Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Beat Museum Brings Artist Angst to Livid Life

[See URL for embedded links.]

Beat Museum Brings Artist Angst to Livid Life

http://www.adrants.com/2007/11/beat-museum-brings-artist-angst-to-livid-.php

November 2007

Considering we're still detoxing from a distastefully delightful
Popeye's turkey (don't ask), we thought we'd kick off the morning
with a campaign loaded with pretty pictures.

So here's creative for The Beat Museum, courtesy of Grey, SF. We hear
you'll dig it if you're a big Kerouac fan, or at least somebody who
still waves the flag for counterculture (you reverse conformist, you).

The posters will appear in magazines and on bus shelters throughout
the hilly city. Website in the works.

We like them -- they've got that classy grit that so typifies the
talented (and completely raging) bohemian beatnik. Plus, they teach
you stuff without making you feel like a literature-starved ass-hat.

Our favourite is the poster we've affectionally dubbed the "fucking
book" poster. Others (also nicknamed by us) include "hitchhiker
thumb," "la grande HOWL," "no rules," and "junkies, drunks and criminals."

.

El Barrio - Sounds From The Spanish Harlem Streets

El Barrio - Sounds From The Spanish Harlem Streets

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13575

24 November 2007
by Terry Cornot

The El Barrio series collects salsa music from the 1960s and 1970s.
This latest album concentrates on the period of revolutionary action
after 1968.

The Black Panther party inspired other organisations, including the
Young Lords in Spanish Harlem.

The music here reflects that radicalism, with political lyrics and
infectious rhythms. Tracks include "Revolucionando", "Rise Up" and
"Here Comes The Judge".

Ranging from blaxploitation cheesiness with Jimi Sabater to the
straight salsa of Tito Puente, the album is rich with evocative
influences from funk, soul and jazz.

A must for every rhythmic revolutionary.
---

El Barrio – Sounds From The Spanish Harlem Streets
Various artists
CD out now

.
.

UMass gets dose of Grateful Dead at symposium

[3 articles]

'Deadheads' display distinct signs of life

http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1196065282197410.xml&coll=1

by Fred Contrada
Monday, November 26, 2007

I recognize "Mountain Girl" right away, although I have never seen her before.

The student ballroom at the University of Massachusetts is filled
with senior citizens sporting silver ponytails and tie-dyed shirts,
"Deadheads" come to "grok" the weekend symposium on their favorite
band, but still she stands out. She is dressed vaguely gypsy and
wears her hair in a gray bun, but it's not her clothes and hair that
single her out as the long-time wife of Jerry Garcia and arguably the
original hippie chick.

I simply know it's her.

Wes Blixt introduces us. Years ago, Wes was a reporter for this
paper; now he's at UMass where, among other duties, he has taken it
upon himself to help organize the biggest academic symposium on the
Grateful Dead to date.

Herb Greene, who did most of the band's album cover photos, is here.
So is Dan Healy, the Dead's sound engineer. Bill Walton, a Hall of
Fame basketball player and "Deadhead" extraodinaire, is due to show
up any minute. The list goes on and on.

If you're not a "Deadhead," these might be just a bunch of names.
However, if you are part of the extended family that followed the
Grateful Dead for decades in beat-up buses and designated channels of
the mindstream, this weekend is nirvana.

Although I myself have never attended a Grateful Dead concert, I know
some of the mythology. "Mountain Girl" was on the original bus, the
one that Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters drove cross country in
1964, spreading the psychedelic message that formed the basis of the
hippie movement. She had a daughter named Sunshine with Kesey, then
married Garcia and had two more girls.

After Garcia died in 1995, "Mountain Girl" was left with his
considerable legacy, which includes people coming out of the woodwork
to share their favorite trips with her, no matter that they took
place 30 years ago.

Her more formal name is Carolyn Adams Garcia, and when she takes a
seat next to me, the Deadheads at my table swallow their gum and
address her as "Mrs. Garcia." I confess that I really wanted to meet
her for the karma, but I have a couple of questions she graciously answers.

Like, "Is there anything you did that you wouldn't want your kids to do?"

"Riding motorcycles while impaired," she says. "That would be the main one."

I'm not sure what "impaired" means, but my guess is there were colors
involved. "Mountain Girl" has done it all and lived to tell about it.

Now, post Jerry, she lives a fairly normal life. She has a house in
the country in Oregon and is proud of her grown children, all of whom
turned out to be artists. She admits she has never pondered some of
the topics discussed at the symposium, such as "Hell in a Bucket:
Critical Theory and Dead Philosophy."

"Mountain Girl" doesn't blink when I ask her age. She's 61.

A few minutes later, "Mountain Girl" is up on stage with Walton and
Healy, telling stories.

Wes and I once pushed a car around a barrio in Chile under a full
moon, trying to pop the clutch so we could make it home after six
days in the high Andes. These guys, I'm afraid, have us beat.

It seems there was this Grateful Dead concert amid the pyramids of
Egypt. It started at midnight and at 2 a.m. there was a total lunar
eclipse. At dawn, when the concert ended, "Mountain Girl" and Garcia
and Kesey and Walton and the rest of them rode camels into the desert
where tents full of food and drink awaited them.

Some people have all the fun.

Before slipping away, I go down into the Campus Center basement to
check out the Grateful Dead photo exhibit. Herb Greene has this one
black-and-white shot of "Mountain Girl" and Jerry. She must be 20
years old in the picture, but I recognize her right away. Don't ask me how.
---

Fred Contrada is a staff writer with The Republican. He can be
reached at fcontrada@repub.com

--------

UMass gets dose of Grateful Dead at symposium

http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/67976/

By Kristin Palpini
Staff Writer
Published on November 23, 2007

AMHERST - For many fans of the Grateful Dead, the band's songs are
more than music, they're a home.

The wandering rock guitar rifts of Jerry Garcia, the deep, soulful
voice of Bob Weir, the driving bass lines of Phil Lesh and the primal
drumming of Mickey Hart built a kind of mobile home for the band's
estimated 500,000 diehard fans, the Deadheads.

This musical community and why the Dead keeps on trucking is the
subject of symposium last weekend at the University of Massachusetts.
"Unbroken Chain" explored the band's social, economic, musical and
historic impact on America.

"It's really about one thing: getting your mind blown," said Jeffrey
King, a 46-year-old Merrick, N.Y., man who has attended 300 Grateful
Dead concerts. "When something like (the Grateful Dead's music)
occurs in a group of people, a sense of community, musicianship and
intellectualism is born."

On Friday morning, King, along with hundreds of Deadheads from around
the country, congregated at UMass for the symposium's inaugural
address, "Strangers Stopping Strangers: The Deadhead Community."

The gathering felt more like a family reunion than an academic
festival, as people dressed in jeans, well-worn sweaters, Bohemian
shirts and vests hugged each other and shared concert stories.

Why thousands of people, separated by hundreds of miles and a lack of
communication between concerts, have formed a thriving subculture
that persists are among the questions that University of North
Carolina sociology professor Rebecca Adams tried to address in
"Strangers Stopping Strangers."

Adams leads the Deadhead Community Project, a collection of
sociological field notes and surveys collected by Adams and some of
her students beginning in 1989. The research has since been condensed
into five analytical books.

Deadheads, Adams explained, elevated the band's music from mere
albums to a subculture based on the spiritual experience of attending
Grateful Dead shows.

"The music brought people together, even though they didn't live near
one another. Their friendship was the basis for the portable
community," said Adams, who is an unabashed Deadhead.

"It's difficult to explain how we all feel inside," Adams said,
trying to give words to what it is like to listen to the Grateful
Dead. "It's like talking about or describing why we love another person."

Deadheads had a lot to bond and form friendships over, Adams said. In
addition to their love of the Dead's wildly improvised, but fluid
music, the fans connected over their dedication to charity (providing
free food, concert tickets and shelter, among other things, to fellow
concertgoers), the "dirty hippie" stigma attached to the group by
non-fans, and drug use.

But perhaps the most important link between Deadheads is
spirituality, the feeling that attending a Grateful Dead concert is a
religious and enlightening experience.

"It's a multilayered experience for true Deadheads," said Paul
Freedman, 58, of Washington, D.C., trying to describe the importance
of the Dead's music. "It's like flat land and then the Dead comes
along and says, 'No you're a cube, man.' It opens up different
dimensions, different ways to think about things, to experience
things. It's not just music, it's a live culture."

"Unbroken Chain" is part of a semester-long graduate history seminar
titled "American Beauty: Music, Culture and Society, 194595," and an
undergraduate course titled "How Does the Song Go: The Grateful Dead
as a Window into American Culture."

The Grateful Dead study was made possible by Dennis McNally, the
Grateful Dead's longtime publicist, who earned his doctorate in
history at UMass in 1978.

"We all know this is a special trip," McNally said in his opening
remarks Friday. "I'm very proud to come back here and do this."

In the future, UMass plans to hold similar studies that focus
intensely on a single aspect of American culture.

"I was afraid people would look at this as a joke, not as a rigorous
academic investigation, just some aging hippies back on campus," said
John Mullin, dean of the UMass graduate school. "We're here because
this is a new way of giving knowledge. This will be the first of [a
number of] deep interdisciplinary looks into different cultural
aspects of life."

Symposium activities included more than 50 presenters for 20 panel
sessions, ranging from music composition and improvisation to an
examination of the band's business model. The weekend also included
concerts, gallery exhibits and presentations.

--------

Grateful Dead Tribute

http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/news/2007/11/20/ArtsLiving/Grateful.Dead.Tribute-3111170.shtml

By: Coby Kalter, Collegian Correspondent
Issue date: 11/20/07

It's hard to sum up the lives, experiences and thoughts of a
community whose hearts have been touched by the Grateful Dead, but
this weekend's "Unbroken Chain: The Grateful Dead in Music, Culture
and Memory" public symposium came close.

The symposium was a phenomenal experience that took attendees on a
journey through the life of the band as well as through the life of
its fans and the culture it spawned. Through different aspects of the
Grateful Dead's life and culture, a vast amount of lessons in the
arts, social sciences, engineering and business fields were to be
learned. Dean John Mullin said it best when he explained how he was
trying to "cross-fertilize" different academics through the Grateful
Dead in order to bring a new type of class to the University of Massachusetts.

Rebecca Adams, professor in sociology at the University of North
Carolina at Greensboro and co-author of "Deadhead Social Science: You
Ain't Gonna Learn What You Don't Want to Know," helped start off the
weekend with a look into the Deadhead society. With firsthand
experience in the field from following the Grateful Dead around the
country on tour, she was able to give different reasons for their
difference from any other band. She also gave insight into the
different kinds of fans there were and included a map of what areas
fans can be found in at shows.

One panel during the weekend was about the media and its perception
of the Grateful Dead of "hardly ever cool," as Steve Silberman,
co-author of "Skeleton Key: a Dictionary for Deadheads," explained.

David Gans, host of the Grateful Dead hour radio show, explained that
some journalists would sometimes only go to the parking lots of shows
and find a story there and never actually go into the show. This
often led to bad criticism of the band.

A solution to this problem was creating media by Deadheads that would
go out to other Deadheads. John Dwork, a Hampshire College graduate,
helped to do just that as the creator of Dupree's Diamonds, a
magazine that reported on happenings within the Deadhead community.

Further into the symposium, Dan Healy, the band's tech specialist,
spoke about his time with the Grateful Dead and how his understanding
of sound technology affected the band. He explained that what he and
his crew were doing with the band was "frontier work" because they
were trying to incorporate many different visions with one sound
system, which had never been done before.

He went on to say that the "audience was always part of the show"
because they were trying to put them on the same "sound trip" that
they were on. Healy said that Jerry Garcia, the lead guitarist of the
band, would call the sound they produced "quintaphonic sound" which
is now known as surround sound.

Other panels during the symposium included a deeper look into the
lyrics of the band's works, a breakdown and search for meaning in the
band's improvisational style and an introspective into 1960s
counterculture and society. These panels further helped piece
together what the Grateful Dead were truly all about.

Another keynote speaker was the Grateful Dead's own publicist and a
UMass graduate, Dennis McNally. He described the Grateful Dead
experience as "both dionysian and improvisation." These two terms
really capture the essence of what the Grateful Dead were all about.

A "rich and complex phenomenon" is how McNally described the Dead's
cultural and musical effects on America. He then went into his
experience with the members of the band, saying that they "prized
thought" and were "a cult of intellect."

"We were all the Grateful Dead," he said.

The highlight of the conference was a panel consisting of Carolyn
Adams Garcia (Mountain Girl), Jerry's first wife, Dan Healy and
former NBA great and notable Deadhead Bill Walton. They discussed
their trip to Egypt and other memorable times they shared on tour. As
they reminisced, the audience felt the joy of these experiences and
laughed right along with the panelists. It was this highlight event
that really echoed the presence of the Deadhead family that had
gathered on campus.

Throughout the conference, galleries were open, displaying
photographs taken by Susanna Millman, Herb Greene and Lloyd Wolf of
the band and fans at concerts; paintings commemorating the essence of
the Grateful Dead by Mikio Kennedy and Mike Dubois and Jerry Garcia's
own paintings.

The array of panels, speakers and galleries really captured the
Grateful Dead's impact on many peoples' lives. Learning from
different experiences of how they encountered the band and how they
affected the Deadhead community was truly inspiring to any fan. These
presentations also displayed the effect the band itself had on
American culture. For any Deadhead, this was truly a historic weekend.
---

Coby Kalter can be reached at ckalter@student.umass.edu.

.

Battle for mind space

Battle for mind space

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/11/25/stories/2007112550130400.htm

Nov 25, 2007
S. SHANKAR

Conservatives in the U.S. are targeting universities because they are
perceived to be places where ideas that undermine Western
civilisation flourish.


Twenty years ago, like thousands of other young Indians before and
after, I went to the United States as a post-graduate student. I went
because I wanted to see the world and because I wanted to be a
writer, a novelist. Certainly, one could be a novelist without going
to the U.S., or for that matter going away at all. It was just that
for me going was important. When I went, I did not know how long I
would stay, or even whether I would finish my course of study. Half a
lifetime later, I have written two novels. I also have a Ph.D., have
written a scholarly book and articles, and am still in an American
university ­ not as a student now, but as someone who, aside from
writing novels, teaches and does research on American and
postcolonial literature and films. To some extent, this is simply a
way to make a living ­ pay the rent, put rice on the table, support
my movie habit. But there surely are other ways to make a living, and
if I have stayed on, it is also because I have wanted to. Not just
necessity but desire too has played its part.

Everyone knows about great American universities like Harvard or
Stanford. However, the real achievement of the American higher
education system is not to be found in such universities alone, but
rather in the system as a whole. Virtually every one of the 50 States
of the U.S. has its own elaborate public university system, often a
combination of large research universities and smaller teaching
oriented community colleges. The best of these ­ University of
California at Berkeley or University of Texas at Austin ­ rival the
Harvards and Stanfords in their teaching and research and in their
influence over the public life of the country.

Perceived threat

Now, all is not well in this immense system. A storm has broken out
across the country's many university campuses. Since widespread
opposition to the Vietnam War on campuses in the 1960s and 70s,
conservatives have perceived the influence of universities and
colleges to be liberal or, even worse, radical. They have seen the
university as a place where values antithetical to American
conservatism flourish ­ where American foreign policy is routinely
criticised, where support for radical feminism and homosexual
lifestyles abounds, where there is unthinking acceptance of
entitlements for African Americans and other racial minorities.

For many conservatives, the American university has become an
institution devoted to systematically brainwashing young and
impressionable minds with ideas that undermine the Western and
Christian traditions on which the country was founded. Instead of
celebrating the great tradition of European literature and
philosophy, these conservatives complain, professors are engaged in
trashing the Western classics or else teaching inferior books like
those of Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Where
is Plato? Thomas Aquinas? Shakespeare? Vanished, neglected, or else
attacked for what they stand for. So claim many influential
conservatives, and now ­ mad as hell, as the Americans say­ they have
come to do battle to try and take the university back.

One of the shrillest of these battling conservatives is David
Horowitz. Through the David Horowtiz Freedom Center, an organisation
charmingly named for himself, he has launched the Campaign for
Academic Freedom, meant, he declares "to restore academic freedom and
open inquiry to college campuses". Another eager participant in these
polemics is an immigrant from India, Dinesh D'Souza, whose book
Illiberal Education was one of the first to decry the erosion of
Western values in university courses and textbooks.

Threatened careers

Conservatives have not only attacked books and ideas. Lives and
careers too have been threatened. Take Ward Churchill and Norman
Finkelstein. Churchill is a well-known scholar and historian,
outspoken in his criticism of the U.S. government's treatment of
Native Americans. Because of a high profile investigation provoked by
an article he wrote criticising the U.S. regarding the terrorist
attacks of 9/11 (which, it must be said, put forward some deplorable
ideas on those who died on that day), he has been fired from his
position at the University of Colorado. Finkelstein, himself the
child of Jewish survivors of Hitler's death camps, has been critical
of U.S. and Israeli actions in West Asia. The result: he too has been
fired from his job at DePaul University. I don't mean to endorse
everything that Churchill and Finkelstein have said, but in both
these firings, the conservative movement has played a powerful and
inappropriate role by putting enormous pressure on the
administrations of these universities. They have seen the Churchill
and Finkelstein affairs as opportunities to further attack the university.

So, what are we to make of this conservative assault on the university?

Space for everyone

Certainly, the American university has been home to many famous and
outspoken liberals and radicals. Noam Chomsky and Angela Davis
readily come to mind. Chomsky, renowned linguist and unrelenting
critic of American foreign policy, teaches at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Angela Davis was, at one time, a member of
the radical militant group the Black Panthers. She now teaches at the
University of California at Santa Cruz.

But the American university has also been home to any number of
equally famous and outspoken conservatives. Alan Dershowitz, who, it
appears, played a pivotal role in getting Finkelstein fired, teaches
at Harvard University, as does conservative thinker Samuel
Huntington, notorious for his ideas about a "clash of civilisations"
between the West and Islam. Alan Bloom, whose book, The Closing of
the American Mind, did much to stake out a conservative position on
cultural issues during the 1980s, taught at the University of Chicago
until his death. For every liberal or radical member of the
university, it is possible to think of a conservative counterpart.
For every Noam Chomsky, there is a Samuel Huntington.

The real reason

Why then have conservatives targeted universities? It is difficult to
agree with Horowitz or D'Souza that conservatives or conservative
ideas have been censored within universities. That is certainly not
what my experience of the last 20 years tells me. In fact, I think
the opposite might be the case. Universities are amongst the few
places where robust challenges to conservatism can still be found.
And that, it seems, is enough to invite the wrath of conservatives.
---

S. Shankar's latest book is the novel No End to the Journey. He
teaches at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

.

WBAI mines Pacifica Radio Archives' rich 50,000-tape library

WBAI mines Pacifica Radio Archives' rich 50,000-tape library

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2007/11/26/2007-11-26_wbai_mines_pacifica_radio_archives_rich_.html

By DAVID HINCKLEY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, November 26th 2007

Radio history, like so much of our popular culture history, has been
destroyed far more often than it's been preserved.

That makes the Pacifica Radio Archives particularly valuable, and the
five Pacifica stations, including WBAI (99.5 FM), will spend Tuesday
broadcasting a small, rich sample of the 50,000-tape archive.

Yes, since it's Pacifica, it will be history as told by alternative
and sometimes unpopular voices, like the Black Panthers. And yes, the
19-hour broadcast, 4 a.m.-9 p.m., will be yet another in WBAI's
seemingly endless round of fund-raisers, because broadcasting
alternative voices means getting minimal support from traditional sources.

But one of the things that's striking about the sixth annual Archives
special is how many of the voices that seemed radical and even
threatening a few years ago now sound as if they are only asking for
what's fair and just.

Former South African President Nelson Mandela will be heard on this
show, as will Rosa Parks, who sparked the Montgomery bus boycott, and
Gloria Steinem, an early voice for modern feminism.

WBAI also has a strong arts component, and tomorrow's programs
include a special on "The John Coltrane Legacy."

"Nowhere else does this powerful documentation of United States
history, culture and art exist," says Brian DeShazor, director of the
Archives. "It's story telling at its best, which gives us a keen
sense of how we've come to be who we are as a nation."

Specific specials through the day include "The Power of African
Women," "Conscientious Objectors from Vietnam to Iraq," re-enactments
of taped Richard Nixon White House conversations, "The Black Panther
Legacy," "Where Were You in 1968?", "Women of the World Speak Out,"
"Malcolm X," and a "No Nukes" reunion.

Other voices include Angela Davis, Ossie Davis, Rob Reiner, Robert F.
Kennedy, Joni Mitchell, Duke Ellington, Ayn Rand, Allen Ginsberg and
Harry Shearer.

...

.

A Free Speech Grizzly Sermon [By Michael Rossman]

A Free Speech Grizzly Sermon

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=11-23-07&storyID=28547

11/23/07
By Michael Rossman

This is a minimally edited transcript of a speech improvised on
September 14, 2007, from the steps below the oak grove near Memorial
Stadium, where a small group of protesters had been occupying the
trees since last December. Several weeks earlier, the university had
put a chain-link fence around the grove, ostensibly "to protect the
protesters" from maddened football fans, but actually to further
harass the protest, which it was also attacking in court. On this
day, after I spoke, 40 members of a new student group supporting the
protest­wearing blue-and-gold T-shirts proclaiming "Free Speech" and
"Free Trees"­scaled the fence to bring supplies and moral support to
the protesters. Twenty-one remained, choosing to be arrested.

