only station who has been sacrificing truth for popularity; MSNBC is also a culprit. Earlier this year, MSNBC fired the host of its highest rated show, Phil Donahue. They replaced Phil Donahue with a Michael Savage. Michael Savage is a known racist, misogynist, and homophobic, who dismisses child victims of gunfire, calling them "ghetto slime". Savage has gone so far to refer to non-white countries as "turd world countries". MSNBC called the firing of Donahue and the hiring of Savage "a legitimate attempt to expand the marketplace of ideas", according to Electronic Media.

This type of action isn’t limited to newspapers and television stations either. Clear Channel Entertainment owns 1200 radio stations in America and broadcasts to over a billion people worldwide. Clear Channel was also the 3^rd biggest donor to the Bush campaign in 2000.

Should you expect to get unbiased information from Clear Channel when they have such large ties to our administration? The answer is no. Every American should feel disappointed with the news they are being given. The news is not following up on stories and thus letting readers, listeners or viewers assume what turned out in the end. Almost all newspapers and broadcast media agencies right now are jumping on any claim concerning weapons of mass destruction and reporting on it whenever anything that might be a weapon is found.

What they don’t report the following evening or week is if that new lead turned out to really be a weapon of mass destruction, which so far none have been. Between that fact and poor journalism by most networks, the average American is denied real information to form their opinions on.

The question now is how many lies and biased stories will Americans believe before they figure out they are being lied to and not all is well in America?

Josh Cook is a high school sophomore. Last year he founded a Social Action Club at his school and is currently helping with the Department of Peace Initiative.

Brown High School Graduation Speech

by Johanna Camenisch, May 29, 2003

For years I have sat in this auditorium and listened to my friends & colleagues give the Brown School commence-ment address. Never once did it occur to me that I would be called upon to do the same. My first thought when Bryan & Alice told me you wanted me to speak was “you guys are getting even with me for all that hard work I put you through in the 3^rd & 4^th grade.” But after eight years, I hope you still remember me as part of the Larry/Julie/Dorothy team, the one who wore the mismatched high-top Chuck’s. I have worn a pair in your honor tonight.

Seriously, I am indeed honored to be here, and honored to share this address with my dear friend Allana, who, I might add, is one of the best language arts teachers I have ever known.

As I said, I have sat through lots of Brown School graduation speeches, and I remember some better than others. Last year, Carrie personalized her speech by telling something about each student and giving each senior a gift. Jean Gish was motivating and told a Martha Ellison story; and Peg, ever the scientist, related her speech to an experiment. Knowing what big shoes I had to fill, I asked by grandson Charlie and his friend Curt, who both sat on this very stage last year, for suggestions. And they said, almost in unison, “Keep it short.”

Well, since I am not a speaker, I decided to do something I knew a little about—give you an assignment and teach a lesson. At the time of the assignment, I told you what you wrote would be part of my commencement address, and I would like an answer to this open-response question (ever heard that term before?). The questions was: “What changes would you like to see happen in the world you are about to inherit, and what role will you play in changing?” Now, I’d like to share what you said you’d like to see happen in the world. Students, listen for your responses—parents, see if you can select what your child wrote.

Our economic system reformed
People taking pride in their world
A world free from abuse and crimes
A less fast-paced, less monotonous world
The setting aside of differences to work toward the advancement of mankind

Some of your responses were more personal:

One senior wrote that “I want to see my baby cousin grow up in a safe environment and get the chance to come to Brown.”
One student even said what he wanted in the world was to have his parents be on time for graduation.

But there were three overriding wishes expressed by the class of 2003.

The wish most often repeated, and one very dear to my hear, was the desire for a good education for everyone. One student put it best when he explained his desire for education this way: Ignorance creates fear, and fear breeds hate.”
The second wish was one that is probably on the mind of every person here. That was the wish for peace and freedom from war, a unified world.
The third wish that was mentioned repeatedly was for a future with respect and acceptance for all.

On the flip side, however, one student wrote a desire for, and I quote, “an America that would change how we let foreign people in our country.” He stated that it “was unfair to every true American citizen that works their butts off each and every day.”

First, let me say that he has every right to express that he felt that way. But I have to admit I took comfort in the fact that so many more of you wanted a world free of stereotypes. Over and over, you wrote that your plan for changing the world was by accepting and appreciating diversity. I know the desire for diversity is a reflection of what you experienced and cherish about the Brown School. And I challenge you to carry this attitude with you as you leave Brown.

Now, those were the thing you wanted to change about the world. Here are some of your written responses to how you would go about changing the world.

Working together to build better communities
Being more honest
Gaining respect by showing respect
Staying outside the box, being your own person
Being the best person you can be
Changing the world by interacting with one person at a time, quote, “A friendly smile here, and a polite hello there, treating other as well as I can.”
One senior said we must think in global terms.
Another, “I want to change the face of the music industry, piece by piece.”
And one young woman stated that the best way for her to change the world was by being a good mother.

Now, I have completed your part of this speech and it is my turn to teach my final lesson to the Class of 2003. First, I will tell you what I am NOT going to teach you. I am not going to tell you to work hard and do your best, make good choices and be productive and make your parents & grandparents proud. You have already heard that over & over.

But I am not going to let you go today with giving you this lesson in history. Almost fifty years ago, I sat on a high school stage and listened to a commencement address before my graduation. At that time, there was a Senator who had once been considered a great American. His name was Joe McCarthy and he was from Wisconsin. He had been the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. He used and abused his position to call in actors, artists, journalists, military officers, government employees, all types of people, and question them on whether they were “Communist” or had Communist connections.

It may be hard to imagine today, but in the 1950s, the threat, born from fear, of being labeled a Communist sympathizer was so powerful that it caused Americans to turn against one another. If someone were accused by McCarthy of a being a Communist, that person was almost always blacklisted, usually losing their job, their home, and their future.

History, I believe, does eventually bring forth the truth. It is fifty years later, and the truth about Joe McCarthy has now come to light. I would like to quote from the May 7, 2003 Courier-Journal Editorial. “In newly released papers, another thing many people suspected about Joe McCarthy proved true. He was a punk. Although he threatened people by interviewing them behind closed doors, those who had the courage to stand up to him were spared subpoenas for public testimony and shame. So it has always been with bullies.”

Poor old Joe. He didn’t understand that intimidation is not a leadership trait. History has proved he was just a bully, not the patriot he pretended to be. Joe must never have listened to a high school graduation speech that asked him to always look for the best in people.

You ask me, “Why do you bring this up today, Johanna? That was fifty years ago, before computers, MTV, and DVDs. You are out of sync, you don’t rock.” I bring this up because today you too are going into the world facing a threat Born from Fear, and that threat led to the Patriot Act. Here is your history lesson #2. Forty-five days after September 11, 2001, with little debate and many member of Congress never actually reading it, the 342-page “Patriot Act” was passed. First, let me make it clear that I understand how terribly devastating September 11^th was to our nation. However, driven by fear of future attacks on our country, Congress gave the executive branch powers that I think undermine our Bill of Rights.

I have done my homework. I’ve spent time in the library, received information from my congresswoman, and I am going to tell you some of the tings to be concerned about this act. Out of 342 pages, these are the biggies:

It expands the powers of law enforcement…and authorizes “sneak and peek” search warrants.
It permits non-citizens to be jailed on mere suspicions.
It subjects political organizations to surveillance and wire tapping.
For intelligence purposes, it allows American citizens to be investigated for criminal matters without probable cause of crime.

In my opinion, our civil liberties have never been more threatened in the almost fifty years since I graduated than they are for you & all of us today. I don’t have to tell you that you are inheriting this world at a very frightening time. We even have color code alerts. Right now we are being told that if we see someone “suspicious” we should notify authorities. I take issue with that. All of this is being done under the guise of protecting our country and being patriotic. Patriotism is a word used a lot today. I’m sure it is being used in many graduation speeches. Yet patriotism is much more than waving a flag, having a “Proud to be an American” bumper sticker on your car, or wearing one these little flag pins that I have on tonight.