Right before my turn, a young woman, introduced as one of the
original tree-sitters, was brought to the steps to speak. Jessica
Walsh began, "Wow … So, I ran up into a tree …" and fell silent. She
just stood there, shaking slightly, her eyes bright with tears, so
evidently moved that the small crowd of listeners remained completely
transfixed, save for those who called out "We love you, Jess," and
"Thank you for doing this." Finally she choked out, in a small voice,
"These trees saved me." After a longer silence, she said, "That's
all," handed the microphone back to the moderator, and stepped back
among her friends. After a brief introduction, thanking me for my
role in the Free Speech Movement and ending, "… and let us learn from
our elders," I took the steps.

That's really a hard act to follow. Four words: "These trees saved
me." Jeepers.

I don't usually flaunt credentials, but I'm doing it here for a
reason. Yes, I am a genuine relic from the Free Speech Movement. I
was there, I helped do that. I also was a two-time varsity wrestler
at the University of Chicago in my youth­so I'm not hostile to
college athletics. And I was also a science teacher to young children
for 29 years, so you'll understand why I start by saying that I want
to talk about ecology. And I want to talk about social ecology.

Now you know, these oak trees, ravaged as the ground beneath them is,
are home to 400 different creatures large enough to see with your
eyes, from sowbugs on up to squirrels. It's a real, little forest, it
actually is doing its job. It's not like the eucalyptus trees on
Treasure Island, which back home in Tasmania have 400 things that
live with them but here have practically nothing because their
chemicals are weird and not adapted here. So that's trees, not a
forest. This is a patch of genuine forest.

But I want to talk about social ecology. You understand what an
indicator species is. The spotted owl is an indicator species. When
the spotted owl numbers go down, it's wrong not just because we care
for the spotted owl, but because the spotted owl is a species that
testifies to the health of the entire forest. If its numbers are
declining, that means the whole forest is sick.

The oak grove here is an indicator species in the social ecology.
When the oak grove is going down, it's not just about the oak grove.
It's a symptom of a general sickness in the whole social ecology. The
oak grove is not separate from the rest of the university, which
looks like it's across the street. But there's not a street dividing
it into two parts, it's one thing.

The university acts in this town … lord, how can I begin? I should
not go on too long, right? The university is a large corporate force
in the town that is utterly impervious to social control. It uses
city services and doesn't pay for them, it expands one way and
another into different parts of the town, and up into Strawberry
Canyon, without adequate consideration of the environmental impact.
You understand, I'm talking about the social environment. The
problems of control right here are not different from the problems of
control of the university in the entire town. We don't want to crush
the university. We love it. But we want it to act right. It's a
corporation, so it's a "person," unfortunately. So it should act like
a good person in the social ecology that we live in, rather than
befoul it and pollute it. [applause]

Fifty years ago, when I was a student, I used to come and sit here at
times, under these oaks, just to feel my life, to feel the
environment, to try to understand who I was in this place, what I was
doing here, what the place was. It gave me some breathing space, some
perspective on the university. Kids had been doing that for
twenty-five years before me, kids have been doing exactly the same
thing here for the last fifty years. I'm talking heritage, I'm
talking function. I can't testify to the Native American bones that
are buried here, but I understand that this grove was planted
originally as a testament to those who fell in World War I. We're in
the middle of another war at this time, when why they're falling
makes much less sense. Just considering this isolated point, it's not
the best time to tear down a memorial to people who fought in a war
that in some respects made more sense.

Fifty years ago and up to this time, students have been using this
space. It's not just an empty space that's decorated with some trees.
It's a functional part of the campus, it's like a piece of lung where
people can breathe. Forty years ago, I used to pause here while going
up to the Greek Theater to see the Grateful Dead or whoever, because
this was a good place to have a few puffs. For thirty-five years
before that, kids had been pausing on their way to the Greek Theater
to have a little tipple. And in the years since I did this, that's
been part of the night function of this little lung here. Hey, that's
part of the night-time university. They say it doesn't count like the
day-time university. That's not true, you learn as whole people. What
goes on in the night informs what goes on in the day, they should not
be artificially separated. And these­how would you describe what I've
just been talking about, "social amenities"?­should not be easily
sacrificed to corporate greed.

O my god, how can I speak of corporate greed? Well, let's talk about
it. I'm a friend of athletics. But baseball isn't baseball any
longer, you know that, not even Little League. We used to choose up
teams ourselves and make our own field … Football isn't football any
more. The kids who play football here are not getting paid so much
right now, but they're going to make five million next year. It's a
feeder for the vast corporate entertainment industry. [applause]

So put first things first. That the university wants to build its
athletic center here is a sign of the corporate priorities. Hey,
you've got a stadium here which many of us love, I used to go watch
the Bears in the stadium. You've got a stadium here, it's cracked,
it's broken. And you know that the ground's going to shake. I've been
living here since 1958 and the ground didn't used to shake, and it
keeps going more and more like this [demonstrates], I can feel it
with my body, I'm an animal on the planet, I feel the ground shaking,
this is not a joke. It's going to shake big-time, and if it shakes
when there are sixty thousand people in there, there's going to be
many more people killed than if they did something to fix it up.

"No, no! We've got to build a $125 million athletic facility here,
right next to the stadium, so the kids don't have to walk so far."
There are places all over the campus where you could do it, there are
places all over the town where there are ugly buildings, where
there's a university-owned parking lot. You just have to build a
structure above the parking lot, it's not taking anything away, it's
not where it will blight people's vision. No, get the priorities
straight. Fix the stadium before you build something else right on
top of the Hayward Fault. [applause]

You don't have to be a graduate student in social policy, a graduate
student in engineering, to understand that this is not smart. You
don't have to be a graduate student in political science to
understand that there was something fudged in the Environmental
Impact Report. And that when the university can get away with doing
its own Environmental Impact Report, and have it sanctioned because
it's a high governmental agency already, without going through the
offices of the town, then something is wrong. So, I'm still talking
about indicator species, you understand? This is a profound indicator species.

The university takes over more and more territory in the town, and
the town, on the whole, has rolled over, because it's just another
big developer, in fact it's the biggest developer, right? So the town
has actually rolled over the most for the biggest developer. So much
for our present city administration! You understand? You do
understand, because you've followed these things. Your opinions ought
to be respected, young people. That was true in my day, and it's true
now. How much of what I'm saying is new to you, aside from maybe the
metaphor of the indicator species? Nothing! You know all this stuff
already, right? How come no change happens? Whoa! It makes less sense
to me now than it did when I was your age, and it didn't make hardly
any damned sense then.

The campus itself … I stand before you as just another aging hippie,
standing around a fence. Like when I was a younger hippie, with this
hair, I was standing around the fence they put around the People's
Park. Whoa! They did the same thing then, they're doing the same
thing now. We made something pretty there, and they put a fence
around it, and said "you can't do that here, this is corporate
property, you can't touch it." This grove was already here, it didn't
need any amenities, it was okay like it was. Let it be. Right? But
you pointed out the problem, and so they put up a fence to keep you
from parking here, from speaking here.

Before the fence went up, three old ladies went and climbed a tree
here. Only they weren't just any three old ladies. The oldest of them
is old enough to be my mommy, Sylvia McLaughlin, 91 years old, she's
not seen on the streets much these days. She comes out of her place
to climb the tree to make a point. She's not just any old lady, she's
the old lady who with her two buddies started Save the Bay, which
stopped them from filling in the Bay, which looked like an inevitable
consequence of unstoppable power. [applause] But they stopped filling
in the Bay. And now we're reclaiming the Bay. These things can
happen. These things can happen. It doesn't take very many people who
are determined, to actually do it. This is the profound lesson from Sylvia.

This is the profound lesson from the Free Speech Movement, also. You
should get it straight. The press makes it look like, "oh, there were
giants in the earth, in those days!" It's not true. We were just like
you. Except we didn't have T-shirts like yours printed up, because it
cost too much then. We had the same feelings of being outshouldered,
neglected, bulldozed, nobody listens to us. We looked a little funny.
We dressed a little funny. So it's not the past. The past is still in
the present. This is a profound free speech issue. These people in
the trees, they're there for me. I didn't climb the tree. They did it
for me. Thank you, people in the trees. [applause] I'd like to say,
"because you were there, I didn't have to climb the tree." But you
know, that's a cop-out. That I didn't come before this, that I didn't
climb a tree like Sylvia climbed the tree.

A reverse metaphor here. They were filling in the Bay, they've
stopped it. Look, the university before, when I was young, it had
many lungs. You understand? There was a lot of breathing space in the
university. There were more spaces like this one. And they've gone
down, one by one. It's like they've been filling in the Bay of
Peaceful Spirit here, with this building here and that building
there. And where you can go just to sit and relax and be yourself,
and breathe with the earth, which is still in the middle of all of
this, it shrinks smaller and smaller. "Well, that's not important.,"
they say. "That's not important, it's just some kind of amenity.
What's important is to build a new $300 million research facility
funded by corporate pharmaceuticals." Well, that may be important, in
some ways. But hey, get it in balance! Don't forget about it!

Okay. I could go on and on, but I think I've hit the main points.
[applause] Except for free speech. These people in the trees are
canaries, singing for us. The university's got no right to stop them
from singing. This is sacred space, not only for the things we've
listed, but also because this is one of the places where we ringed
the campus with picket signs after a bunch of us got dragged off to
jail in 1964. Zachary, the Free Speech Movement didn't start on
December 2, that's when it peaked, with the Sproul Hall sit-in and
strike. So starting an occupation here on that date was even more
appropriate than Zachary indicated.

Now, one last thing. I come walking along, right over there, and I
see this big bronze bruin sculpture, right? It's the Cal Bear! What
kind of bear? A grizzly bear, right? Well, the last grizzly bear was
seen in this state when? In 1896, or something like that, right? So,
after the grizzly is safely extincted, they raise a monument to the
grizzly. Now, I am the grizzly. Look on my chest, there's a picture
on my T-shirt, of all those people in the Plaza, sitting around the
police-car in '64. You have now in the middle of the campus the Free
Speech Movement Café. I helped to plan it. But I don't want that to
be the statue of the grizzly. There's a picture of me there. One of
the people walking through Sather Gate, on the right-hand side, one
of the guys with his hand on the pole of the banner that says "FREE
SPEECH" is me when I'm your age. Okay? That's the grizzly. Okay?

You don't want the Free Speech Grizzly extinct on this land. You
don't want them boasting about how they got its pelt and its bones
without live grizzlies in the streets, up in the trees, doing what
grizzlies do. [applause] And you've got to live with them! That's the
thing about bears, the bears are coming back, and you've got to live
with the bears. They're people, right? They're actual people, more so
than corporations. The Native Americans had it right. The bears were
people, we're people. They lived with the bears. You've got to live
with them, you can't just go thunk and they're gone. The free speech
grizzlies are Bears. The university has to learn that it's got to
live with them. It can't put up fences, make law-suits to extirpate
them, because they're going to come back, again and again and again.

When whoever it was among you put forth this litany here – "oh, we
knocked, we lettered, we petitioned, we had meetings, we gave this
and that" – tears literally came to my eyes, because that's what we
did, and you know, the truth was, you've got to go through all those
steps, and it won't make a damned bit of difference to them, but
you've got to cover your ass. And then you take the next step.
Because of potential felonious conspiracy charges, I am definitely
not urging you to go do such nasty things to this fence that they
have to have a 24-hour armed police guard continually here to make
clear to the public what is happening here. I can't say that, I can't
ask you to do that, you know. But I will tell you what happened in
1972, after two and a half years, with the fence around People's Park.

Somebody printed up 500 copies of a flyer that gave a certain date.
And on that date, three thousand people came to People's Park, around
the fence, and they pulled it down with their bare hands. [applause]
And then what happened? Then they came in with the shotguns, and they
killed one, blinded another, wounded many, I got a little buckshot …
no, I'm sorry, that was the first time. The second time we did it,
they didn't do anything. Because the fallout from the first time,
when they shot and beat so many, had been so extensive, that they
actually let three thousand people pull down the fence and take the
Park back. And the Park still, in its battered way, in the social
ecology, is still limping along. God help us, it's still an open
space, for that long. May this fence come down! May this place still
be an open space, thirty years from now! [applause]

[Had I not been flustered at running on so long, I might have added:
"How fine it is to see you grizzly cubs come back to this land. Go
Bears!" But I think they knew how I felt about them.]

.

Break out your psychedelic shirts

Break out your psychedelic shirts

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/OtherEntertainment/2007/11/20/4670020-sun.html

November 20, 2007
By COLIN MACLEAN, SPECIAL TO SUN MEDIA

The Mayfield Dinner Theatre sure knows how to please its audience.

There's not a lotta kids there. Ya dig? Gnarly!

Looking out over the opening night audience, you are greeted by a sea
of bald spots and silver hair. For many of them, I suspect, popular
music began in 1960 with Elvis's return from army duty and ended
amidst the agony and ecstasy of Woodstock.

After that, though, it was job, kids and responsibility -- popular
music was something you heard on the radio.

Well, if the '60s was your decade to howl, the Mayfield has cranked
up its perpetual motion music machine to present a tie-dyed,
nostalgia-drenched tribute to the years of sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Sorry, I guess that's Peace, Love and Rock N Roll.

As any of you who have attended their various tribute shows over the
years know -the Mayfield does it up right. They assemble a
crackerjack cast, back them with a sizzling hot band and tart it all
up with quick costume changes and hilariously dated choreography to
present two and a half hours of entertainment.

This evening begins with a skit from Maxwell Smart. Remember him? He
was James Bond's low-rent, nerdy American cousin from early TV of the
'60s. The lines go like this.

Max: "Don't tell me you're afraid."

Agent 99: "I'm sorry Max. I'm afraid."

Max: "I told you not to tell me that."

The continuing skit is woven through the evening.

Then comes a flood of bright, enjoyable music presented by a cast who
wasn't even born when the songs were on the charts (or the Hit
Parade, as it was called during those years).

Ray Charles (or a reasonable facsimile from Orville Charles Cameron),
bouncing back and forth at the piano, sings Girl With a Red Dress On.
A Motown medley includes Mr. Postman, You Better Shop Around and Take
Good Care of My Baby.

Later we get a send-up of the impossibly square white guys (like Pat
Boon) trying to sing R&B numbers like Tutti Fruity.

That's followed by the British Invasion led by the Beatles, starting
with Sgt. Pepper and With a Little Help From My Friends. Roy Orbison
sings, Only the Lonely and even folkies like Peter Paul and Mary and
Simon and Garfunkle pop up - with Kieran Martin Murphy and Farren
Timoteo teaming up for a hilarious, deadpan takeoff on the two
singing The Sound of Silence.

And so it goes through to a driving recreation of the music that
brought the decade to an end at Woodstock.

There are light shows, psychedelia, Pat Burden's evocative costumes
and set designer Carmon Arlett's Andy Warhol Campbell Soup Can and
repeating Marilyn. Choreographer Christine Bandelow must either have
perfect dance memory or watched every video made during those years.

Given the unending costume changes, backstage must be a sea of wigs,
beards, spangles, psychedelic shirts, flared jeans and go-go boots.

There are some moments that stand out hours after the curtain goes
down. Guitarist Harley Symington's searing solo on My Guitar Softly
Weeps. Cameron's impassioned delivery of Martin Luther King's I Have
a Dream speech. Kevin Dabbs and Roman Pfob's bang-on recreation of
Rowan and Martin on Laugh In. Keith White's smooth delivery of every
song he sang.

I could go on, but you probably get it by now. Even if the '60s were
not your decade, it's hard to imagine anyone not being carried along
by the enthusiasm and talent and just plain good music that comes off
that stage in waves.

.

The Peace Drug

The Peace Drug

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/23/ST2007112300636.html

Post-traumatic stress disorder had destroyed Donna Kilgore's life.
Then experimental therapy with MDMA, a psychedelic drug better known
as ecstasy, showed her a way out. Was it a fluke -- or the future?

By Tom Shroder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; Page W12

THE BED IS TILTING!

Or the couch, or whatever. A futon. Slanted.

She hadn't noticed it before, but now she can't stop noticing. Like
the princess and the pea.

By objective measure, the tilt is negligible, a fraction of an inch,
but she can't be fooled by appearances, not with the sleep mask on.
In her inner darkness, the slight tilt magnifies, and suddenly she
feels as if she might slide off, and that idea makes her giggle.

"I feel really, really weird," she says. "Crooked!"

Donna Kilgore laughs, a high-pitched sound that contains both thrill
and anxiety. That she feels anything at all, anything other than the
weighty, oppressive numbness that has filled her for 11 years, is
enough in itself to make her giddy.

But there is something more at work inside her, something growing
from the little white capsule she swallowed just minutes ago. She's
subject No. 1 in a historic experiment, the first U.S.
government-sanctioned research in two decades into the potential of
psychedelic drugs to treat psychiatric disorders. This 2004 session
in the office of a Charleston, S.C., psychiatrist is being recorded
on audiocassettes, which Donna will later hand to a journalist.

The tape reveals her reaction as she listens to the gentle piano
music playing in her headphones. Behind her eyelids, movies begin to
unreel. She tries to say what she sees: Cars careening down the wrong
side of the road. Vivid images of her oldest daughter, then all three
of her children. She's overcome with an all-consuming love, a love
she thought she'd lost forever.

"Now I feel all warm and fuzzy," she announces. "I'm not nervous anymore."

"What level of distress do you feel right now?" a deeply mellow voice
beside her asks.

Donna answers with a giggle. "I don't think I got the placebo," she says.

FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, Donna Kilgore was raped.

When the stranger at the door asked if her husband were home, she
hesitated. Not long, but long enough. That was her mistake.

"That was it," Donna, 39 now, is saying. "He pushed in. I backed up
and picked up a poker from the fireplace. I was screaming. He says,
'I've got a gun. If you cooperate, I won't kill you.' He unzipped his
jacket and reached in. I thought, this is it. This is how I'm going
to die. My life didn't flash before my eyes. I wasn't thinking about
my daughter. Just that one cold, hard fact. I checked out. I could
feel it, like hot molasses pouring all over my body. I went completely numb."

She dropped the poker.

Afterward, she stayed strong. She wasn't going to make the classic
victim's mistake of blaming herself for provoking the attack. She had
no doubts about that. She'd screamed and screamed until the police
came through the door. (They later reported that her attacker jumped
up, clutching for his pants, saying, "She said I could!")

And, bottom line, she'd survived. She'd be fine, she told herself.
She was wrong.

"It was what it must feel like to have no soul," she says. She quit
all her hobbies. A passion for tennis died. Devastating nightmares
woke her in the dark, her heart racing and palms slick. She dreamed
of explosions, tornadoes, bears eating people.

"Psychologists will tell you to go to your happy place," she says.
"Well, my happy place had bears in it."

Five years passed. Whatever went wrong, or right, in her life, it
felt like it was happening to someone else. She found a wonderful,
loving man -- she could still recognize those qualities, even though
she couldn't respond to them fully -- and remarried. She had more
kids. But even her family felt alien. It was "almost like going
overseas and being an exchange student, living with someone else's
family . . . I didn't like being close to people, and my children
didn't understand that. Mommy was always busy." She was often
irritable, and felt an unaccountable anger, which sometimes morphed
for no obvious reason into a heavy-breathing, sweat-streaming rage.
Almost worse, she couldn't feel the love she knew surrounded her. "I
was afraid it was gone -- when you look at your child and say, 'I
would die for that child in a heartbeat,' I didn't feel it -- and I
was afraid I would never get it back."

As she says this, she never breaks eye contact. Talking about her
trauma and her treatment is a decision she's made, she says. "It's
important." But it is also, obviously, hard, and she looks a little
pale as she explains what it was like for those five years: "I would
put my finger on my arm, and it would be like touching a dead body."

Incredibly, she didn't see a connection to the rape. Then, one
evening, she was sitting on her couch watching a disaster show on TV
-- she calls her interest in the genre "an addiction"-- when her
apartment door opened. Something about the angle of it seemed odd. As
she looked at the door, the room began to swirl. "It was kind of like
a whirlwind, make-you-dizzy moment, and I saw the whole thing, that
man pushing through the door, the warm molasses pouring down, my body
going numb. I call it, 'when I left my body.'"

Now she understood: She had left her body -- and never come back.

The panic attacks began at work one Friday. She felt butterflies in
her stomach, then couldn't breathe. "I thought: 'Oh my God, I'm
dying. I'm having a heart attack.'"

It passed, but she was shaken, especially because she'd also been
having fainting spells and migraine headaches. She went to a
neurologist "sure they were going to find a brain tumor."

The doctor was getting ready to order an MRI scan when Donna just
blurted it out: "Things don't feel real to me."

The doctor turned. "Oh? There's a word for that," she remembers him
saying. The word is dissociation, which happened to be a prime
symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

PTSD is usually triggered by combat, rape, childhood abuse, a serious
accident or natural disaster -- any situation in which someone
believes death is imminent, or in which a significant threat of
serious injury is accompanied by an intense sense of helplessness or
horror. Not all or even most trauma victims develop PTSD, but enough
do so that nearly 24 million Americans, or 8 percent of the
population, have suffered from it at some point in their lifetime. It
is estimated that in any given year, more than 5 million Americans
have active PTSD -- a costly problem in humanitarian and economic
terms. Drug and alcohol abuse are all-too-frequent consequences of
PTSD, as is loss of productivity and the need for expensive,
long-lasting medical treatment.