Now, I’d like to tell you a story about patriotism. My last Johanna story. My father’s parents were born in Switzerland. And both my grandparents spoke several languages, including German. The English they spoke was always with a heavy European accent. They were loyal American citizens who saw three of their ten children serve in the US military—two of them during World War II. As a child I remember vividly the two stars on our front window, one for my aunt and one for my uncle, both serving overseas. None of this, however, was enough to keep my grandparents from being accused as German sympathizers. I am sure the people accusing my grandparents thought they were being patriotic. After all, they were taking up for their country and protecting it. Ok, here’s another open-ended response question for you. You decide who is more patriotic in the story I told. And don’t forget to support your answer. What I am trying to tell you is this: Now that you are going out in the world, you must never allow fear to make you un-American. You must keep in mind that America is built on democracy. And democracy is not built by a government or a political party, but rather by each individual standing up for the rights of every person.

Yes, this is a scary time, but there have been scary times in the past. Your responsibility is the same as it has been for all people at all times. You must never allow your fear to keep you silent or cause you to look away from what is happening to others, especially when they are being treated badly. Take a stand, even when you are afraid. And, dear seniors, no matter what you do in life, always look for the good in people.

Eight years ago, when you were in Primary II class, you studied the history of the civil rights movement. I doubt you will remember an assignment I gave you. That assignment was to write a dialogue between Frederick Douglass and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and what they might have said to each other about the struggle for civil rights, had they met. When reviewing your writing for this speech, it became clear to me that, even as very young children, you understood that our history is built on people who have been willing to take a stand and make sacrifices. I want to conclude by sharing with you two of those writings from your classmates, written almost half your lifetime ago.

This was written by a 3^rd grader.

“Hello Frederick Douglass, Can I tell you about what has happened since you died? It was very hard,” said Martin Luther King Jr. “You may, said Frederick Douglass.”

“Well, said Martin Luther King, we had a boycott. It was about the bus. Let me tell you what happened. When I was growing up there was a law that said a black had to pay their fee, then get off the bus and go in the back door. Sometimes, the bus would leave us. Well, on day this lady got on the bus and sat down in the black section. Her name was Rosa Parks.

“Excuse me, but did you say black section?” said Frederick Douglass. “Oh, yes said King. See the whites had their part in the front and the blacks had their part in the back.” If the white seats were filled up, the blacks had to give their seat to a white.

“What a shame. Let’s get back to your story said Frederick Douglass. This lady was really tired because she just gotten off of work. Finally, the seats were full and Rosa was told to give her seat up to a white person. And believe it or not, Rosa said no. The bus driver told Rosa Parks one more time to give up her seat to a white person, but she still refused.

“Isn’t that a strong woman,” said Frederick Douglass? “You are right,” said Dr. Martin Luther King as he continued. The bus driver told Rosa that he was going to get the police and she still sat down. The police asked her why she did not stand and give up her seat? She asked why do you white people boss us around and the police said, “I don’t know, but the law is the law and you’re under arrest.”

Frederick Douglass asked, “Did the woman ever get out of jail?” “Yes, she did say Martin Luther King. “Thank you for telling me that story,” said Frederick Douglass. “You’re welcome, maybe you can tell me what you went through one day.” “What do you know about me said Frederick Douglass?” “I know you had a loud strong voice and I read that one time when you were working in your abolitionist group and you had only five people listening to you, you opened the window and as you spoke, more and more people came to listen. Soon, there were five hundred people listening. I think you were a very good speaker.”

“Do you know that people used to say that to me,” said Frederick Douglass, “and it’s nice to hear it again.” Martin Luther King said, “I know, you were also born a slave and you and your grandmother were close. You stayed with her until you were six and then you had to go work for Old Master. You missed her and you asked your family why you were slaves and they all had different answers.”