The ever-lengthening Iraq war will count among its other costs a
legacy of thousands of veterans in need of psychiatric treatment. The
government estimates that already more than 50,000 soldiers -- about
4 percent of those who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan --
have been treated for symptoms of PTSD. Many more might actually have
it: Military studies put the number at 12 to 20 percent of those
returning from Iraq and 6 to 11 percent of those returning from
Afghanistan. And the news gets worse.

"Vets with PTSD are particularly costly to the [Veterans Affairs]
system," says Linda Bilmes, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government. "They constitute 8 percent of the
claims, but 20 percent of the payments." Bilmes, who has studied the
ongoing costs of the wars, estimates that treating Iraq vets with
PTSD over the next 50 years will cost taxpayers $100 billion. This is
based on findings that one-third of vets with PTSD will remain
unemployable, and all suffering with PTSD will have a much higher
than normal likelihood of needing treatment for physical ailments.
And that's just the direct costs to the budget. "Assuming that the
war continues, though with lower deployments, through 2017," she
says, and assuming the rate of PTSD isn't being underreported, the
cost of lost economic productivity to the U.S. economy will be in
excess of $65 billion.

Whatever the cause, the symptoms of PTSD are fairly consistent, and
Donna's -- which rated severe on a standard diagnostic test -- were
typical. Her prognosis was not great. Some antidepressants can
diminish symptoms, and various forms of psychotherapy can, long term,
sometimes untangle the psychological knot at the root of the problem.
But the nature of PTSD makes therapy problematic. The very symptoms
-- acute anxiety, heightened fear, diminished trust and inability to
revisit the trauma -- are a direct roadblock to healing. At least
one-third of people with PTSD never fully recover.

On that day of Donna's first diagnosis, the doctor sent her up to the
seventh floor, the psych floor, to begin years of therapy and
medication, none of which helped much, Donna says.

And then she found Michael Mithoefer and became the first to take one
of his little white capsules.

THE CAPSULES RESIDE IN A SAFE, armed with an alarm and bolted to the
floor of Mithoefer's office, a 1950s-vintage cottage on the road
between downtown Charleston and Sullivans Island. It's been
tastefully remodeled to create a softly lit, high-ceilinged sanctuary
in the back, scattered with art and furnished with, among other
things, the ever-so-slightly inclined futon where Donna got crooked.

The elaborate security is occasioned by what is inside the capsules:
MDMA, a synthetic compound that is a chemical cousin to both
mescaline and methamphetamine. Unabbreviated, MDMA is a real mouthful
-- 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine -- but it is far better known by
its street name, ecstasy, millions of doses of which are synthesized
in criminal labs from the oil of the sassafras plant. At one point,
Mithoefer recounts, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration,
there to inspect the security arrangements, inquired about the
therapist who rents the office adjoining the safe room.

"I guess they were concerned she might drill through the wall into
the safe and steal the MDMA," Mithoefer says. "Though there's such a
small amount in there, and it's so readily available on the street in
such large quantities, I don't see how that would be worth the
effort, even if she were so inclined."

Mithoefer became a psychiatrist in 1991, after a decade as an
emergency room doctor -- he had found himself less interested in the
bodily traumas his patients suffered than the psychological traumas
that so often preceded their appearance in the emergency room. He's
got that mellow, empathic vibe that they just can't teach at therapy
school. He always seems moments away from a sympathetic chuckle, an
understanding murmur or a sage observation. A fit 61, with a brown
ponytail and relaxed dress code, Mithoefer has become the accidental
point man of a movement to revive medical research into psychedelic
drugs. His Food and Drug Administration-approved PTSD study that
began with Donna Kilgore in April 2004 is now nearly completed, with
18 of 21 subjects having undergone the double-blind sessions. Two
Iraq veterans with war-related PTSD, the study's first, are cleared
to begin. Close behind are similar studies in Switzerland and Israel.
At Harvard's McLean Hospital, researchers are set to evaluate MDMA
therapy as a way to alleviate acute anxiety in terminal cancer
patients. In Vancouver, Canada, the effectiveness of an ongoing
program to treat drug addiction with another potent psychedelic drug,
ibogaine, is under scrutiny. There is a proposal, based on case
histories, to study the ability of LSD to defuse crippling cluster headaches.

All of these studies are directly or indirectly funded by a
surprisingly robust organization whose roots stretch back 40 years to
the psychedelic movement of the 1960s. Before Harvard lecturer
Timothy Leary started channeling aliens and urging college kids to
turn on and drop out, an intense cadre of doctors and researchers had
come to believe that psychedelic drugs would revolutionize
psychiatry, providing those with a wide spectrum of psychological
problems -- or even just ordinary life difficulties -- the ability
to, basically, heal themselves.

But Leary's bizarre career, which morphed from doing research on
psychedelics to cheerleading their widespread abuse, obscured
whatever medical potential the drugs may have had. Instead,
authorities focused on the risks, and often exaggerated them. Richard
Nixon famously called Leary "the most dangerous man in America."
After a slow start, regulators and legislators cracked down hard.
Millions of dollars in enforcement efforts were unable to end abuse
of psychedelic drugs, but they effectively stamped out sanctioned
research into their healing potential.

A small group of psychedelic researchers and therapists willing to
break the law continued their work clandestinely. A much larger group
did not flout the law, but waited in the wings and is now emerging.
Experience had convinced these therapists that psychedelics, along
with significant risks, had potential for even more significant benefits.

This may have been especially true of MDMA.

Mithoefer states the case in an article he wrote for a book of
scholarly essays, Psychedelic Medicine: Social, Clinical and Legal
Perspectives:"The reported results [of early therapeutic use] include
decreased fear and anxiety, increased openness, trust and
interpersonal closeness, improved therapeutic alliance, enhanced
recall of past events with an accompanying ability to examine them
with new insight, calm objectivity and compassionate self-acceptance."

In short, a therapist's dream. Or is it a hallucination?

THE PROMISE OF A BLOCKBUSTER TREATMENT, one that doesn't just address
symptoms but defuses underlying causes, is a particularly seductive
vision right now. A report issued last month by the National Academy
of Sciences' Institute of Medicine emphasizes the uncertain
effectiveness of current PTSD treatments, and the urgent need of
returning soldiers who will suffer from it.

To a non-scientist, the very preliminary results of Mithoefer's study
would suggest that MDMA might be just what the doctors ordered. Of
the subjects who have been through both the MDMA-assisted therapy and
the three-month post-experiment follow-up tests, Mithoefer reports,
every one showed dramatic improvement.

But scientists are a cautious lot. "It's potentially nice to hear
those things," says Scott Lilienfeld, an associate professor of
psychology at Emory University. But until results are statistically
analyzed and peer-reviewed for publication, "you can't really judge
them. The plural of anecdote is not data." Especially with a drug
that has considerable risk, Lilienfeld cautions, it pays to be skeptical.

A.C. Parrott, a psychologist at Swansea University in Britain who has
devoted a large part of his career to studying the dangers of MDMA,
is far more than skeptical. "MDMA is a very powerful, neurochemically
messy and potentially damaging drug," he says. The government "should
never have given it a license for these trials. Certainly I would not
give it a license for any further trials."

But one of the nation's premier PTSD researchers, Roger K. Pitman, a
professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, disagrees.
Morphine is a powerful, potentially damaging drug, Pitman says, "and
we use it to treat the pain of cancer patients. Sound medical reasons
should trump."

Current treatment for PTSD is "partial at best," he says. "There's a
lot of room for improvement, and we need to be looking for novel treatments."

Though Pitman calls the MDMA study "a fringe hypothesis" -- "I've
never heard anybody talk about it at any PTSD meeting I've ever
attended in 25 years" -- he also observes that, based solely on a
description of the preliminary results, "this seems worth further
study. A lot of new ideas meet with rejection and skepticism, and we
need to be careful not to be prejudiced against something just
because it seems wacky. If it has a 5 percent chance, or even a 1
percent chance, of being effective in treatment of PTSD, it's worth pursuing."

AS THE SESSION TAPE ROLLS TOWARD THE FIRST HOUR, the giggles have
passed. Donna Kilgore is still on the crooked couch, but she sounds
very level. She's talking about her husband. Her voice is clear,
calm, but you can hear something in it, something rising in the
throat like water from a newly tapped spring.

"I just have a deep feeling of gratitude for all the love and
understanding he's shown. I know it's been tough on him, not
understanding what I've been going through and not knowing how to
help. But if it wasn't for him, I don't think I'd be here."

The study protocol requires that a hospital crash cart and a trauma
doctor be present during all therapy sessions, in case the drug
precipitates a medical emergency. They are waiting a room away, a
reminder that this is a test of a potent experimental drug, though
you'd never know that from the calm, sober tenor of the conversation.
It's really more of a monologue: Michael Mithoefer and his wife,
Annie, a nurse and co-therapist, mostly listen, only occasionally
murmuring supportively. This is their treatment plan: Construct a
reassuring, protective environment and "let the drug do its work."

"He used to spend a lot of time laughing and cutting up," Donna
continues about her husband, "but things have gotten so serious. I
love him with all my heart, but there just hasn't been that warm
fuzzy feeling, how you get excited every time you see him. It's put a
damper on it. I don't fully enjoy anything. I don't enjoy my kids. I
don't enjoy my dog.

"It's frustrating, just going through the motions day after day after
day. I don't get any joy out of it."

She stops talking, and you can hear the faint strain of music coming
from her headphones. She takes a deep breath. The blood pressure
cuff, on a five-minute timer, starts to inflate.

"It sucks to just exist, and not live," Donna announces.

FIRST SYNTHESIZED IN 1912 -- A BYPRODUCT IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A DRUG
TO SUPPRESS BLEEDING -- MDMA was little known until a former Dow
Chemical researcher named Alexander Shulgin tried it himself in 1977.
Shulgin had made his reputation, and made Dow millions, by inventing
the first biodegradable pesticide. After that success, he was able to
work on whatever he chose. He chose psychedelic drugs, based on a
transforming experience he had with mescaline in the late 1950s. "I
understood that our entire universe is contained in the mind and the
spirit," he wrote. "We may choose not to find access to it, we may
even deny its existence, but it is indeed there inside us, and there
are chemicals that can catalyze its availability."

Shulgin made it his business to find those chemicals. In a New York
Times profile in 2005, when Shulgin was 79, he estimated that he'd
synthesized 200 psychoactive compounds and tested them on himself.
Their effects ranged from paralyzing him with fear to granting him
ecstatic visions. With MDMA, he was convinced that he'd found
something special.

"I feel absolutely clean inside, and there is nothing but pure
euphoria," he wrote in his field journal. "The cleanliness, clarity,
and marvelous feeling of solid inner strength continued . . . through
the next day. I am overcome by the profundity of the experience."

It's not well understood why MDMA, or any psychedelic drug, can
produce extraordinary experiences. But in MDMA's case, the crude
explanation seems to involve a drug-forced rush of serotonin in the
brain. Serotonin assists in the transmission of nerve impulses and
plays a role in regulating a wide range of sensations and impulses,
from mood, emotion, sleep and appetite to sensation, pleasure and
sexuality. One recent study pointed out physiological similarities
between a brain under the influence of MDMA and the post-orgasmic
state, also known for producing emotional closeness and euphoria.

Whatever the cause, Shulgin saw in the overwhelming positive feelings
the drug engendered huge potential as an aid in the psychotherapeutic
process. "I made samples of it for a good therapist friend of mine,
Leo Zeff, which brought him out of retirement and into the
enthusiastic task of making it available internationally with his
psychotherapy friends," Shulgin recalls in an e-mail. "Its popularity
spread in part by his enthusiasm, but in part by the fact that its
ability to open the doors of communication made it widely popular as
a social drug."

BY MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS, MDMA EMERGED AS A STREET DRUG IN 1984 at a new
and instantly hot Dallas nightclub called Starck. Sold at $12 a hit,
MDMA -- which Zeff's crowd had nicknamed Adam, for its presumed
potential to return man to innocent bliss -- became ecstasy. Part of
the drug's appeal was that it made dancing feel great, and staying up
all night easy. But there was more. Here's an account of first-time
ecstasy use from that period, recalled in the Austin Chronicle in 2000:

"The street lights got brighter, I could see the stars, car lights,
even the shadows in this alley were, you know, more so. And I felt
this tingle that began in my fingers and spread all over my body,
coming in waves, just this indescribable feeling of aliveness. It was
as if the nerves in my skin had been dormant all these years and were
just now waking up and stretching. Just like that. And after this
initial rush of pleasure came an overwhelming -- and I mean
over-[expletive]-whelming-- feeling of total and complete positivity.
Any and all fears I had harbored about doing my first drug were
waylaid instantly. It was pure bliss, but it didn't knock me off my
feet, or feel scary in any way.

"My girlfriend . . . and I . . . lay in the wet grass and watched the
stars and cuddled. And we talked. We talked for hours. We talked
about everything. Everything. It was probably the best, most open and
honest conversation I've ever had with anyone in my entire life."

Word-of-mouth reviews such as that fueled an explosion of
recreational use. From 1984 to 2001, the graph line for the number of
first-time users of MDMA in the National Survey of Drug Use and
Health quickly shot up, reaching a peak of nearly 2 million new users
in 2001 alone. Concern about the drug, spurred by a spike in
emergency room visits from rave bars and MDMA-related deaths, went up
right along with it. Ecstasy use has since tapered off, though it is
still substantial. The 2005 survey estimated that 11.5 million
Americans had used ecstasy, and 615,000 had tried it for the first
time that year. The average age skewed young. In 2001, 5.2 percent of
eighth-graders and 11.7 percent of high school seniors had tried
ecstasy (both numbers have been roughly cut in half in the most
recent, 2006 survey).

When Zeff began his mission to spread the MDMA gospel in therapeutic
circles, the drug was perfectly legal. But federal drug enforcement
officials, who had taken half a decade to ban LSD, weren't about to
delay on ecstasy. Within months of the rave boom in Dallas, officials
announced they intended to list MDMA as Schedule I, the category
reserved for dangerous drugs with high potential for abuse and no
accepted medical use.

Rick Doblin was waiting for them.

LIKE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, Doblin had discovered psychedelic drugs
in college in the early '70s. By his own description a somewhat
awkward, searching kid, he tried LSD in 1971 at New College of
Florida, then a small, experimental liberal arts school in Sarasota.
Very liberal and very experimental. "There was this tradition of
all-night dance parties, until sunrise, under the palm trees, using
psychedelics," Doblin says. It was bacchanalian, yes, but Doblin
found something else in the experience, something "therapeutic and spiritual."

"I was like, man, this is the kind of energy, the kind of psychic
stuff" that could lead him to the personal growth he had been
yearning for. Ironically, says Doblin, "this was right as research
into therapeutic uses was pretty much being shut down."

Doblin's world was legally circumscribed in another way as well. He
was a draft resister. "What could I possibly do with my life, because
I couldn't be a licensed anything, doctor, teacher a professional of
some sort. All that was closed to me because I was a criminal."

As long as he was already an outlaw, Doblin reasoned, be might as
well be one of those who disregarded drug criminalization and worked
underground as a self-trained psychedelic therapist. When he
encountered MDMA in 1982, he became convinced that he'd found the
perfect therapeutic tool, one that had an LSD-like power to hurdle
psychic roadblocks but lacked the frightening disorientation. Plus,
it was still legal, and by then, so was Doblin -- President Jimmy
Carter had pardoned draft resisters in 1977. Now Doblin had a vision:
He would return to the mainstream and bring psychedelic therapy with him.

When, in 1985, prohibition of MDMA came, as everyone knew it would,
Doblin had already prepared his case with a coalition of like-minded
pro bono lawyers, researchers and therapists. He even won a round --
an administrative law judge ruled that MDMA met the standards for
having a legitimate medical application and being safe enough for
medical use. But the DEA rejected that recommendation and MDMA
remained banned.

Doblin, decided he couldn't win in the courts and switched his
crusade to the lab. He would focus on fostering the science that
would prove the benefits of psychedelic therapy outweighed the risks.
In 1986, he founded a nonprofit organization -- the Multidisciplinary
Association for Psychedelic Studies -- to raise money for the
research. (Knowing he would need to navigate through the obstacle
course of federal bureaucracy, he entered Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government and, in 2001, received a PhD in public policy.) On the
elaborate MAPS home page -- alongside a psychedelic research library,
the organization's financial statements, elaborate news updates and
notices of psychedelic art for sale -- is a splash box featuring the
MAPS "Rites of Passage Project." It's an extended pitch for the idea
that "within responsible limits" parents can sometimes find great
benefit in doing psychedelic drugs with their adolescent children,
and includes an archive of testimonials with taglines such as
"Mother-Son Peyote Ritual . . . a beautiful rite of passage a mother
shared with her teenaged son, strengthening his family connection,
his sense of self, and his bond with nature."

Doblin is frank about his passionate desire to defuse the drug war,
which he believes is counterproductive and an assault on personal
liberties. He doesn't think the government should be able to tell
Americans what to put in their bodies, and he has even volunteered in
interviews that he sometimes finds it useful to consider important
personal and strategic issues with psychedelic assistance. He
acknowledges that his outspokenness caused a schism in the original
coalition that fought against relegating MDMA to Schedule I -- many
of his colleagues wanted to stress their support for the
criminalization of any nonprescription use. He has seen it jeopardize
one of his most prized accomplishments -- MAPS funding of the Harvard
MDMA-cancer study almost killed it. Doblin had to withdraw MAPS as a
sponsor and persuade a donor to give the money directly to Harvard
instead. He must realize he is handing his critics a potent argument,
i.e.: Don't be fooled by the careful science and limited goals of the
current studies; the real goal is unrestricted use of psychedelic drugs.

So, why does he do it? "Sometimes, it's just a relief to say, 'This
is what I believe,'" Doblin says.

His honesty has apparently been no impediment to soliciting cash from
fellow believers, which, fortunately for MAPS, include some
entrepreneurs with a high regard for the psychedelic experience --
and a distaste for government drug policies -- who struck it rich in
the tech boom. Last year, MAPS donations topped $1 million.

MAPS continues to fund Mithoefer's study, which is estimated to cost
$900,000 through completion. And Doblin will raise money to support
the much more expensive next step -- Phase III trials, which involve
multiple sites and multiple therapists who will treat hundreds of
people suffering from PTSD. If it proves safe and effective, MDMA
would be certified as a prescription drug. That all could take five
years and $5 million, Doblin says. "But if it took twice that long
and cost twice that much, it would be worth every penny."

Mithoefer speaks far more cautiously of his eventual goal. "If MDMA
indeed proves an effective treatment for PTSD," not only should the
drug require prescription, but it should be administered only in
licensed clinics with specially trained therapists, "like methadone,"
he says. Regarding Doblin's controversial views, Mithoefer says: "I
respect his openness. I think it's a good thing that there's nothing
sneaky about Rick, but that's not what I'm oriented toward. I'm
oriented toward doing medical research. There are real patients
suffering with real problems, and I'm trying to learn through good
science if there are some methods to help people heal."

MITHOEFER DOES NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
MDMA, except to say that it occurred when the drug was legal. But it
must have stuck with him. "I was working in the emergency department,
looking for some deeper way to address people's problems," he
recalls. "Stan Grof's work really got my attention."

Stanislav Grof, a Czech psychiatrist and one of the first to research
therapeutic uses of LSD, believed that the West had lost touch with
the healing potential of non-ordinary states of consciousness. When
psychedelic drugs became illegal in the United States, Grof created
an alternative called holotropic breathwork. The idea was that
hyperventilation, combined with music and a ritualistic setting,
could foster an altered consciousness, through which patients could
be guided into insight and problem resolution. Mithoefer went to
California to train with Grof, then began to use breathwork in his
own practice. And though he says it is often effective, he wondered
how much more could be accomplished using MDMA. In 2000, Mithoefer
approached Doblin to ask if he knew of a country in which a study of
MDMA-assisted therapy might be permitted.

"You can do it here," Doblin said. "And we'll help."

Doblin says his optimism was based on a change in leadership and
culture in the federal bureaucracy. When he first founded MAPS,
Doblin says, "the FDA was refusing to permit all the studies we
proposed," even one attempting to use MDMA therapy to ease the fears
of a dying cancer patient who had found solace using the drug before
it was banned. "The FDA said, 'No, we have to protect him from brain
damage,'" Doblin says.

Then in 1992, after six years of refusals, the FDA approved a
MAPS-funded human safety study. Safety studies are required before
any drug can move on to Phase II -- studies of a specific medical
application. In MDMA's case, this was particularly important because
many believed the drug to be so toxic. Even talking about the
possibility of therapeutic benefits would only make more people want
to try it, some believed, and that would inevitably lead to more
emergency room visits. And deaths.

More than 200 fatalities involving ecstasy use in the United States
were reported to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration from 1994 to 2001. Many of these deaths were related
to traffic accidents and the use of other drugs and alcohol or other
incidental causes. Of deaths directly related to ecstasy, most were
caused by heatstroke. MDMA exerts a stress on the body similar to
strenuous exercise and increases core body temperature, so dancing
all night in a hot, crowded bar can quickly go from fun to deadly.
More rarely, some ravers, paranoid about hyperthermia, have
reportedly consumed so much water, many gallons, that the water
itself became toxic and killed them.

But, even in the context of uncontrolled doses and settings, deaths
from MDMA are relatively infrequent events, considering the estimated
tens of millions of doses taken.

Perhaps of even greater concern was the possibility that MDMA could
cause permanent brain damage. Though research is ongoing and hotly
debated, it's clear that test animals injected with high doses
experienced lasting deformation of serotonin receptors in the brain.

There were worrisome human studies as well: In some, long-term
recreational users of ecstasy performed more poorly on tests for
short-term memory and some other cognitive functions than control
groups, though the meaning of these results is complicated by the
fact that most long-term ecstasy users also use other dangerous drugs.

The new safety study was not testing the dangers of MDMA under the
conditions of illegal use. Eighteen people were given dosages similar
to those that would be used in psychotherapy sessions, and the
settings were comparable to the calm of a psychiatrist's office. The
gist of the findings: MDMA given under those circumstances produced
no acute harm or evidence of brain impairment. These results were
bolstered by a Swiss study in which people who had never before taken
MDMA were given brain scans before and after being given a single
therapeutic-range dose of the drug. Comparison of the before and
after scans showed no damage.

Given those results, Doblin figured the time was right for persuading
regulators to approve Mithoefer's proposal, a placebo-controlled,
double-blind study (meaning that neither doctor nor patient would be
told who got the real drug). The safety study, and others done
elsewhere, had made the case: Many valuable medicines have been
developed from far more problematic drugs.

Doblin and the Mithoefers spent 18 months developing an elaborate
protocol for the study: Research subjects would be limited to people
who'd struggled with the disorder for years, and whom conventional
treatments hadn't helped. The cases would be relatively severe, as
scored on the standard diagnostic test, and subjects would be
required to undergo multiple non-drug therapy sessions with the
Mithoefers before and after the two MDMA sessions to prepare them for
the experience and to help them process it afterward. The protocol
dealt with such details as what kind of touching would be permitted
(supportive, non-sexual), and what kind music would be played on
earphones (soothing).

Submitted to the FDA in October 2001, it was approved a month later.

Then, in September 2002, the institutional review board engaged to
guarantee the study's ethics -- de rigueur for human medical research
-- abruptly withdrew its support. A study published in Science
magazine found that relatively small doses of MDMA had created severe
damage to the dopamine system in the brains of squirrel monkeys and
orangutans. Dopamine damage could put human users at risk of
developing Parkinson's disease, among other problems. In the case of
the primate test subjects, the Science article said, the drug was so
toxic that two of 10 animals died, and two more were in such bad
shape that the researchers didn't give them a planned third injection.

After 2 1/2 years of work, the PTSD study appeared to be doomed.

A year later, Science printed a retraction: The vials containing the
drugs that so damaged the monkeys' brains had been mislabeled. It
wasn't MDMA after all, but methamphetamine. A new review board
quickly signed on to support Mithoefer's study, but the irony of the
wasted year wasn't lost on him: The misidentified drug that had been
deemed too toxic to evaluate for medical use, the drug that was far
more toxic than MDMA, was already a prescription drug.

Meanwhile, in the four years the MDMA study lingered between concept
and reality, Donna Kilgore had been driven to the brink. She took
"every anti-depressant you can name," tried a dozen therapists and an
almost equal number of therapeutic approaches. But nothing made that
numbness, panic and rage recede.

"I was getting to the point," she recalls, "where it was either go
sit on a mountaintop or go dive off a cliff."

That's when a therapist told her about the Mithoefers' experiment.
She applied, and became patient No. 1.

DONNA SPENDS A LOT OF HER TIME ON THE CROOKED COUCH holding the
Mithoefers' hands, one on each side. She needs that reassurance now,
recalling the rape.

"I was backed into a corner, nowhere to go, desperate. I kept telling
him I wouldn't tell anybody," she says.

Can she feel that desperation now?

"A little bit, yeah."

Minutes pass. On the tape, you can hear the blood pressure cuff whir
to life as the amplified beat of her heart thumps faintly in the background.

Finally she speaks, her voice rising with conviction.

"I feel protected. I do. I feel completely protected. I don't feel
like I'm hanging out there anymore . . . It feels good to be loved.
It feels good to be protected."

Minutes pass. She is lost in a vision, she will say later. She can
see herself standing on a ridge, high above a valley shrouded in
mist. Down in the valley, she knows, is a battlefield, containing all
kinds of terrors. Her terrors. She knows they are there, but can't
see their shape through the fog. Now the fog is lifting. Now she can
begin to see.

"You're right," she says, as if in response to an assertion that
hasn't been made. "I am angry. I'm angry at myself. It changed from
being afraid to being mad at myself, that I allowed it to happen . . .

"And not just that," she says. There's a sudden, involuntary intake
of breath. "I think that a lot of this baggage I'm carrying around is
really stuff that I put in there myself. I stacked the luggage.
Either in disappointment in myself or self-blame. Don't get me wrong.
Under no circumstances do I think that I deserved it or I asked for
it or that I did something to bring that on. I don't feel that way at
all . . . It's like you take your base line [which is] fear, and you
throw some self-doubt on top of that, and then you throw some
desperation on top of that, and, before you know it, you got a
seven-layer burrito going there. I mean I can feel every one of them.
I don't know how to express it, but I can feel them . . . just one
right on top of the other, and maybe I've done that for so long, that
when the rape happened, that was maybe the straw that broke the
camel's back, and my mind said, 'Okay, that's enough, you're cut off,
no more.' There's no more room on the pile."

The Mithoefers murmur sympathetic words as Donna continues
unburdening herself.

"It's not just about the rape. It's not just about any one thing.
It's so many different things . . . All I can remember feeling, as
far as I can remember, is fear. Heart-stopping, gut-dropping fear . .
. I've kept all this inside for so long, and it feels so heavy . . .
these emotions -- it's like I've been trained to be this way as long
as I can remember -- to be seen and not heard. Just from that point
on, I've tried to make myself as small and inconspicuous as possible.
And then the rape happened, and you're headline news . . . I was ashamed."

The study protocol calls for the therapists to periodically ask the
subjects to rate their level of distress on a scale of zero to 10.

"Zero," Donna says quickly. Another pause. "No, that's not entirely
true. That's a lie. I would say about a two. It's a disturbing
revelation, I guess you could say."

Once again, she pauses.

"I feel calmer, a whole lot calmer," she says. "Kind of putting it
all together, rather than just throwing it all in a box."

"OH, MAN, I'M IMPRESSED," SAYS MARK WAGNER, a clinical psychologist
on faculty at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston,
an expert in psychological testing and an independent evaluator
conducting the before and after PTSD assessments in Mithoefer's
study. "I didn't know much about the clinical use of MDMA before
this," Wagner says, "But I've seen each and every one of these
patients, and, just as a clinical psychologist, it is impressive to
see the degree of treatment response these folks have had. There are
a couple of areas in medicine, like hip replacement, where one day
you are bedridden, and the next you're out playing tennis. Or with
Lasik surgery, you're blind, and then you can see. Nothing in
psychology is like that. But this was dramatic."

Lilienfeld, the Emory psychologist, is less enthusiastic. "These
subjects knew if they got the drug or the placebo," he says.
"Particularly when you have a very dramatic and powerful
intervention, people may change but not in a longstanding way."

Wagner points out that two subjects who got the placebo were
convinced they had gotten MDMA, and others who did get it weren't
sure. The people who wrongly believed they'd gotten the drug
initially showed improvement, but quickly relapsed. "The chance that
a placebo effect would last for three months is very slight," Wagner
says. "And for it to last for a year or more, which anecdotally we
believe might be the case here, would be extremely remote."

But if MDMA does work, the question remains, why? "Patients in our
study had a fear of the fear," Wagner says. "Something about the MDMA
made it possible for them to approach the feared thought, the feared
'place' in their mind -- and when they got there, it wasn't as
terrible as they thought. A lot of these people, the light bulb went
off, they had the insight, but there's still a lot of work to do.
They've had this for years, it's shaped their lives, and now they
have to rebuild them."

In Mithoefer's Psychedelic Medicine article, he theorizes that the
breakthroughs came from having the psychic calm -- the feeling Donna
had of being protected -- that allowed subjects to meaningfully
reexperience and reassess the events that traumatized them, and at
the same time be able to feel a powerful new connection to positive
aspects of their lives. In Donna's case it was the love of her
husband and children. Another patient told Mithoefer: "I had never
before felt what I felt today in terms of loving connection. I'm not
sure I can reach it again without MDMA, but I'm not without hope that
it's possible. Maybe it's like having an aerial map, so now I know
there's a trail."

For some subjects, the most significant part of the experience seemed
to be a physical release of mental anguish. In Mithoefer's article,
he says one subject exclaimed: "I can relax! Forty-three years of
fear and not being able to feel my body. Now I can feel my body without pain."

Another subject, a 50-year-old woman named Elizabeth, had one of the
more dramatic physical releases. "I thought it was supposed to be
talk therapy, that I was supposed to talk about things, but it
doesn't have to be," she says. "The drug itself will do the work."

Her trauma centered on a stepfather who viciously abused her and her
brother from an early age. She describes him as "a truck driver,
ignorant, uneducated, Southern, moonshine-drinking, swearing,
wife-beating idiot. He thought kids were there for his entertainment,
amusement and personal use."

From an early age, Elizabeth was stuck in a grim survival mode.
"Doesn't matter what you do to me, you will never touch me," is how
she described it. "It was a feeling, all self-defense, all
self-protection, nobody gets in."

Her whole life evolved, pathologically, from that premise. Running
away as an adolescent from the horrors at home, she was raped, twice,
by men who picked her up as she hitchhiked. With no real concept of
love and nurture, she got involved in a series of physically and
emotionally abusive relationships. When something triggered memories
of her abuse, she froze in a nearly catatonic state, caught between
fight and flight, unable to do either.

During her MDMA session, Elizabeth says, she remembered that after
her mother divorced her stepfather, she'd confided to Elizabeth that
he had been the best lover she'd ever had.

As she talked about how that made her feel, Elizabeth recalls,
Mithoefer "was pushing me verbally. I was mad, and he was pushing me,
provoking me to feel it. I just kept getting madder and madder,
hitting the bed. Then the drug just took me and slammed me down. I
was sitting one second, then down on my back in the next. I became
very rigid, the tension was so powerful. I remember lying on the bed
where I slammed down, looking at Dr. Mithoefer . . . like I'm mad at
him for putting me through this, and this wave of energy just slammed
through me, and it was just a release of a tremendous amount of this
negative energy. It was powerful, and it was explosive. I felt like
I'd been through something significant . . . My mother traded my
childhood for sex!"

In the weeks following the therapy sessions, Elizabeth says, she
would be standing in the kitchen, or just sitting in a chair at work,
and without warning that powerful release would move through her
body. Afterward, she says, "I felt at ease, a level of ease I was not
familiar with, just being comfortable within myself, within my body."

That feeling of ease has given her a new relationship with her life,
she says. Difficulties continue, but "I'm not having as much problem
with the puzzle. I'm able to just keep slugging away. I don't feel so
much like going to bed and sucking my thumb."

The problems don't disappear, Mithoefer says, they just become
something that can be managed.

"All subjects have told us they found MDMA helpful," Mithoefer says
in his article. "Some have felt the effect . . . was dramatic and
even lifesaving: however, others have reported disappointment that
MDMA was not a "magic bullet" to remove all their symptoms, or have
said it would have been helpful to have one or a few additional sessions."

Parrott, the MDMA critic from Britain, worries that in some cases
MDMA magnifies negative feelings instead of positive ones, and can
bring up difficult memories that may be overwhelming. It's
problematic, he says, that the outcome of therapy sessions can be so
dependent on the skill of the therapist.

Mithoefer acknowledges that this is an issue and says that's
precisely why he believes that, if MDMA is ever prescribed, it should
be administered only in licensed clinics by specially trained therapists.

Still a problem, says Parrott. "Those patients who had good
experiences on the drug would often want further-on MDMA sessions
(just like many novice recreational users)," he writes in an e-mail.
"This scenario is very worrying for many obvious reasons: reducing
efficacy but increasingly adverse effects following repeated usage;
drug seeking elsewhere when it stopped being forthcoming from the
clinic etc; regular use leading to a variety of psycho-biological problems."

Wagner, who questioned all of Mithoefer's subjects in detail about
their post-therapy attitudes, thinks Parrott is way off mark. "I
didn't see a single individual who thought: 'Oh, yeah, this is great
fun. I'm going to try to go out and use this for recreational use.'
All of them took this very seriously and therapeutically. They saw it
as hard, but important, work."

Amy, a woman in her 40s, is a case in point. She remembers being
psychologically and physically abused by her father "from birth,"
culminating one winter when he locked her in the basement for three
weeks. She had a reaction to MDMA very different from Donna's instant
giggles. When the drug started to take effect, she says, "It just hit
me, and it wasn't pleasant. I felt like I was going to throw up. So I
said, Okay, when's this happy, lovey feeling going to happen? I went
to lie down on the couch and waited to go higher, but the drug took
me down instead. [Mithoefer] was taking notes. I felt like he was
drawing circles around me, but he showed me his notes, and they were
just notes. That's when I saw that my internal world and external
world didn't match up, and I connected with that. I saw myself as a
baby wrapped in a white blanket, my family members standing there,
and I realized, It wasn't my fault . . . I was flooded with feelings
of peace and safety. 'It wasn't my fault. I didn't do anything,' I
kept saying. 'I was a little girl. I was a baby.'

"After the first session, I felt exhausted, like I had a really bad
hangover. But everything continued to unfold. I started to make
connections. Like going into the grocery store, I used to feel very
alienated. I couldn't connect with the other shoppers. But after the
first session, I realized I could look at the people, and I wasn't
afraid, like they were going to hurt me. I made the connection
between the way I was always sizing up my environment, the alienation
and the numbness that I felt, and the abuse.

"It felt weird at first, but kind of nice, that I could look at
someone, and they would look back, and we'd smile at each other."

But like several other of the test subjects, Amy also confronted
difficult new terrain. "Sometimes to go forward you have to go
backwards," she says. "I knew that, but it wasn't comfortable to go
there, back into the basement, into the abuse, into the beatings. I
was apprehensive. I had already started feeling more grounded, but
I'd functioned so long on autopilot that feeling things was difficult."

Difficult, but also better. "So many things happened," she says.
"Before, I never wore a seat belt. I would look at it but not wear
it. It was self-sabotage. But after therapy, without even thinking
about it, I just automatically started putting it on."

FOR A YEAR AFTER HER TWO MDMA SESSIONS, Donna Kilgore says now, she
was symptom-free.

"To me, the biggest breakthrough -- it meant the world to me to be
able to look at the fear, to look at the shame. I didn't know I was
ashamed. It was like I'd been wearing the scarlet letter. It was so
heavy. When I got out of that session, I felt a hundred pounds lighter.

"Before, I knew the path was through the battlefield, but I just
could not get through it. [But during the MDMA therapy] I knew I
could walk through it, and I wasn't afraid. The drug gave me the
ability not to fear fear." Otherwise, she says, "I would have not
been able to do it."

Donna's sense that she'd had a breakthrough was supported when she
retook the evaluation test on which she'd rated as an extreme case
just weeks earlier. Her score had declined dramatically -- Mithoefer
says that he can't give an exact number before publication of results
-- but if she had been taking the test for the first time, she would
not have been considered to have PTSD at all.

It's now been more than three years since her MDMA sessions. Donna is
"still extremely grateful for the experience," she says. But problems
are starting to crop up again.

"I've had a lot of stressors recently," she says. Her husband got
laid off from a good job; they had to move; she had a difficult job
at a dental practice for children.

Donna was doing paperwork in the office. "It wasn't in the best part
of town," she says, "and I started to have catastrophic thinking
again." It was the resurgence of the paralyzing, unreasonable fears
characteristic of PTSD that she'd had before the MDMA sessions. "I
just started being convinced that someone was going to come in with a
gun and start shooting. And then I just couldn't listen to the
children screaming in the next room . . ."

She says she had to quit the job. She begins to cry.

"I know I can work through it," she says, her voice breaking a
little. "I know what I'm fighting now, and I can fight it."

Does she think it would help if she could have another MDMA therapy session?

"Yes," she says quickly. "But I can't. It's illegal."
---

Tom Shroder is editor of the Magazine. He can be reached at
shrodert@washpost.com. He will be fielding questions and comments
about this article Monday at noon at washingtonpost.com/liveonline.

.

The Life and Times of Charles Garry

The People's Advocate:
The Life and Times of Charles Garry

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/awards_festivals/fest_reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=ThJ1HLKNLn1jSkbrTJvLK1ln62P2GRjpkTnJ8gdLN9Wj7DG4QkLY!1504578851&&rid=10240

Bottom Line: Low-budget documentary shines a light on a lesser known
hero of the Left and puts him in the context of his times

By Sura Wood
Nov 27, 2007

Mill Valley Film Festival

The Free History Project

MILL VALLEY, Calif. -- Charles R. Garry, the controversial
working-class lawyer who defended '60s protestors and the Black
Panthers, is venerated in Hrag Yedalian's admiring documentary, "The
People's Advocate: The Life and Times of Charles R. Garry." A bare
bones, ragged-around-the-edges enterprise, the film is nonetheless an
illuminating portrait of a driven, deeply committed man and the
turbulent era he lived in. First-time filmmaker Yedalian, who spent
four years on this project, compiles television interviews with
Garry, archival news footage of his trials and testimonials and
reminiscences from a Who's Who of '60s radicals such as Huey P.
Newton, Bobby Seale, Angela Davis and David Hilliard as well as
Garry's brothers and assorted friends.

Garry didn't cut a particularly impressive figure or display the zeal
for self-promotion of William Kunstler. Rather he was a soft-spoken,
understated man, who looked more like a corporate vp than a tireless,
civil rights advocate for the Left and the political radical's go to
guy. The son of Armenian immigrants, Garry understood discrimination
first hand. He grew up dirt poor in Fresno, studied law at night
school and became a passionate, articulate defender of the
disenfranchised and oppressed with whom he identified.

According to the film, he was a daunting adversary in the courtroom
with a winning track record and a knack for putting the justice
system on trial. In a few instances, Yedalian is given to hyperbole
and overstates his case for how Garry revolutionized the legal system.

Garry represented Rev. Jim Jones and was present during the mass
suicide at the compound in Guyana. Although Garry escaped unharmed
and claimed that he wasn't aware of what was happening, his
reputation was irreparably tarnished by the incident. Friends say
that he returned a broken man and was never the same.

In 1991, he died of a stroke. Yedalian also includes a fascinating
interview with Jones' son that adds a chilling coda to his father's
thirst for domination and its impact on Garry's life.

The Apex Theory provides the offbeat, original score.

.

Thanksgiving: national day of mourning

Event offers alternate holiday portrait

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_7532347

Thanksgiving considered national day of mourning by some American Indians

By Titania Kumeh, CORRESPONDENT
Article Last Updated: 11/22/2007

ALCATRAZ ­ While residents across the Bay Area prepare to stuff their
faces with Thanksgiving fare, Bill Means spends the holiday morning fasting.

A member of the Oglala Lakota nation in South Dakota's Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation, Means considers Thanksgiving to be a national day
of mourning for American Indian people.

"The Indian people who were invited to the first Thanksgiving were
all killed," the 61-year-old former Bay Area resident says.

In memory of American Indians who were victims of genocide by
American policies, Means, the master of ceremonies for the 33rd
annual Indigenous Peoples' Thanksgiving Day Sunrise Gathering on
Alcatraz Island, started fasting Wednesday.

The event, expected to attract more than 3,000 people, commemorates
the 1969 to 1971 takeover of Alcatraz by a group of American Indian
youths and students. Its main objective, however, is to educate
people about the real Thanksgiving and what really happened to the
American Indians, Means said.

"Most of the education that children are given today only promotes
stereotypical images of Indians," he said. "Almost every American in
school has at one time or another put on the paper feathers and
dressed up as Indians, or they dressed up as Pilgrims. We wanted to
make sure that children in America learn the true history of Indian
peoples and our contributions to American society."

The gathering features a traditional tobacco smoking ceremony,
Azteca, Miwok and Pomo dancing, prayer, chanting, singing, and
lectures on topics ranging from immigration rights to the true
meaning behind the holiday.

"It is probably the largest indigenous peoples' event in the West,"
said Means, who serves on the board of directors of the International
Indian Treaty Council in San Francisco, the law organization that
founded the gathering on Alcatraz in 1978.

"When we started (the Thanksgiving Day event) we called it the
National Day of Mourning, because we had to question what Indian
people in America had to be thankful for," said Means. "We called it
the 'Un-Thanksgiving Interface Sunrise Ceremony for Indigenous People.'"

Traditionally, Thanksgiving marks the day in 1621 when early
Plymouth, Mass., settlers shared their harvest with American Indians
who helped them survive the winter.

But according to Bob Kelly, the Irish spokesman for the Alcatraz
gathering and a longtime friend of Means, the original Thanksgiving
took place to commemorate the massacre of hundreds of Indians during
their Green Corn Ceremony.