“You know what?” said Frederick Douglass, “I don’t have to tell you about myself, because you know almost everything that happened.” “I know this because I read a little about you,” said Martin Luther King. “After you died, I wanted to be a leader and I was.” “Maybe I will tell a little more about some day, but now let an old man get his rest,” said Frederick Douglass. “Peaceful dreams, Frederick.” “And peace to you too, Martin.”

Another dialog between Douglass and King, written by one of you.

Douglass: Look at the world now. I can’t believe how the world could change so drastically. I guess it’s since there’s slaves, but there’s still so much violence.

King: That’s what I tried to enforce so heavily. But I do agree with you. In some ways, the world has changed a lot. But still the world is far from perfect.

Douglass: It’s amazing how the world could change that much. Now a days, there’s black people on the Supreme Court and there’s black Senators. Which back then, I thought would never happen.

King: Still, there’s too much violence happening in the world …

Douglass: I don’t see how you can be so down about the world. Dr. King, if you lived during my time, you would feel different. There’s always going to be something wrong in the world.

King: Yes, Mr. Douglass. But the progress is too slow. Each year, more and more are living in poverty. I fear for the future. Who is going to lead our people into tomorrow?

Douglass: We did all we can do. Now, it’s someone else’s time.

Class of 2003—“Now it is your time.” Carry On!

David Hawpe's commentary in CJ, July 15, 2003

WHY WE NEED A US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

from PIRG files

In opinion polls last year, Kentuckians made it very clear that they do not want partial-public financing of our elections for Governor, whether it works or not. (And, it was working!) Apparently, it just goes against the grain of our commonwealth's deeply conservative tradition in politics to spend public money on political campaigns.

On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that Kentuckians are eager to limit campaign spending by other means. They despise the attack ads on TV and radio. They believe that our public officials and candidates are
obsessed with money. And, they do not buy the ridiculous notion that "money is speech." Just ask them.

So, it is pretty obvious that a US Constitutional amendment, like the Hollings-Specter proposal in the US Senate, would be a very popular idea in Kentucky if more of our citizens knew about it. The Hollings-Specter
proposal would finally allow Congress and the states to set reasonable
limits on political campaign expenditures. It's a simple and straightforward idea that would accomplish campaign finance reform without partial-public financing. This is what our citizens really wanted all along.

Back in 1974, the US Supreme Court declared limits on campaign
expenditures unconstitutional, but paradoxically, it allowed limits on
campaign contributions. There is no practical difference between campaign expenditures and campaign contributions in the real world, however. This nonsensical Court decision has required complicated partial-public financing systems, like Kentucky's.

Now, we need a US Constitutional amendment to clean up the mess the US Supreme Court has made, and the citizens of Kentucky appear ready to support it. The candidates in our upcoming election ought to be discussing this important issue. But, they are much too busy raising money for more attack ads.

If you believe that the citizens of Kentucky ought to know about this approach to campaign finance reform, you can do these things:

* Consider signing up for the Buck Buckley campaign. See the list below for information about them.

* E-mail or write your state representative, or all of the state representatives. Urge them to propose the Hollings-Specter amendment in the Kentucky General Assembly.

* Write to the newspapers about it.
* Display a bumper sticker that reads, "If Money is Speech/ Speech is Not Free. Send me an e-mail with your address and I'll mail you one for free.

To find out more about the Hollings-Specter US Constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform, see these websites:

* Text of the Hollings-Specter amendment

* A Statement of Support by the US Public Interest Research Group; USPIRG's research page.

* The Buck Buckley Campaign advocates overturning the US Supreme Court's nonsensical Buckley v. Valeo decision on campaign finance reform (1974).

* Alaska State Senator Dave Donley's extensive editorial on the need for a
US Constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform.

* US Senate Transcript on the Hollings-Specter amendment.

Submitted by Tom Louderback, volunteer activist, letter writer, Just Faith
alumnus and member of the Louisville Friends Meeting.