The atrocities continued as the first governor of California called
for the annihilation of all American Indians, creating a bounty on
scalps, Kelly said.

Means added, "There's millions and millions of acres of land and
natural resources which have been taken without compensation to
Indian people."

These are some of the grievances speakers address during the gathering.

A veteran of Vietnam and of 1973's Wounded Knee, Means studied
history at Black Hills State University. He taught Indian studies at
the University of Minnesota and was the director of the Heart of the
Earth Survival School in Minneapolis, an institution created by the
American Indian Movement to establish native control of the education system.

Means said the council strives to create unity among indigenous
peoples in the Western hemisphere, to document human rights abuses,
and to promote and protect the sovereignty and self-determination of
indigenous peoples, and the gathering on Alcatraz aids their goals.

"All peoples of the world have a Thanksgiving or harvest ceremony,
and we wanted to give our children as indigenous people a day to
learn the truth about Thanksgiving and to learn to be thankful for
what the creator has provided," the grandfather of five says.

"In terms of Thanksgiving, we're thankful for our life and what's
been provided by Mother Earth. On the other hand, we have to remind
America that there's a different truth to Thanksgiving," he said.

.

American Indian Movement Leader to Lecture at UNM

American Indian Movement Leader to Lecture at UNM

http://www.unm.edu/~market/cgi-bin/archives/002437.html

November 21, 2007

The University Libraries Indigenous Nations Library Program's Native
Pathways Lecture Series will host Robert Robideau, prominent AIM
leader, in two events on Wednesday, Nov. 28. Robideau will
participate in an informal brown bag discussion from 12 - 1 p.m. in
the Herzstein Room on the second floor of Zimmerman Library.

Robideau will also present a lecture, "AIM: Yesterday, Today and
Tomorrow," at 3 p.m. in the Willard Reading Room on the first floor
of Zimmerman Library. Robideau, a member of the White Earth Ojibwe
tribe, is a prominent AIM activist.

In 1975, he was accused of killing two FBI agents, along with Darrell
Butler and Leonard Peltier. Butler and Robideau were acquitted in
1976, but Peliter was convicted.

Since being acquitted of the charges, Robideau has worked to free
Peltier. He has served as the director of the Leonard Peltier Defense
Committee and continues to lecture around the country.

His lecture will cover the founding of AIM, what they are doing
today, and what they have planned for the future. He will also speak
about the Leonard Peltier case.

Media Contact: Karen Wentworth, (505) 277-5627; e-mail: kwent2@unm.edu

.

Monday, November 26, 2007

For Beatles fans, 'Help!' is here

For Beatles fans, 'Help!' is here

http://origin.presstelegram.com/ci_7533094

by George A. Paul
11/22/2007

When The Fab Four released "Help!" in 1965, one of the movie ads read
"The Beatles are more colorful than ever...in color!"

Since "A Hard Day's Night" was shot in black & white, fans could
experience the mop tops on celluloid like never before.

Now available in a digitally restored 2-DVD set with a new soundtrack
in DTS 5.1 surround sound, "Help!" (Apple/Capitol) is a great
snapshot of The Beatles at their carefree and comic best.

The zany plot revolves around a religious cult and scientist who
discover that Ringo Starr possesses a sacrificial ring. Only problem
is he can't take it off.

Various attempts are made to grab the ring as the band travels around
London, the Bahamas and Austrian Alps.

As a first-time viewer, I thought the music interludes - especially
the opening title sequence - were fantastic.

George Harrison and Paul McCartney's harmonies during "You're Going
to Lose That Girl" and Ringo's tambourine on "You've Got to Hide Your
Love Away" really jump out of the speakers.

Disc 2 includes a 30-minute documentary about the making of "Help!"
including interviews with director Richard Lester (he talks about the
band's skiing abilities and why those musical notes hop across the
screen amid "Ticket to Ride") and others.

There is also a look inside the restoration, theatrical trailers,
radio spots, background on a missing scene and memories from the cast
and crew.

Lester penned the DVD liner notes, while Martin Scorsese handled the
appreciation.
---

Meanwhile, two new McCartney releases are also in stores.

"The McCartney Years" (Rhino/MPL) - a comprehensive 3-DVD set - is a
treasure trove for diehard Macca enthusiasts.

It features 40-plus videos (1970-2005) and live performances (solo
and with Wings).

Viewers can run the videos in chronological order or select ones
where McCartney provides insightful commentary.

Among the artist's tidbits: how he portrayed multiple characters in
"Coming Up"; what it was like working with Michael Jackson (and
without Stevie Wonder); the way "Press" was filmed on the fly at a
London Tube station.

Many rarely-seen gems ("Little Willow," "Put It There," "All My
Trials") are here, alongside genre classics ("Goodnight Tonight,"
"Pipes of Peace," "No More Lonely Nights").

Bonus content on the first two discs includes TV specials from
England ("South Bank Show," "Parkinson"), America (the documentary
"Creating Chaos in the Backyard)" and more.

Disc 3 is devoted to live material. A half hour excerpt from
McCartney & Wings' "Rockshow" leaves you wanting the whole thing;
same goes for the 15 minutes of "MTV Unplugged."

Fortunately, the stellar 2004 Glastonbury gig is shown in full.
Extras are "Let It Be" from Live Aid and Super Bowl XXXIX.

The picture is 16:9 widescreen, with the clips regraded and the sound
remastered and remixed in 5.1.

Liner notes were penned by McCartney author/friend Barry Miles and
include a career timeline.

Finally, a deluxe version of Macca's "Memory Almost Full" (Hear
Music), released earlier this year, has been bolstered by three bonus
tracks on CD.

The DVD has a short, but sweet London club show from June (dig Rusty
Anderson's smoking guitar work); music videos of "Ever Present Past"
and "Dance Tonight" starring Natalie Portman.
---

The old man down the road is back.

In honor of the John Fogerty concert tonight at Nokia Theatre/L.A.
Live, I thought I'd provide some trivia about the former CCR leader's
connection to the Inland Empire.

Back in the summer of 1969, he wrote "Tombstone Shadow" after
visiting a fortune teller in San Bernardino.

In the tune (from the album "Greer River"), Fogerty sings, "saw the
gypsy man, way down in San Berdoo."

"Revival" (Fantasy/Concord), Fogerty's strongest studio album in
years, is rife with politically charged numbers (the bluesy "Long
Dark Night," frantic "I Can't Take It No More" and soulful rock of
"Longshot").

...

----
For more music news, reviews and interviews, visit my blog at
insidesocal.com/extendedplay.

george.paul@dailybulletin.com

.

We don't care if we suck' [Felice Brothers]

'We don't care if we suck'

http://music.guardian.co.uk/folk/story/0,,2217019,00.html

They sing songs about love, murder and drinking - and they're putting
the outlaw spirit back into country music. Amy Fleming meets the
hard-living Felice Brothers

Monday November 26, 2007
The Guardian

It's four in the afternoon and the Felice Brothers' rickety bus
shudders to a halt in a forest of birch, hickory and maple. We are
just outside Woodstock, the most famous hamlet in New York State.
During the 1960s, when Bob Dylan wanted to write, he retreated to
this place; and in 1968, the Band, who doubled as Dylan's backing
musicians, holed up here to write their rowdy folk-rock debut, Music
from Big Pink. The following year, they joined Jimi Hendrix, Janis
Joplin, the Who and other giants of the era to perform at the
Woodstock festival, which saw flower power go out in a blaze of
purple-hazed glory. Around here, it feels as if musical history is
etched into the landscape.

Tonight, the Felice Brothers, a new breed of musical outlaw and
inheritors of the counterculture mantle, have been invited to play in
the barn of the Band's legendary singer-drummer Levon Helm, whose
craggy voice made The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down such a classic.
"You have to promise," says Simone, the Felice drummer, "not to ask
us anything about Bob Dylan and the Band. A lot of people say we
sound like them and we're tired of it. We're influenced by everything
- Huey Lewis and the News ..." He takes a swig of cider. "We don't
live in Woodstock," he adds, as if that seals it.

The Felice Brothers are, however, local boys. The siblings grew up in
Palenville, about 20 minutes' drive from Woodstock. These days, a lot
of bands like to kid on they have a hard-living lifestyle. But the
Felices are an authentic outlaw-country band: shifty, tight-knit,
broke, anarchic, righteous, hilarious outsiders who live life to the
full and then sing songs about it. Their murder ballads, tales of woe
and barnstorming drinking ditties are by turns funny, rousing and
heartbreaking.

Since the release earlier this year of their first album, Tonight at
the Arizona, the brothers' reputation has mushroomed. They have been
compared to Dylan and Woodie Guthrie, although their songs are
bang-up-to-date. In Revolver, a man despairs because he can't pay his
pregnant daughter's medical bills; he "walks to work on the overpass"
and "the blue Burger King billboard" reminds him of his mother's eyes.

We're only about 100 miles from Manhattan, and yet we're surrounded
by silent, bear-inhabited mountains stretching out like an autumnal
patchwork quilt. Ian, lead singer and guitarist, is hunched over his
guitar, restringing it. Sporting a combination of grey hoodie,
threadbare suit trousers and Charlie Chaplin moustache, he is like a
Depression-era hobo with a modern twist. I ask what they listen to on
the bus. "Sometimes we get on a Stevie Wonder kick," says Simone, "or
a Notorious BIG kick, a Randy Newman kick, Wu-Tang Clan, Frank
Sinatra." Their father is an Italian carpenter who grew up in Queens,
and the brothers talk like "Noo Yoik" tough guys laced with a country
drawl. You wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of them.

As well as Ian and Simone, the band includes their brother James, on
accordion and Hammond organ, and their friend Christmas on bass. At
20, he's the youngest. Ian, Simone and James are three of seven
children. "We all used to write songs and poetry," Simone says, "and
every Sunday we'd have a barbecue at our dad's and hang out on the
porch and sing. About two years ago, we decided to take it to the
street." So are they the product of some bohemian, pastoral idyll?
"Nooooooo, it wasn't like that," says Ian. "We're working people,"
says James. "Up here there's long winters and a lotta time to read
books and lose your mind," says Simone.

After busking around New York State, the brothers decided to try
their luck in the city, where they rented a tiny flat in Brooklyn.
They would sleep on the floor and wake up early to play on the
subway. "On a good day," says Simone, "we'd make 200 bucks. We'd put
it all in the kitty and it'd go on the bus and gas, and we'd drive
around and play more. We sucked so bad, but people still liked us. We
didn't care that we sucked. And we still don't. We like to suck a
little bit. We're like a disgusting jazz band." The entire bus is now
quaking with laughter.

Their harmonies are sometimes wonky, and Ian's voice can get hoarse
to the point of death-rattle. In live shows, something will get
broken - maybe a guitar string, maybe the Hammond organ - and in the
moments when Ian's not singing or playing, he'll be looping an
appreciative arm down towards Simone, like some teenage hip-hopper.

Even their recordings are appealingly imperfect. In Revolver, there's
a glitch the Felices put down to lightning striking the building.
Then, as Ian starts to sing, you can hear thunder in the background.
"It was a dangerous situation," says Simone. "We ran extension cords
in the pouring rain from one house to an abandoned theatre. It was a
bad move. Like your mother wouldn't want you to do. But we couldn't
afford to go to a recording studio. We were there a few weeks. We
slept in there. Everything was wet. We cooked on a wood stove. We got
sick. We were just confused. It was our first recording session ever."

The brothers aren't nervous types, but they are on tenterhooks about
tonight's gig. "It's a big deal for us, 'cos Helm is one of the
heroes of American music," says Simone. "He was in one of the best
bands that ever lived."

Outside the barn, the Felice Brothers are huddled in the dark,
swigging bourbon. When the time comes, they walk on stage as if they
can't believe they're supposed to be there. They win every heart in
the room in seconds, before Helm's set resumes.

Pulling out of the place, everyone seems relieved that they made such
a good impression. The equipment in the back of the bus heaves and
judders with every bump. Suddenly Christmas, swaying from too much
whiskey, cranes his head out the window to be sick. "Keep driving," says James.
---

· The Felice Brothers play The Luminaire, London (020-7372 7123), on
Friday. Tonight at the Arizona is out now on Loose Music.

.

Swinging Sixties [India]

Swinging Sixties

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/BRIEF_CASE_Swinging_Sixties/articleshow/2570187.cms

26 Nov 2007
by
[]
Utthara Kumari B

Where have all those heroes gone? I mean the heroes of the sixties.
Who would come home screaming: ''Ma, main BA first class first aa
gaya hoon''. Where have all those screen moms gone? The grey-haired,
ever-coughing, shawl-draped figure with a sewing machine for company.

The indulgent mama who would drag her "BA first class first" son to a
framed photo of her husband and say in a half-choked, half-happy
manner: ''Suna aapne, aaj hamara beta jawan ho gaya. Aur BA bhi pass
ho gaya''. And lovingly give the hero "apne in hathon se banaya hua
gazar ka halwa". Where have all those heroines gone? Who would wear
tight churidar kameez, sport an elaborate hair-do and usually were
rich, spoilt brats. Who would provoke the hero, sing the best
composed tunes, get kidnapped by the villain and then get rescued by
the hero. Where have all the villains gone?

Who would look evil, wear tight black pants and blazers, keep chewing
gum or paan, have any number of cronies at their beck and call. Where
have all the vamps gone? Who would be the 'Mona darling' of the
'Boss', do a sizzling cabaret number and end up with a knife in her
back. Where have all the chhoti behens gone? Who would scream
"bhaiya" at regular intervals and sing rakhi songs. Where have all
the comedians gone? Who would provide many a ha ha, have a girlfriend
in tow, and help the hero get the love of his life.

Where have all the 'Ramu Kakas' gone? Who would look lean, sport a
red, tattered towel on their shoulders, devote all their life to the
chote sarkar (the hero), only to be thrown out of the house despite
being ferociously loyal? Where have all the 'thakur-fathers' gone?
Those stern fathers who would tell their pampered daughters: "Jab se
tumhari ma swargvasi ho gayi, maine tumhe pala-posa aur bada kiya...
yeh din dekhne ke liye". Where have all the best written and best
composed songs gone? Sung in hills and dales and in 'gaon' and
'shahar'. Where have all the stories gone?

Rich boy would meet poor girl or vice versa, face all filmi hurdles,
finally hold hands and fade away into the sunset in the last scene.
They all lived happily ever after. Uncomplicated storylines, good
music, some laughs and some dishum-dishum.

Give me the swinging sixties any day.

.

Brokaw views '60s through a purple haze

'Boom! Voices of the Sixties' by Tom Brokaw

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07329/835897-148.stm

Brokaw views '60s through a purple haze

Sunday, November 25, 2007
By Bob Hoover, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Most people who lived through the era labeled the Sixties will
rightly cast a jaundiced eye toward Tom Brokaw's latest effort to
reduce people and events to the sound bites he was so adept at
delivering on "NBC Nightly News."

As in:

"The Sixties also brought us bean sprouts, brown rice, veggies,
yogurt, whole-grain bread, holistic medicine and drugs ..."

Apparently, they just showed up one day.

Straight-arrow Midwesterner Tom himself sampled a drug or two during
those crazy years. "I even inhaled," he confesses. Far out, man.

His best-selling 1998 book, "The Greatest Generation" was a surefire
project inspired by patriotism and a real sense of gratitude for the
people who sacrificed so much during World War II.

And while Brokaw has ridden that horse to exhaustion with a
collection of spinoffs, the war continues to be big business for
other authors and filmmaker Ken Burns.

It was clearly time for the one-time anchorman to move on in his new
career as oral historian. The logical choice, especially for anyone
who has tried to explain the world in 30-second cliches, was that
wild and, like heavy, time of 40 years ago.

As Brokaw tells us, the mantra is, "If it feels good [and it's easy
to find people to talk to], do it." And talk he did, cornering 86 (as
best as I could count) people who came of age after 1960.

Some are household names -- Bill Clinton, Paul Simon, Warren Beatty,
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich -- while others are lesser
known, including Peter Davis, who issued the ultimate put-down of
Brokaw's "Greatest Generation."

"What they gave us," wrote Davis about the war veterans, "was
Vietnam." A filmmaker, he had directed the fine documentary on that
war, "Hearts and Minds."

"I said I believed it was a great, but not a perfect, generation,"
Brokaw grudgingly backtracked.

It's clear, though, that the '60s crowd was less homogeneous and
harder to corral than their predecessors. Contrasting their
experiences with their lives today makes it painfully clear that the
era cannot be generalized, but no era can be.

Or, as Brokaw puts it: "The cataclysmic events were so sweeping,
complex and consequential that they cannot yet be encoded into great truth."

Now, that is a great truth, man. Inhale some more, Tom.

Some try, though. Rove, now in Texas plotting for next year's
elections after serving as President Bush's main strategist, opined:

"It's funny, you look back on 1968 and think everybody was against
the [Vietnam] war -- and two of the candidates were not [Nixon and
Wallace]. And they got nearly 60 percent of the vote."

The truth is that Nixon pretended to be "against the war" by claiming
to have a "secret plan" to end it while the one man who would have
defeated him -- Robert Kennedy -- was dead. Wallace was a sideshow.

Brokaw never challenges Rove's assumptions nor anyone else's in
"Boom," so titled because he believes the '60s "blindsided us with
mind-bending swiftness," like, you know, "boom."

To borrow another cliche, this "Boom" is a bust.
---

Post-Gazette book editor Bob Hoover can be reached at
bhoover@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1634.

.

An insider takes a critical look at the Weathermen

An insider takes a critical look at the Weathermen

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688892

By DANIEL BICE
dbice@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Nov. 24, 2007

Flying Close to the Sun: My Life and Times as a Weatherman. By Cathy
Wilkerson. Seven Stories Press. 422 pages. $26.95.

A few years ago, there was an excellent documentary about the
Weathermen, a.k.a. the Weather Underground, the radical activists
from the 1970s best known for bombing police stations and government offices.

That was followed by the publication of writings by several of the
participants in the movement. Out now is the film "Across the
Universe," which makes ample references of the group. In town just
the other day was Mark Rudd, a former founder of the Weathermen.

Now here comes yet another alum, Cathy Wilkerson, with a nearly
400-page book, "Flying Close to the Sun."

Why all the attention now?

The most obvious answer is the Iraq war and its parallels to Vietnam.

But does anyone really want to hear Rudd, Wilkerson or anyone else
from the Weather Underground offer their predictable thoughts on Baghdad?

Fortunately, Wilkerson spares us her take, for the most part.

Her surprisingly readable and self-critical memoir, instead, is the
story of how a young Quaker with a liberal bent evolved into an
advocate for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

First, Wilkerson dipped her toe into traditional politics by becoming
an aide to Wisconsin Congressman Robert Kastenmeier in 1966.

After nine months, - several of them living and campaigning for
Kastenmeier in Madison - she realized what she calls "the limits of
electoral politics," leaving it behind to assume leadership posts
with various left-wing organizations.

Along the way, she distanced herself from her family, restricted her
circle of friends, took up the writings of such revolutionaries as
Franz Fanon and idolized the activities of Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh
and the Black Panthers.

"I had come to accept that, as Mao said in his little red book of
quotations, political power did ultimately grow from the barrel of a
gun," Wilkerson writes.

No surprise, then, that she was quick to sign up with the Weather Underground.

The Weathermen initially did more harm to themselves than to any of
their targets. But that's what you'd expect when English majors, more
familiar with Che Guevara than with basic chemistry, try to make
their own explosives.

On March 6, 1970, Wilkerson narrowly survived the accidental bombing
of her father's Greenwich Village town house - an incident that
killed three friends who were in the basement preparing to dynamite
the officers' club at Fort Dix, N.J.

For the next 10 years, Wilkerson lived on the run. She finally turned
herself in in 1980 - a few years after the Weathermen disbanded -
serving a short prison sentence.

Today a New York City math teacher, she acknowledges the shortcomings
of the movement and her own failure to ask more pointed questions.
But she brushes aside regrets:

"While I have not shied away from exploring the weaknesses of
(Students for a Democratic Society) and the Weather Underground,
then, like now, the gravest mistake is inaction."
---

Dan Bice is a Journal Sentinel columnist.

.

Got Gravy? Beloved Woodstock icon puts himself up for auction

[2 versions]

Bid on Wavy Gravy; help finish documentary about him

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071126/ENT04/71121027&SearchID=73300667545637

November 26, 2007

Wavy Gravy is up for auction.

The psychedelic clown also known as Hugh Romney, who served as master of
ceremonies for the 1969 Woodstock concert, Woodstock '94 and Woodstock '99
is now on eBay.

Starting today and running through Dec. 3, you can bid on having Wavy come
to your house to host a Woodstock party. If you are the top bidder, Wavy
will come to your house, bring a DVD of the film about the original
Woodstock film festival, share stories about Woodstock and his other
interesting, hilarious and bizarre life experiences, sing a song, read
poetry, sign autographs and "bless" your home "in a way only Wavy Gravy
can," according to a press release.

Proceeds from the auction will be used for the completion of a documentary
film about Wavy called "Saint Misbehavin': The Life & Time of Wavy Gravy,"
currently in production. A preview of this touching film, which features
rare, vintage footage from the 1960s, was shown at the 2006 Woodstock Film
Festival and was a highlight of that year's annual film showcase.

Woodstock resident Michael Lang, a member of the film festival's advisory
board and the man behind the 1969 Woodstock festival, brought the sneak peek
to the Woodstock Film Festival. The 2006 screening featured red clown noses
and Ben and Jerry's Wavy Gravy ice cream for the audience.

"Saint Misbehavin'" filmmaker Michelle Esrick also attended the 2007
Woodstock Film Festival in October and the movie's cinematographer is Dan
Gold, who is originally from Poughkeepsie.

Gold won the 2002 Sundance "Excellence in Cinematography Award" for his work
on "Blue Vinyl," which he co-directed and co-produced. That film also
garnered him two Emmy Nominations. Gold's documentary "Everything's Cool,"
"a toxic comedy about global warming," was screened at the 2007 Sundance
Film Festival and will be shown at Cinema Village in New York City
from Friday through Nov. 29.

DA Pennebaker, well-known for making "Don't Look Back" and "Monterey Pop,"
is executive producer of "Saint Misbehavin'."

The eBay auction will also include handwritten lyrics and original
photographs from Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Odetta, Pennebaker and
Woodstock photographers Barry Feinstein and Elliot Landy.

For information on "Saint Misbehavin'," visit www.rippleeffectfilms.com.

To bid on Wavy, visit www.ebay.com starting Monday and search for "Wavy
Gravy."

--------

Got Gravy? Beloved Woodstock icon puts himself up for auction

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/LIFE/711230318&SearchID=73300667545637

November 23, 2007
By John W. Barry
Poughkeepsie Journal

Wavy Gravy is up for auction.

The psychedelic clown also known as Hugh Romney, who served as master
of ceremonies for the 1969 Woodstock concert, Woodstock '94 and
Woodstock '99 is now on eBay.

Starting Monday and running through Dec. 3, you can bid on having
Wavy come to your house to host a Woodstock party.

If you are the top bidder, Wavy will come to your house, bring a DVD
of the film about the original Woodstock film festival, share stories
about Woodstock and his other interesting, hilarious and bizarre life
experiences, sing a song, read poetry, sign autographs and "bless"
your home "in a way only Wavy Gravy can," according to a press release.

Proceeds from the auction will be used for the completion of a
documentary film about Wavy called "Saint Misbehavin': The Life &
Time of Wavy Gravy," currently in production.

A preview of this film, which features rare, vintage footage from the
1960s, was shown at the 2006 Woodstock Film Festival and was a
highlight of that year's annual film showcase.

Woodstock resident Michael Lang, a member of the film festival's
advisory board and the man behind the 1969 Woodstock festival,
brought the sneak peek to the Woodstock Film Festival.

The 2006 screening featured red clown noses and Ben and Jerry's Wavy
Gravy ice cream for the audience.

Contributor from Poughkeepsie

"Saint Misbehavin' " filmmaker Michelle Esrick also attended the 2007
Woodstock Film Festival in October and the movie's cinematographer is
Dan Gold, who is originally from Poughkeepsie.

Gold won the 2002 Sundance "Excellence in Cinematography Award" for
his work on "Blue Vinyl," which he co-directed and co-produced. That
film also garnered him two Emmy nominations.

Gold's documentary "Everything's Cool," "a toxic comedy about global
warming," was screened at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival and will be
shown at Cinema Village in New York City today throughThursday.

D.A. Pennebaker, well-known for making "Don't Look Back" and
"Monterey Pop," is executive producer of "Saint Misbehavin'."

The eBay auction will also include handwritten lyrics and original
photographs from Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Odetta, Pennebaker and
Woodstock photographers Barry Feinstein and Elliot Landy.

For information on "Saint Misbehavin'," visit www.rippleeffectfilms.com.

To bid on Wavy, visit www.ebay.com starting Monday and search for "Wavy Gravy."

Reach John W. Barry at jobarry@poughkeepsiejournal.com or call 845-437-4822.

.

From Indochina to Iraq: Noam Chomsky interviewed

From Indochina to Iraq: At War With Asia

http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2590

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Kevin Hewison

Novmber 26, 2007

Vietnam and Laos 1970

Kevin Hewison: The Journal of Contemporary Asia (JCA) is now in its
thirty-seventh year of publication, and you have been on the
Editorial Board since Volume 1, No. 2. Could you tell us how it was
that you came to be associated with this new journal, and why issue 2
rather than issue 1?

Noam Chomsky: This was 1970, which was a pretty complicated time in
Southeast Asia, Indochina and the United States. I had been very
active in the anti-war movement since the early 1960s, but at that
time it was peaking. 1970 was absolutely the peak, with colleges
closed; the country was falling apart and there was tremendous
opposition to the war in Vietnam. This opposition was explicitly
elicited by the Nixon-initiated invasion of Cambodia at a time when
there had been enormous pressure to withdraw. The reaction in the
administration to this pressure was to escalate - not unlike what is
happening now in Iraq. Also, I had just come back from Southeast Asia
where I had been in Laos and North Vietnam and so had a personal view
of the region - which always enriches what you thought you knew. I
may have been invited for the first issue, but in these circumstances
I was just extremely busy.

Hewison: I recall you saying that you were in Hanoi at about the time
that the first issue came out.

Chomsky: I may have been, or in Vientiane.

Hewison: That trip resulted in the book At War With Asia. Many see
the chapter on Laos as being the first extended discussion of the
so-called secret War in Laos.[1]

Chomsky: Yes, it is. It is only partially due to me. A lot of it is
due to Fred Branfman. I spent most of my week in Laos in late March
1970 with him. He had been living in Laos for several years, knew the
language fluently and had been trying desperately to get somebody to
pay attention to what was going on. Thanks to him, I was able to
spend several days visiting refugee camps about 30 kilometres or so
away from Vientiane, and also to meet many people I would never have
been able to locate on my own. All of which I wrote about, though
sometimes protecting the identity of people in severe danger.

It was the right time to be there. The CIA mercenary army had shortly
before cleared out tens of thousands of people from northern Laos -
from the Plain of Jars - where many of them had been living in caves
for years, subjected to what was, at that time, the most intensive
bombing in history, soon to be surpassed in Cambodia. I spent a lot
of time interviewing these refugees, which was revealing.

One of the other interesting things I did on this trip related to the
story of the time that claimed North Vietnam had 50,000 troops in
Laos and that's why the United States had to bomb. I was interested
in the sources and did what seemed to be the obvious thing; I went to
the American Embassy and asked to speak to the Political Officer -
typically, the CIA representative at the Embassy. He came down and
was very friendly, and I asked him if I could see some of the
background material on the reported 50,000 troops. He took me up to a
room and gave me piles of documentation. He also said that I was the
first person to ever ask him for background, which was interesting. I
read through it and I found that there was evidence that there was
one Vietnamese battalion of maybe 2,500 people somewhere up in
northern Laos, and the rest of the so-called 50,000 were either
invented or were old men carrying a bag of rice on their back trying
to make it through the bombing.

This information was astonishing because at this time the US was
already using a forward base in northern Laos to guide the bombing of
North Vietnam, so my guess was that there would have been a lot more
North Vietnamese than that around. This information was corroborated
then by the reports of interviews with captured prisoners and other
material that I reviewed. Some of this material was provided by Fred
Branfman and some I was able to find as I saw a bit more of the
country - not much, but some.

This visit to Laos was a very moving experience. There had been some
reporting of the so-called secret War. Jacques Decornoy had had an
article in Le Monde[2] and freelance journalist Tim Allman had
written about it.[3] So there was scattered material, but I was able
to see evidence in some depth that hadn't appeared. I guess of any of
the things I've ever written, that was the one that was closest to my
feelings. I usually try to keep my feelings out of what I write, but
I probably didn't in that one.

Hewison: You were in Laos on the way to North Vietnam in April 1970?

Chomsky: Yes. North Vietnam was interesting but I didn't see much. I
was mostly lecturing at the Polytechnic University - more accurately,
in the ruins of the University. There was a bombing pause, so faculty
and students could be brought back from the countryside. They had
been out of touch with the world for five years. I spent every day
lecturing on any topic I could think of and that I knew anything
about. There were all kinds of questions and interest from
international affairs to linguistics and philosophy to what's Norman
Mailer doing these days and so on.[4] I did get around a little bit,
but not very far from Hanoi.

Hewison: Did you see evidence of bombing in and around Hanoi?

Chomsky: You could see the evidence in Hanoi. With my group of
visitors - Doug Dowd and Dick Fernandes - we travelled a bit beyond
Hanoi and were able to see the wreckage of Phu Ly, the hospital
destroyed in Thanh Hoa city, which the US claimed was never hit, but
we could see the shell. The area around the Ham Rong Bridge had been
intensively bombed - it was just a kind of moonscape; villages,
everything just totally destroyed and the bridge barely standing. But
we knew that Hanoi was somewhat protected - because there were
embassies, foreign correspondents. The further you got from Hanoi,
the more intensive the bombing.

It is rather interesting looking at the Pentagon Papers[5] and other
declassified papers that have since emerged. The bombing of North
Vietnam was planned in meticulous detail. Just how far do you go, how
much money do you expend, when do you stop and so on. The bombing of
South Vietnam, which was far more intensive, was barely even
discussed; just do it. The same comes through in Robert McNamara's
memoirs.[6] He goes through in detail how they planned, considered
and thought about the bombing of the North, particularly the
beginning of the bombing in February 1965. His memoirs don't even
mention the fact that, right at that time, in January 1965, he
ordered the bombing of South Vietnam to be vastly extended. In fact
at that time, it was at triple the scale of the bombing of the North,
as Bernard Fall reported. It is a rather striking fact. What it tells
you is clear: the bombing of South Vietnam had no cost to the United
States. The bombing of North Vietnam was costly. For one thing the
North had some defences and could shoot down bombers. For another
thing, around Hanoi, as I mentioned, the bombing would have been
around foreign embassies - not in the southern parts of the North,
however, and that area was also devastated. Bomb Haiphong and you can
hit a Russian ship in the harbour; bomb north of Hanoi and you can
hit a Chinese railroad that happens to pass through Vietnam. That's
costly. So there was meticulous attention.

I have to say, in criticism of the anti-war movement, that it took
pretty much the same position. The condemnation of the war, right to
the end, was mostly of the bombing of the North and then Cambodia.
Not the bombing of the South, which was far more intensive. By 1967,
just before his death, Bernard Fall was saying that he doubted that
Vietnam would survive as a historical and cultural entity under the
impact of the most intensive bombing that an area of that size had
ever undergone. Fall was no dove. In fact, in McNamara's memoirs,
he's the one non-government person who is cited with respect as a
military historian of Vietnam. He'd been making these points for some
time. But it was not the focus of the anti-war movement. It's mostly
the costly bombing of the North that was the focus, and that's not a
pretty fact.

In fact, the war on the South is almost unknown in the US. Very few
people even know that it was in 1962 that Kennedy launched outright
aggression against South Vietnam. The US had already imposed a sort
of Latin American style terrorist state, which had killed maybe
60-70,000 people and had elicited resistance, which it could no
longer control. So Kennedy just escalated the war to what we would
call direct aggression if anybody else did it. The US Air Force
started bombing under South Vietnamese markings, napalm was
authorised, chemical warfare to destroy crops and ground cover began
and they started rounding people up and moved them into what amounted
to concentration camps or urban slums, as it was put, to "protect"
them from the indigenous guerrillas who the US government knew they
were willingly supporting.

That's aggression and it went on from there. There was no protest, no
interest. It wasn't until the bombing of the North started that there
finally began to be some substantial protest that escalated quite extensively.

Cambodia 1970

Hewison: When you spoke at the JCA reception recently, you also
talked passionately about the bombing of Cambodia.

Chomsky: Well, at the time that I joined JCA, in mid-1970, it was the
beginning of the direct US invasion of Cambodia. Actually, the US had
been bombing in Cambodia for years, but not extensively. In 1969,
Prince Sihanouk, who was supposedly our ally, put out an official
White Paper documenting - with pictures, testimonies and other
documents - many hundreds of examples of US attacks in Cambodia. He
called a conference with the international press corps in Phnom Penh,
pleading with the international press to report the US bombing and
killing of innocent Khmer peasants that had all passed with barely a
whisper. I doubt that the White Paper even got mentioned. I don't
know if you'd even be able to locate it today. The international
press corps did virtually nothing - there had been some earlier
reports. But the invasion in 1970 really flung Cambodia into the
middle of the war. Shortly after that began the intensive bombing of
Cambodia, and we knew that it was pretty awful, but we didn't know
how bad it was.

In fact, only a few months ago, there was an important article by
Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan, specialists on Cambodia - Ben is also
director of the Yale Genocide Program which has a project focused on
Cambodia.[7] This is an extremely important article and I saw no
mention of it in the US other than the things I posted. They went
through the US government data that had been released - I think it
had been released even during the Clinton years - which showed that
the bombing - as awful as we thought it was - was five times as high
as what was reported. This made the bombing of rural Cambodia heavier
than the entire bombing conducted by the Allies in all theatres of
World War II. All that in rural Cambodia, a remarkably small area.

What was mentioned in the press, but generally ignored, was Henry
Kissinger transmitting Richard Nixon's orders. His words were
something like: "anything that flies on anything that moves" in rural
Cambodia. I can't think of a case in the archival record of any state
that is such an overt call for large-scale genocide. It was sort of
mentioned in passing in the New York Times when the Nixon tapes were
released and elicited no comment, which is kind of shocking.[8] The
new material on the bombing of Cambodia also passed without comment.

Owen and Kiernan also pointed out that during those years, the Khmer
Rouge grew from a marginal force of a couple of thousand people which
no one had ever heard of to a huge peasant army; an army of "enraged
peasants," mobilised by the Khmer Rouge through the bombing. And
then, of course, we know what happened afterwards. That receives a
lot of attention because somebody else was responsible. When we in
the US are responsible, then it doesn't get reported; sort of characteristic.

Indochina and Iraq

Hewison: Of course, inevitable comparisons are made between Indochina and Iraq.

Chomsky: There is a point of comparison. This is from the Western
point of view where they are very similar. From this perspective the
only question is, "Can we win at acceptable cost?" There are no other
questions. That's the overwhelming question and others are marginal.

In both Vietnam and Iraq the question is how we can win at acceptable
cost. The mood was captured rather well by Arthur Schlesinger, the
Kennedy advisor and leading historian, at a time when elite opinion
was beginning to be worried about the Vietnam War because it was
costing too much. At first he was very supportive, but he was writing
in, I think it was 1966. At that time there were already concerns,
and he writes something like this: we all pray that the hawks will be
right, and that the new military forces that are being sent will
enable us to win victory. And if it works, we will all be praising
the wisdom and statesmanship of the American government in winning
victory in a land they have turned to wreck and ruin. But I don't
think they're right.

That's almost a quote. It expresses liberal, elite, enlightened
opinion about the war. You can translate it almost word for word to
criticism of the Iraq war today. We all pray that the hawks are right
and that the "surge" will succeed, but we don't think it will, just
like Schlesinger didn't think it would. And if it does succeed, we
will all be praising the wisdom and statesmanship of the American
government in leaving Iraq as one of the worst disasters in military
history. That's not a caricature of the critical, dovish,
intellectual elite opinion. In both cases the wars are described as
"quagmires." We got caught in something that cost us too much.
Anthony Lewis, who is way at the left-liberal extreme of what the
media tolerate, said in 1975, at the end of the Vietnam War,
something like: the war began with benign efforts to do good but by
1969, it was clear that it had become a disaster which was too costly
for us. And then Nixon went on and he shouldn't have. He should have
pulled out.

Interestingly, that was not the position of the public. The first
major polls by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on public
attitudes towards international affairs was in 1969, and of course
there were questions about Vietnam. These were open choice questions,
maybe about ten choices, and I think about 70% of the public picked
"fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake." You couldn't find
that phrase anywhere in the mainstream commentary, including
criticism. These figures continued up to the latest polls, more or
less. I think it's the same in Iraq.

So from the US point of view, in fact, from the Western point of
view, that's the perspective on the Iraq War. If the military efforts
succeed, we'll be praising the wisdom and statesmanship of the
American government in leaving a land where we have created a desert
and call it peace. But we don't think it's going to work and it's
costing us too much anyway. That's the Western point of view.
However, from the point of view of the victims, it's completely different.

Dominoes and Viruses

Even from the point of view of the planners it's totally different.
Why did the US invade Vietnam? Why not accept the Geneva agreements
of 1954? Well there was a reason and we read it in the internal
record, even sometimes in the public record. There was concern at the
time for what was called "falling dominos". The domino theory has two
versions. One of them is intended for the public and it is totally
absurd and every time it is refuted, it's said, "Oh well, we made a
mistake" it's "silly" and so on. The public version is Ho Chi Minh's
going to get into a canoe and land in California and all the rest of
it; the Nicaraguans are two days' drive from Texas, according to
Ronald Reagan, and we have to call a national emergency. But that is
so obviously idiotic that after it's over, people say how silly it
was; we didn't understand.

But there's a rational version of the domino theory, which has never
been abandoned because it's correct. It goes all the way through from
Greece in 1947 right up until today. The rational version is that if
some country in the world - the smaller the worse, it's not a matter
of its power - whether it's Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam or somewhere else,
shows some indication of independent development in a manner that
would be meaningful to others who've had similar problems, that's
dangerous. It's what Henry Kissinger called the virus that can spread
contagion. He was speaking of Allende's Chile, but you see the same
strain right through the planning record. The rotten apple that can
spoil the barrel; Cuba might spread the Castro idea of taking matters
into your own hands, which has enormous appeal in Latin America where
people suffer the same repression. In that sense, dominos are
dangerous. If you had a successful development somewhere it can
spread contagion. Well, how do you deal with a virus that is
spreading contagion? You destroy the virus. You inoculate those who
might be affected.

This is exactly what was done in Vietnam. You destroy Vietnam - it's
not going to be a model for anyone. As Bernard Fall said, Vietnam
would be lucky if it survives as a cultural and historic entity, so
it's not going to be a model of independent and successful
development. You inoculate the region by installing vicious military
dictatorships in country after country.

The most important was Indonesia. Of course, it was the richest. In
1965, there was the Suharto coup. That coup, incidentally, was
reported accurately in the West. The New York Times, for example,
described it as a "staggering mass slaughter" which is "a gleam of
light in Asia."[9] The description of the huge massacres was combined
with euphoria - undisguised euphoria. The same was true in Australia.
Probably Europe as well, but it hasn't been studied there to my
knowledge. The Suharto massacre really made sure that the virus
didn't spread to a country that they were really concerned about.

There was also a concern that Japan, what John Dower called the
super-domino, might accommodate to an independent Southeast Asia,
essentially reconstructing something like a new order in Asia that it
had tried to create by force, but the US wasn't about to lose World
War II in the Pacific.[10] It's not a small issue and it's taken care
of by destroying the virus and inoculating the region with brutal
dictators in country after country - Suharto, Marcos and so on -
around the region. Well, that was sort of understood by planners.
National security Adviser McGeorge Bundy in later years,
retrospectively, pointed out that after 1965 our efforts were
excessive. Meaning we should have stopped then because we'd already
won the war.

My view is that this is a little early, but by the time I was in
Indochina in 1970, my feeling was that the US had won the war. It had
achieved its major objectives. It was a partial victory as they
didn't achieve their maximal objectives; they didn't establish a
client state, and if you are a super-imperialist that's a defeat, but
you achieved your main objectives. So it's described as a defeat, but
I don't think it was. And the business world knew it. For example,
the Far Eastern Economic Review was advising in the early 1970s that
the US should get out because it had already achieved its main goals.

That's Indochina in a nutshell. Iraq is totally different.

The Stakes in Iraq

You can't destroy Iraq. It's far too valuable. It has probably the
second largest energy reserves in the world. They are very easily
accessible - no permafrost, no tar sands - just stick a pipe in the
ground. It is right at the heart of the world's major energy
producing region, which the US has wanted to control since the Second
World War, much as Britain wanted to control it before that. This
goes back to the beginning of the oil age. Britain back in 1920 was
saying that if we can control the oil of this region we can do
whatever we want in the world, or words to that effect. By 1945, the
US State Department was describing it as a stupendous source of
strategic power, one of the greatest material prizes in world
history. Eisenhower called it strategically the most important area
in the world. It has the resources.

This is not just a matter of access. In the 1950s, the US was not
accessing Middle East oil; it was the world's biggest producer
itself. In fact, in 1959, the US shifted to straight domestic sources
in order to benefit Texas oil companies and corrupt officials in the
Eisenhower administration. For about fourteen years they exhausted
domestic resources at a serious cost to national security but at
great enrichment. Nevertheless, with regard to the Middle East, we
had the same policies. If we were on solar energy right now, we'd
still have the same policies. And the reasons are understood. It was
pointed out by George Kennan about sixty years ago, when he was a top
planner: if we have our hands on the spigot we have veto power over
others. He happened to be thinking of Japan, but the point generalizes.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was not much in favour of the war in Iraq,
nevertheless pointed out that if the US wins the war, establishes a
client state and can have military bases and so on, right in the
heart of the oil-producing region, we will have "critical leverage"
over the industrial powers - Europe, Japan, Asia.

Asians understand this too. That's why they are developing the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation[11] and the Asian energy security
grid.[12] Based primarily in China, but bringing in Russia and
Central Asian countries, and recently India, Pakistan and -
significantly - Iran. They want some degree of control over their own
resources. They don't want the United States to hold the lever. In
fact, Dick Cheney understands them. On his way to Kazakhstan about a
year ago, he had a tirade over how control over pipelines can be
tools of intimidation and blackmail. And that's true. Of course, he
was saying when it's in the hands of others. The same holds for us,
of course, but we're not allowed to see that.

The War in Iraq

So this is a really important invasion. You have to control Iraq. You
can't destroy it and then go away, and there's no concern about
spreading a virus. This was completely different from Vietnam. In
fact, that's part of the reason why neither political party in the
United States is really offering a programme of withdrawal.

The Democrats seem to be calling for a withdrawal, but if you look at
the details, it's not really that. In fact, there was an analysis of
it by General Kevin Ryan at the Kennedy School. He went through the
Democratic Party proposals and pointed out, first of all, that they
leave the option to Bush that he can waive all requirements in the
interest of national security. End of story. Secondly, even if you
look at the implementation, he said it should really be called
"re-missioning" not withdrawal. American troops are going to be left
there for the protection of US installations and forces.
Installations include the Embassy in the Baghdad Green Zone, which is
more like a city. There's no embassy like it in the world. It's not a
building they intend to leave. It's got its own military forces,
anti-missile system, baseball fields, everything. Facilities in Iraq
probably also include permanent military bases which are quietly
being scattered about the desert where they're more or less safe from
attack. So you have to protect those and it takes a lot of troops.

What does "force protection" mean? If you install US forces in Iraqi
units, they're in units where the majority of their fellow soldiers
may think it's legitimate to kill them. Some 60% of the total
population think that American soldiers are legitimate targets. So
you're going to have to protect them. Another qualification is you
have to leave forces to fight the War on Terror. Also open-ended. And
to train Iraqi troops. Open-ended. His calculation is that the total
number of American forces would not be very much different from what
it has been. And he leaves out a lot. He leaves out logistics, which
is the core of a modern army, and which the US is controlling and
intends to continue to control. That logistics, right now about 80%
of it goes though southern Iraq, which is very vulnerable to
guerrilla attack, so you are going to have plenty of US forces to
protect that. He leaves out air power. Well, we know what that's
like. Owen and Kiernan have pointed out what happened when the US
began to withdraw troops from Vietnam. And Ryan leaves out
mercenaries. The US has probably 130,000 mercenaries, called
contractors. It's sort of like the French Foreign Legion. It's a
mercenary force, and who knows how big that will grow; it's under no
supervision. So this is not withdrawal.

There's a good reason for it - which we're not allowed to discuss
because we'd bring up that unpronounceable word, O-I-L, and you can't
mention that because we have to be benign and so on.

But if Iraq was granted sovereignty, it wouldn't be like Vietnam.
Sovereignty in Iraq means under majority Shiite influence.
Undoubtedly, a Shiite-dominated Iraq would continue to improve
relations with Shiite Iran, as it's doing already. It would incite
the Shiite population of Saudi Arabia, on the border, which happens
to be where most of the Saudi oil is, and one can imagine a loose
Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent
of the United States. That's like a nightmare. And it gets much
worse. Iran already has observer status with the Shanghai
Co-operation Organisation, which begins to draw the Middle East - the
West Asian energy resources - towards the Asian system. If
Shiite-dominated Saudi and Iraqi oil systems joined, that's the
world's major energy resources moving off into the enemy camp -
China, Russia, India.

India's kind of playing a double game, improving relations with China
and they also have observer status with the Shanghai Co-operation
Organisation and they've had joint energy planning with China. At the
same time, India is happy to play games with the United States if the
Bush administration authorises their nuclear weapons - as it just
did, leaving the international regime on missile control and nuclear
weapons controls shattered. They are happy to keep a foot in both camps.

South Korea will presumably sooner or later join. From the Asian
point of view, Siberia is Asian - not European - and it has plenty of
resources, making Russia a member. The area we are talking about is
the most dynamic economic area in the world. It has the majority of
the world's foreign exchange reserves. Japan is not part of the
Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, and remains a US ally, but it's
tricky as they're very dependent on economic and other relations with
China. It's a complicated relation.

This really would be a major shift in world power. Nothing like that
was involved in Vietnam. The only respect in which they are similar
is from the point of view of the Western, imperial mentality. They
both cost us a lot and in that respect they are similar, so analogies
are drawn.

Vietnam and the China Connection

Hewison: On the Iraq-Vietnam comparison, one of the ideas floated
recently is the notion that one of the initiatives that got the US
out of Vietnam and was seen as a positive was the link made with
China through Kissinger's visit. Looking back at this, it is now
being said that in order to achieve something positive out of the
Iraq shambles - and this was mentioned in a recent editorial in The
Economist (7 April 2007, US Edition) – the US should make overtures
to Iran, and this might ameliorate some of the broader conflicts in
the region. In what you've just been saying, this would not seem a
viable option.

Chomsky: It made sense from a realpolitik point of view for Nixon and
Kissinger to ally with China against Russia as they tried to patch up
some sort of détente. That's superpower politics and had nothing to
do with Vietnam. That's part of the pretense that the war in Vietnam
was some kind of proxy war against the Russians or the Chinese.

Here's another interesting fact about the Pentagon Papers. In it
there are twenty-five years of intelligence records, not released by
the government, but stolen from it, like some captured enemy archive,
and the record is astonishing. In the late 1940s, the US hadn't quite
decided whether they were going to support Vietnamese independence
the way they did with the Indonesians at the time. But about 1950
they decided to support the French. US intelligence was given orders:
prove that Ho Chi Minh is an agent of Russia or Peiping (as it was
called) or the Sino-Soviet axis; anything will do, just prove that he
is an agent of that massive conspiracy for world control. And they
worked hard on it. For a couple of years they searched all over the
place, and they found a copy of Pravda in the Vietnamese embassy in
Bangkok or something similar, and they didn't come up with anything.
They came to a very curious conclusion: Hanoi seemed to be the only
part of the region that didn't have any contact with Russia or China.
So the wise men in the State Department concluded that this proved
their point. Ho Chi Minh is such a loyal slave of [Russia and/or
China] that he doesn't even need orders.

From then on, we go on right to 1968, and there is no discussion in
intelligence of even the possibility that maybe Hanoi is serving
national interests. It has to be serving the master. Now whatever you
think about Ho Chi Minh, there's just no doubt that he was following
Vietnamese interests. There is no doubt about this. When you first
arrive in Hanoi they take you to the war museum to show you how they
fought the Chinese centuries ago. It's right in the back of their
minds. But in the US it couldn't be thought. If I remember correctly,
there was one staff paper that raised the possibility that Hanoi was
not a puppet, and I don't think it was even submitted. This is a
level of indoctrination which is shocking.

Actually, it has been studied in a lot more detail by James Peck in
his book Washington's China.[13] He shows that the paranoia and
fanaticism about China just exceeded any conceivable rationality
right through the sixties, when the record dries.

So, yes, there was that pretense. In order to maintain the pretense -
and maybe they believed it. I don't say they were lying. So Kissinger
in his deluded mind may have thought that it was China keeping the
war going, but it wasn't. It was the Vietnamese who were keeping the
war going. China was giving minimal assistance. Russia was giving
some anti-aircraft missiles and so on, but it was a war with the
Vietnamese. That could not be faced because that would mean we're not
nice people. We don't invade other countries. We liberate other
people. We don't attack them. Therefore this picture emerged.

The Economist can't see this as they are much too deeply mired in
imperial mentality. In this case, what does it mean to talk to Iran?
Is Iran keeping the insurgency going? Is Iran responsible for the
Sunni insurgency? You'd have to be a lunatic to believe that. It is
striking to see how this is being developed. I presume The Economist
is being caught up in a wave of US government propaganda.

Remember the background. The Iraqi population is overwhelmingly
calling for a withdrawal. The US government knows this from its own
polls. The US population is calling for a withdrawal. The last
congressional election was about this. The response? Escalate. As
soon as you saw the surge was announced you could predict that there
was going to be a flow of propaganda about how Iran was behind it.
What happens? A flow of propaganda about how Iran is behind it. Then
comes a debate.

This is the way Western democratic propaganda systems operate. You
don't articulate the party line - totalitarian states do that - they
announce the party line, and if people don't accept it, you beat them
over the head. Nobody has to believe it. In free societies that won't
work. You have to presuppose the party line - never mention - just
presuppose it. Then encourage a vigorous debate within the framework
of the party line. That instills the party line even more deeply and
it gives the impression of an open, free society.

The Iran Connection

This is a textbook example. The Bush government announces that Iran's
serial numbers are on the IEDs. Then it starts a vigorous debate. The
hawks say, let's bomb them to smithereens. The doves say maybe it's
not true or maybe it's just the Revolutionary Guard, and so on. The
discussion is surreal. You can only carry it out on the assumption
that the United States owns the world. Otherwise Iran can't be
interfering in a country that is under US occupation. It's as if
Germany in 1943 were complaining that the Allies were interfering in
free and independent Vichy France. You have to collapse in ridicule.
But in the West, very sober, very serious. We are a deeply
indoctrinated society, so it isn't even questioned. So, yes, the talk
is now that we'll talk with Iran and that this will solve the
problem. It isn't going to solve the problem. It's an Iraqi problem.

If Iran is not involved more in Iraq it is astonishing. We're
threatening Iran with attack and destruction. Iran is almost
completely surrounded by hostile US forces. The US is deploying big
naval detachments in the Gulf. What are they there for? Defence? The
US is probably conducting terror inside Iran, trying to stimulate
tribal and secessionist movements and so on. And openly threatening
to attack Iran, which in itself is a violation of the UN Charter.

In fact, when the US invaded Iraq, that was a signal to Iran to
develop nuclear weapons. That was understood. One of Israel's leading
military historians Martin van Creveld wrote in the International
Herald Tribune that of course he didn't want Iran to have nuclear
weapons, but after the US invasion of Iraq, then if they're not
developing them, they are "crazy."[14] This is because the invasion
was simply a signal: we'll attack anyone we like as long as they are
defenceless, and you know we want to go after you because you're
defiant. You're not going to be able to survive. So maybe they are
doing something, but the fact that the US is capturing Iranian
figures in Arbil and apparently going after diplomats - according to
Patrick Cockburn's reports[15]- those are real provocations.

The discussion is surreal. Take, say, Tony Blair during the latest
naval incident in which fifteen British sailors and marines were
captured by Iran. He claims that the ships were in Iraqi waters and
then we have a debate over whether they were in Iraqi or Iranian
waters. It's a debate that doesn't make any sense. What are British
vessels doing in Iraqi waters? How did they get there? Suppose the
Iranian Navy was in the Caribbean. Would the US be arguing over whose
territorial waters they were in? To take this position you have to
assume that the US and its British lackey own the world. Otherwise
you can't have the discussion.

From Vietnam to the War on Terror

Hewison: Right at the beginning of At War with Asia, you have a quote
from Professor J. K. Fairbank, where he is cited as worrying that the
Vietnam War was not only a war against the people of Asia, but
resulted in a totalitarian menace in the US itself. Is there a
comparison with the so-called War on Terror?

Chomsky: First of all, with regard to the War on Terror, we should
bring up something that is constantly repressed. On 11 September
2001, Bush re-declared the War on Terror. It had been declared by
Ronald Reagan when he came into office in 1981. He announced right
away that the focus of US foreign policy would be on state-directed
international terrorism. His administration called it the plague of
the modern age, a return to barbarism in our time and so on.[16] And
then came something people would prefer to forget. This was a major
terrorist war launched by the United States which devastated Central
America, killed hundreds of thousands of people, had horrifying
results in southern Africa and the Middle East and so on, extending
to Southeast Asia.

That was the first War on Terror. So Bush re-declared it. Now when
you declare war, whatever it is going to be, it's going to come with
internal constraints. That's what a war is. The population has to be
mobilized. There aren't a lot of ways of mobilising a population. The
simplest way is fear. Fear often has some justification, but we have
to remember that the Bush administration is increasing the risk, not
decreasing it. Intelligence agencies anticipated that the invasion of
Iraq would probably increase the threat of terror and proliferation.
Well, it did, but far beyond what was anticipated. The latest studies
reveal that terror increased about seven-fold. This is what the
analysts call the "Iraq effect." There are many examples where the
Bush administration is not decreasing the risk of terrorism. Mobilise
the population through fear and try to institute controls. Well, they
have tried. A lot of things they have done are outrageous - the
Military Commissions Act, which was passed by bipartisan vote last
year, is one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation in
American history - but we shouldn't exaggerate.

With all of this, it is nowhere near as bad as it has been in the
past. It's a much freer society than it used to be. This is nothing
like Woodrow Wilson's Red Scare. It's nothing like the COINTELPRO
which ran from the Eisenhower up to the Nixon administration, which
was a major FBI programme aimed at destroying opposition movements
from the Black movement to the women's movement and the entire New
Left.[17] It's nothing like that. Bad enough, but we shouldn't
exaggerate; a lot of freedom has been won and it is not going to be
given up easily. So, yes, there are efforts to restrict freedom - and
that's what states are all about, taking any chance they can get to
restrict freedom. But the population has won a lot of rights and it's
not going to abandon them easily.

Hewison: That's probably a good place to conclude - optimistic in a
sense. We really appreciate your time today. Thank you.
---

Kevin Hewison interviewed Chomsky in Cambridge on April 18, 2007.
This is an abbreviated version of an article that appeared in Journal
of Contemporary Asia, 37, 4, pp. 297-310. Nov 2007. Posted at Japan
Focus on Novmber 26, 2007.

Hewison is Co-editor, Journal of Contemporary Asia and Director,
Carolina Asia Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
---

Notes [See URL for embedded links.]

[1] At War With Asia was originally published in 1970, by
Pantheon/Vintage. It was re-released in 2004 by AK. Press. The
chapter on Laos was first published as "A Visit to Laos" in The New
York Review of Books, 23 July 1970.
[2] These articles in Le Monde from 3 to 8 July 1968 reported on
Decornoy's trip to Pathet Lao strongholds in northeastern Laos. Also
see J. Decornoy (1970) "Laos: The Forgotten War," Bulletin of
Concerned Asian Scholars, 2, April-July, pp. 21-3.
[3] See T.D. Allman (1970) "Laos: the labyrinthine war," Far Eastern
Economic Review, 16, April and his articles in the New York Times, 25
August 1968, 18 September 1968, 28 September 1968, 17 October 1969,
26 October 1969, and 6 March 1970.
[4] See Chomsky's article, "In North Vietnam," The New York Review of
Books, 13 August 1970. The essay is also included in At War with Asia.
[5] New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971.
[6] Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of
Vietnam, New York: Times Books, 1995. See Chomsky's assessment of
these memoirs in "Memories," Z Magazine, July-August 1995.
[7] The article is "Bombs over Cambodia," The Walrus (Canada),
October 2006, pp. 62-9. The Yale University Genocide Studies Program
is here and the Cambodia project is here.
[8] On 26 May 2004, the National Security Archive released a series
of Kissinger telephone conversations, including Nixon's call to
Kissinger ordering the bombing of Cambodia. Nixon stated, ". . . I
want a plan where every goddamn thing that can fly goes into Cambodia
and hits every target that is open." He added, "I want everything
that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them. There is
no limitation on mileage and no limitation on budget." ("Mr.
Kissinger/President, December 9, 1970," Box 29, File 2. See the
Archive. According to Elizabeth Becker (New York Times, 27 May 2004),
Kissinger transmitted this order as "A massive bombing campaign in
Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves."
[9] New York Times, 22 December 1965, 17 February 1966 and 19 June 1966.
[10] See John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat. Japan in the Wake of World
War II, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.
[11] See the organisation's website.
[12] For reports on the Asian energy grid, see Asia Times Online, 1
December 2005.
[13] Washington's China. The National Security World, the Cold War,
and the Origins of Globalism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press, 2006).
[14] See Martin van Creveld, "Iraq: a lost peace: When the Americans
leave," International Herald Tribune, 19 November 2003.
[15] See Cockburn's "How a bid to kidnap Iranian security officials
sparked a diplomatic crisis," The Independent (UK), 3 April 2007 and
his reporting at Counterpunch, for example, "Behind the Denials: A De
Facto Hostage Exchange," 5 April 2007.
[16] See Noam Chomsky, "War on Terror," Amnesty International Annual
Lecture, Trinity College, Dublin, 18 January 2006 .
[17] See here.

.

Vanguard music label still alive and kicking

Vanguard music label still alive and kicking

http://www.madison.com/tct/entertainment/258236

by Kevin Lynch
11/22/2007

The winds of time have sort of circled and are blowing on the back of
Vanguard Records. There have been many worthy small independent music
labels over the years, but few have scoured city and countryside to
unearth talent as widely as Vanguard.

Venerable but still vital, Vanguard's V still plows a cutting edge in
American music, turning up talent and releasing the verdant depths of
the nation's roots music. The roster spans folk, blues, jazz, new
age, electronica, classical, hip-hop, alt-country and indie rock. The
names it has boasted include Patty Larkin, Hootie and the Blowfish,
Linda Ronstadt and Robert Cray, for starters. They're relatively
recent starters who've been influenced by many of the label's elders.

Vanguard is clearly still alive and well, as is Levon Helm, who has
just released an inspiring new album, "Dirt Farmer." The singer and
drummer is best known as a key member of one of America's most
legendary groups, the Band. Helm hadn't released a record in 25
years, and its mere presence proves "we live in an age of miracles,"
Helm marvels in his own liner notes. "After surgery for throat cancer
in 1998, twenty-eight radiation treatments plus 3 to 4 years filled
with the power of prayer and kind wishes, I started singing again."
This all was after he'd rebuilt his barn studio in Woodstock, N.Y.
(not far from the Band's legendary "Big Pink"), destroyed by fire,
and lost his harmonizing compadre, the late Rick Danko. The CD is
mostly feisty, often joyous and bursting with historic-sounding
stories, from Steve Earle's "The Mountain" to Paul Kennerley's "A
Train Robbery". Helm's steely-creaky Arkansas voice sounds now like a
true elder's, at times poignant and even painful. Helm admits his
pipes aren't completely back, but the soul still flashes like sparks
on a grind wheel. He benefits from warm harmony vocals from his wife
Amy and the golden crackerjack band he deserves.

But the best proof of Vanguard's rejuvenated legacy is its remarkable
Vanguard Visionaries series.

It's a mid-priced sampler series of the numerous artists who have
shaped the sound, character and history of American music. Fifty
years ago brothers Seymour and Maynard Solomon started the label in a
tiny one-room office in a rabbit warren in New York City. The LP
format had been introduced two years earlier, and Vanguard started
with classical, but as the LP grew, so did Vanguard, gradually moving
from the Jazz Showcase series produced by John Hammond to show music.

They recorded blacklisted performers, including Paul Robeson and the Weavers.

The Vanguard Visionaries has a nice promotional ploy with each
release bearing a sticker listing three younger artists the subject
has apparently influenced, fodder for thought and argument (eg. Joan
Baez: Norah Jones, Lucinda Williams, Dixie Chicks). The packages
tease you toward the catalog, even to the point of not listing band
members or the recording dates of the tunes. It's clearly a come-on,
but come on, folks.

That caveat aside, these make nice introductions, reminders and, soon
enough, stocking stuffers:

Joan Baez -- Who knows what wouldn't have happened without the
musical beauty and inspiration of this sage-sounding voice, with a
vibrato that rides its own brave waves, as did so many spiritual
surfers, back in the day. She do songs by Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, Gram
Parsons, Baez herself and traditional sources.

John Hammond -- For my money Hammond is still the greatest living
white blues singer. These sides from his mid-20s show him rough and
ready, sly and saturnine, at the blink of an eye. He variously covers
Blind Willie McTell, Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon and Robert Johnson,
and his bag of tools includes a falsetto he must have got by selling
something fine to the hellhound on his trail.

Oregon -- This band epitomized the brave will of the Northwest, ready
to trek north all the way to Asia and follow any travelers through
its own land. The blend of Paul McCandless' reed instruments, Colin
Walcott's tabla and Ralph Towner's guitar gave many the first sense
of world music.

Sandy Bull -- A brilliant nerd hipster who was Oregon rolled into a
one-man string band, doing concoctions as down home as they were far out.

Jerry Jeff Walker -- One of the first of an astonishing generation of
Texas troubadours, Jerry Jeff sounds like many people from song to
song, including the whole Jefferson Airplane in its early folk-rock
phase on "Lost Sea Shanty'' and his own alter ego, "Mr. Bojangles,"
who tapped the juices in Jerry Jeff that still flow.

Mississippi Fred McDowell -- He could charm the pants off a flea and
Taj Mahal, among many others who couldn't let go of his wondrous
spell. "I'm satisfied they sang, and you'll be tickled too."

To find out all the artists in the Vanguard Visionaries series, and
all the label's riches, log onto www.vanguardrecords.com.
---

Reach Kevin Lynch of The Capital Times at 252-6432 or klynch@madison.com.

.

OBIT: Patrick Halley: Outgoing reporter lived colorful life

Patrick Halley: Outgoing reporter lived colorful life

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071125/NEWS08/711250586/1001

November 25, 2007
BY JOE ROSSITER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A private memorial service will be held today for Patrick Halley, a
former reporter with the radical Fifth Estate newspaper who had a
reputation as a journalist with a go-for-broke attitude.

Mr. Halley died suddenly Nov. 16. He was 57 and lived in Detroit.

He made front-page news in August 1973 after tossing a
menthol-scented shaving cream pie in the face of a nationally known,
self-proclaimed teenage god, Guru, Maharaj Ji, who was receiving a
tribute at a Detroit City Council session.

The headline for the Free Press story that appeared the following day
declared it was "No Way to Treat a Guru."

Maharaj Ji, who billed himself as "Lord of the Universe," was
connected to an organization known as the Divine Light Mission. Mr.
Halley was protesting his claim of divinity.

A week after the incident, Mr. Halley was beaten and almost killed in
his apartment by two of the guru's devotees. After undergoing
surgery, he recovered.

"He was a very outgoing, colorful character who was a bit on the
radical side," said his brother, Richard Halley.

Born in Detroit, Mr. Halley graduated from Lamphere High School in
Madison Heights in 1968. He married Linda Zimmerman in 1979, and they
had two children.

Mr. Halley earned a living as a taxi driver with the Greater Detroit
Cab Co. for more than three decades and was a freelance writer for a
number of local publications. He wrote an article for the Metro Times
detailing surreal experiences he witnessed and the cast of colorful
characters he encountered during his daily runs as a cabbie.

A supporter of the underground theater scene, he was involved in
numerous productions as an actor and writer.

Beside his brother, survivors include a daughter, Celeste Finley;
brothers Michael and Shawn; a sister, Kathleen Williams, and five
grandchildren.
---

Contact JOE ROSSITER at 313-222-6594 or jrossiter@freepress.com.

.

The Six Wives of Timothy Leary

The Six Wives of Timothy Leary

http://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/review.php/18938/the-six-wives-of-timothy-leary

23 November 2007
By Francesca Whiting

Philip de Gouveia's play about the six wives of the controversial
American psychologist Timothy Leary, who died in 1996, is a
remarkable first achievement.

Most famous for advocating the therapeutic and spiritual benefits of
LSD, Leary was sentenced to 30 years in prison for possession of
marijuana in 1966 (he later won his appeal), was again sent to prison
in 1970, but escaped, married five times (the sixth in the title was
his common law wife) and after he died, became one of the first
people to have his remains sent into space.

And, in a play spanning the ages from the fifties to the nineties,
his six wives each tell their story of what it was like being married
to the man who coined the popular phrase, 'Turn on, tune in, drop out'.

Each woman recounts her story to people who cannot be seen or heard
by the audience and how each of them goes about this reveals a great
deal about their relationship with Leary.

Wife number one, Marianne (Hetty Abbott), tells her story to a guest
at a party, his second wife Mary (Lisa Came) speaks to a journalist
at a restaurant, his third wife Nena (Anna Brook) talks to a lover,
his fourth wife Rosemary (Charlotte Donachie) addresses a rally,
common law wife Joanna (Katharine Bennett-Fox) speaks to Leary when
he is in prison and his last wife Barbara (Alison Baker) talks to his
spirit at his funeral.

With so many different voices and experiences to be heard over a
40-year period, the play could easily have degenerated into
confusion, but director Timothy Hughes keeps the story tight, giving
each wife a distinct voice and look, each with her own mannerisms and
ways of moving around the sparsely-designed stage, while snatches of
music including jazz and rock'n'roll keep us informed of the era.

It takes very little time to become immersed in their stories and
there is no weak link - each actress is totally in tune with her
character, successfully managing to communicate the highs and lows of
being married to Leary.

And it isn't all heavy going - there are some lovely comic moments
too, such as when Mary tries several times to get the attention of a
waitress and Joanna asks Leary for a pen when she's visiting him in prison.

In the programme it states the play is not intended to be a factual
representation of the characters and events portrayed - and there's a
fair chunk of Leary's life that isn't really touched upon - but then,
as the title suggests, the play is really about his six wives.

Production information

By:
Philip de Gouveia
Management:
Weaver Hughes Ensemble
Cast:
Hetty Abbott, Alison Baker, Katharine Bennett-Fox, Anna Brook, Lisa
Came, Charlotte Donachie
Director:
Timothy Hughes
Design:
Katherine Webb
Sound:
Malik Abdurakhmanov
Lighting:
Sarah Gooda

Production information can change over the run of the show.

Run sheet
Etcetera London
November 20-December 9

.

Obama Smoked the Ganja

Obama Smoked the Ganja

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DougGiles/2007/11/24/obama_smoked_the_ganja

By Doug Giles
Saturday, November 24, 2007

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama confessed to a group of teens this
week at Manchester Central High School in Manchester, New Hampshire
that when he was their age he used to be a dope smokin' fool.

Barack outed himself as being a former Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
member of his high school bong brigade. He put the high in high
school. BO's mea culpa immediately accomplished a few things: It
solidified Snoop Dogg's, Willie Nelson's and Montel's votes in the
primaries, and it also sent some of my conservative compadres into a
five alarm hissy fit.

Yep, several of my VRWC buddies were popping blood veins in their
foreheads, stating that Obama's admission could encourage young 'uns
to use drugs, and because of this he was "unwise" in telling the
little squabs that he formerly sought solace in a thick cloud of sinsemilla.

One pundit this week said that kids can't handle that kind of candor
and thus certain things should be kept from their fragile psyches.
FYI, my la-la-land concerned brother: Teens today have seen and heard
things in the public school system by the time they're 11 that were
reserved only for the eyes of Courtney Love, Robert Mapplethorpe and
Timothy Leary twenty years ago. Trust me . . . Obama dropping the
weed bomb on our teenage wasteland probably didn't raise a
multi-pierced tattooed eyebrow.

Mitt Romney waded in on BO's former teen weed burning divulgence and
condemned it, saying that Obama's confession sent a bad message to
young people, namely that you can "get high and become president."

First of all Mitt, you gotta relax, man . . . Obama, like you, is not
going to become president, so chill, okay? In addition, as a good
religious man you should applaud his honesty in owning his previously
bad record, right? I mean c'mon, Mr. Romney . . . at least he's up
front about it. He didn't flip flop on what he did in the past or try
to explain away why he did what he did to ingratiate himself to a
gullible voting block in a sad and desperate attempt to become president.

Another conservative said this week that Barack coming forward with
the admission that he toked the ganja was not only unwise but was
also a bad example for children. Telling the truth has now become a
bad example? I believe that was Larry Craig who said that. I could be wrong.

The absolute cake taker freaking out over Barack's breasting of his
dirty deeds was a 350lb chubby Christian who was all up in arms
regarding Obama's former relationship with the cannabis. He too said
that such an admission left a poor pattern for young people. I was
thinking, yeah? Well, so does being morbidly obese, chunky butt. Hey,
Jabba . . . being a bloated, self righteous crank with a totemic view
of vice is also a bad example for the children, so dial down and take
care of your own house, Jenny Craig.

Do I think leaders need to be an example to young people? Yes,
leaders need to be an example which includes being honest and up
front with the stupid stuff they did in the past. By the way,
everyone looking to have a perfect boy for president, I will remind
you that leaders are human and thus fallible. Heck, even great
leaders in the Bible and throughout history did some whacked stuff.
Here's a short list:

•Moses killed a man. That's not right.

•Abraham slept with his housekeeper and had a bastard child via that
illicit affair. Oops!

•Samson openly dated a prostitute. Hello.

• David committed adultery, fathered a kid through that liaison, and
to cover his faux pas had his lover's husband liquidated. Mamasita!

•Paul used to murder Christians. Isn't that special?

•Peter had a potty mouth, and once in a difficult strait denied his
affiliation to Christ.

That'll get you kicked off of TBN now wouldn't it?

• Sir Winston Churchill used to suck down cigars and scotch like
there was no tomorrow while dictating to his female secretary whilst
butt naked. Would you vote for a dude now who did that? Of course you
would. You voted for Bill Clinton.

Were this week's confessions by Obama motivated by some supposed dirt
Hillary has on him? Who knows, and who cares? If that's the worst she
has on him I say Obama can exhale because the Clintons are dirtier
than Howard Stern sitting in the Mojave desert eating a mud pie and
chasing it down with a cup of dust. You can relax, BO.

Now, obviously, because I'm a conservative I would never vote for the
young senator­but I do appreciate Barack and even Rudy for being
honest and owning their checkered pasts. It's refreshing to hear the
truth every now and then in a milieu that's ripe with bull such as "I
didn't inhale; it wasn't my fault; I did not have sex with that
woman; and I never flip flopped."
---

Doug Giles' new book "10 Habits of Decidedly Defective People: The
Successful Loser's Guide to Life" is now available. Doug's award
winning talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

.

The Clintons' Berkeley Summer of Love

The Clintons' Berkeley Summer of Love

http://www.nysun.com/article/66982

By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 26, 2007

BERKELEY, Calif. ­ For Senator Clinton, the most vivid memories of
the summer she spent here in 1971 working at a radical law firm
likely concern not politics or legal work, but romance.

That summer was the first time she lived under the same roof with her
new boyfriend and future husband, Bill Clinton. The pair, both
students at Yale Law School, had been dating for only a month or so
when Mr. Clinton proposed that he join her in California and abandon
his plans to be a Southern states coordinator for Senator McGovern's
presidential campaign.

"I screwed up my courage and asked Hillary if I could spend the
summer with her," Mr. Clinton recalled in his 2004 autobiography, "My
Life." "I told her I'd have the rest of my life for my work and my
ambition, but I loved her and I wanted to see if it could work out for us."

"I was astonished," Mrs. Clinton wrote in her 2003 memoir, "Living History."

"He had decided, he told me, that we were destined for each other,
and he didn't want to let me go just after he'd found me," she wrote.
"I was thrilled."

Mr. Clinton drove his new girlfriend to California, stopping along
the way to visit Mrs. Clinton's family in Park Ridge, Ill. He then
drove back across the country to inform Mr. McGovern's campaign about
his decision. He ultimately spent a couple of weeks organizing for
the candidate in Connecticut before driving back to Berkeley.

The new couple quickly became quite domestic. Bowing to her future
husband's Arkansas roots, Mrs. Clinton baked him a peach pie. The
pair also "produced a palatable chicken curry for any and all
occasions we hosted," Mrs. Clinton recalled.

While Mrs. Clinton clerked at the Treuhaft firm in nearby Oakland,
Mr. Clinton plowed through books, explored Berkeley shops, and
scouted out San Francisco restaurants. According to the future
senator, the pair also kindled their romance on long walks where Mr.
Clinton occasionally used his southern twang to regale her with Elvis
Presley tunes.

One night in July, the couple drove down to Stanford to listen to an
outdoor concert by Joan Baez. The Southern boy was treated to a
rendition of "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down," he recalled in his memoir.

Minor ambiguities in the Clintons' accounts of that summer make it
hard to pin down with certainty where in Berkeley they lived. Mr.
Clinton's book says it was a "small house," which was owned by Mrs.
Clinton's mother's half-sister, Adeline Rosenberg.

Mrs. Clinton's book says she and her then-boyfriend "shared a small
apartment near a big park not far from the University of California
at Berkeley campus where the Free Speech Movement started in 1964."

Records from the university show that Rosenberg, who died in 1998,
graduated from Berkeley in March 1971 and lived at that time in a
small, second-floor apartment on Derby Street. The apartment was
about six blocks from the main university campus and just three
blocks from People's Park, the site of a violent 1969 confrontation
between protesters and police that left one protester dead and more
than 100 wounded.

The left-wing law firm where Mrs. Clinton worked was still
representing one of the leaders of that day's protests, Daniel
Siegel, when she clerked there in 1971.

Rosenberg, a convert to Judaism and the daughter of a Jewish father,
was featured in a highly publicized story about Mrs. Clinton's Jewish
relatives that emerged in a Jewish newspaper, the Forward, during
Mrs. Clinton's first Senate bid.

Relatives say Rosenberg, who sang professionally under the stage name
Addie Ross, later recalled that she had been a bit startled to learn
a man had also taken up residence in her home.

"She had been out of town," a cousin, Alice Segal, told The New York
Sun. "Addie came back earlier than anticipated and called Hillary to
tell her she was in….Addie said, 'Is there a gentleman at your house?'

Hillary said, 'Yes, his name is Bill Clinton and I'd like you to come
and meet him.'"

Another relative, Mitchell Hoffberg, said the main thing that
impressed Rosenberg about that first encounter was Mr. Clinton's
size. "To her surprise, there was Bill laying on the living room
floor," Mr. Hoffberg said. "She was surprised he was such a big guy….
It was a small apartment and Bill was lying on the floor in front of
the couch and took up the whole room."

One of Mrs. Clinton's bosses at the firm, Malcolm Burnstein,
remembers a meeting where her boyfriend from Yale Law was bluntly
ambitious. "That was a funny conversation," Mr. Burnstein recalled.
"I just casually asked him, 'I'm sure you're getting interviews with
all the big firms in New York?' He said, 'I'm not.…I'm going back to
Arkansas and I'm going to be governor.' It's a line clearly stuck in
my memory."

Mrs. Clinton later joked that Mr. Clinton's ambition had been stoked
by a comment another partner at the firm, Robert Treuhaft, made
during a meal they shared that summer. "At a long-forgotten Berkeley
dinner, you told my then-friend Bill that all great accomplishments
were achieved by the age of twenty-five (or words to that same
piercing effect)," Mrs. Clinton recalled in a note she sent to
Treuhaft from the Arkansas governor's mansion nearly a decade later.
"Since he had just hit that quarter century mark, he resigned himself
to less-than-great and a few years later, settled for the joys of public life."

.

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer

http://www.nysun.com/article/66933

A Season of Love and Leftists

By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 26, 2007

OAKLAND, Calif. ­ In a life marked largely by political caution, one
entry on Senator Clinton's résumé stands out: her clerkship in 1971
at one of America's most radical law firms, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

One partner at the firm, Doris Walker, was a Communist Party member
at the time. Another partner, Robert Treuhaft, had left the party in
1958, several years after being called before the House Un-American
Activities Committee and labeled as one of America's most
"dangerously subversive" lawyers. The Oakland-based firm was renowned
for taking clients others rejected as too controversial, including
Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American
militant group known as the Black Panthers.

To this day, Mrs. Clinton's decision to work at the unabashedly
left-wing firm is surprising, even shocking, to some of her former
colleagues there and to those supporting her bid for the presidency.
To the former first lady's enemies and political opponents, her
summer at the Treuhaft firm is yet another indication that radical
ideology lurks beneath the patina of moderation she has adopted in public life.

Through more than a dozen interviews, a review of law firm files and
correspondence at two university archives, and an examination of
previously published descriptions of Mrs. Clinton's California
summer, The New York Sun has sought to compile a comprehensive
account of the 23-year-old Yale law student's work for the Treuhaft
firm, how she got there, and how acquaintances she made that summer
surfaced from time to time as her political career unfolded.

The Sun's investigation found that:
Republican opposition researchers working for President George H.W.
Bush were aware of Mrs. Clinton's tie to the Treuhaft firm in 1992,
before it was widely known, and apparently chose not to exploit it.
They reasoned that she was the wife of the candidate rather than the
candidate herself, a reasoning that no longer applies as Mrs. Clinton
seeks the Democratic presidential nomination. Lawyers involved with
the firm were surprised that Republican operatives never moved to
capitalize on Mrs. Clinton's connection.
An oft-repeated and published anecdote about Mrs. Clinton's
involvement in the firm's plea negotiations over an armed invasion of
the California Legislature by Black Panthers seems to be apocryphal,
though one of the attorneys directly involved has a "very distinct"
memory of Mrs. Clinton's attendance at a Panthers-related meeting.
The firm was involved in another volatile Black Panthers case the
summer Mrs. Clinton worked there: the trial of Huey Newton for the
1967 killing of an Oakland police officer. Treuhaft represented a
Newton associate whose role in the trial may have helped Newton win a
series of mistrials and, eventually, the dismissal of all charges
related to the officer's death.
Partners at the firm said it was likely Mrs. Clinton also worked on
politically sensitive cases involving a Berkeley student activist
denied admission to the California bar over incendiary rhetoric,
Stanford physician interns fighting a loyalty oath at the Veterans
Administration, and men claiming conscientious objector status to
avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. Mrs. Clinton's only public
recollection of her work at the Treuhaft firm is that she handled a
child custody matter.
Mrs. Clinton's most vivid memories from that summer may be personal
ones that have nothing to do with the law firm with which she
clerked. A fellow Yale law student, President Clinton, shared the
Berkeley apartment where she was staying. The pair soon got serious
and would move in together when they returned to New Haven that fall.

Mrs. Clinton's campaign declined to make her available for an
interview for this story.

AT YALE, TURBULENT TIMES MOLD A LAWYER-IN-TRAINING

Mrs. Clinton's decision to work at the Treuhaft firm was rooted in
the turbulence, chaos and radicalism that buffeted Yale after she
entered law school there in 1969. Most campuses saw their share of
foment, but Yale saw more than its share in the spring of 1970
because of the impending criminal trial in New Haven of a Black
Panthers' leader, Bobby Seale, and several co-defendants, for
kidnapping and murdering another member of the Panthers. Many,
including Yale's president at the time, doubted that Seale and other
black militants could get a fair trial. As students prepared for a
national student strike on May Day 1970, a suspicious fire broke out
in the basement of a Yale law library. The blaze led to a palpable
fear among professors and students that institutions like Yale could
be burned to the ground. Crazy talk abounded. One agitated Yale law
student reportedly proposed "mass suicide" to protest injustices
allegedly being perpetrated against the Panthers.

While some writers and commentators have painted Mrs. Clinton as so
exercised by the Panther trial that she formed a student committee to
sit in on the proceedings and report on perceived abuses, a book
published last year suggests that even that modest undertaking grew
out of a compromise in which law students voted not to endorse a
student strike. Mrs. Clinton and another Yale law student were named
as co-chairs of a committee "to monitor the trial, offer legal advice
to demonstrators who got arrested, and help prevent violence at the
May Day rally," according to "Murder in the Model City" by Paul Bass
and Douglas Rae.

The book's authors do not disclose whether Mrs. Clinton personally
supported or opposed the strike, but they describe her as "a careful,
moderate voice of dissent." They also noted that the Clinton-led
student committee voted "to insist…that no coercion or extra-legal
attempts to stop the trial should be tolerated."

Mrs. Clinton has written about joining a "bucket brigade to put out"
the library fire and about organizing round-the-clock patrols in the
wake of the blaze. However, Mr. Bass, a longtime New Haven
journalist, and Mr. Rae, a professor at Yale's business school, noted
with some puzzlement that Mrs. Clinton "never chose to shed any
light" on her actions surrounding the student strike and the
Panthers' trial. "In writing and speaking about the period, she never
mentions co-chairing the committee," the authors observed. The
senator declined to be interviewed for their book. "She wouldn't
touch it," Mr. Bass said.

Ultimately, the May Day protest turned Yale into an armed camp,
occupied by thousands of soldiers, but the event yielded little of
the feared violence. That came three days later at Kent State
University in Ohio when National Guard soldiers shot and killed four
students protesting the Vietnam War.

The Black Panthers' trial didn't actually begin until the fall.
During the lead-up, Seale's attorney, Charles Garry of San Francisco,
became a regular presence in the courtyards at Yale Law School.

At some point, Treuhaft and his wife, Jessica Mitford, passed through
New Haven and threw a party to raise money for the Panthers' defense.
According to Gail Sheehy's biography of Mrs. Clinton, "Hillary's
Choice," the future senator attended the Treuhaft-Mitford party. Many
have surmised that this event laid the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton's
clerkship at Treuhaft's law office. A law school classmate of Mrs.
Clinton who later became a staff attorney at the Oakland firm,
Drucilla Ramey, said she saw no evidence that Mrs. Clinton was among
the groupies who surrounded the left-wing lawyers. "She was a grind,"
Ms. Ramey told the Sun. "It was very fashionable not to work very
hard in law school. Hillary was in a distinct minority….Any sense
that she was a wide-eyed radical running around with Charlie [Garry]
and stuff is very misplaced."

One of Treuhaft's partners, Malcolm Burnstein, said Mrs. Clinton's
internship was arranged by a national student group. "She was sent to
us by the Law Students' Civil Rights Research Council," Mr. Burnstein
told the Sun. The group also paid Mrs. Clinton during her summer at
the firm, he said. It is possible Mrs. Clinton selected the Treuhaft
firm and then arranged funding through the council. That's how she
set up her first law-school summer internship working with the future
founder of the Children's Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman.

Ms. Ramey said the Treuhaft firm also drew the notice of female Yale
students for a simple reason: it hired women and took them on as
interns at a time many white-shoe firms and government offices would
not. "Even in the public interest world, it was hard to find a job,"
Ms. Ramey recalled. "At that time, the Oakland public defender
wouldn't hire women. The federal public defender wouldn't hire women."

A CALIFORNIA SUMMER WITH CRUSADERS FROM THE "OLD LEFT"

Mrs. Clinton's only public recollection of her stint at the Treuhaft
firm came in her 2003 memoir, "Living History."

"I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and
Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland, California and he announced
that he would like to go with me," she wrote. "I spent most of my
time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and
briefs for a child custody case."

While Mrs. Clinton devotes considerable ink to her budding romance
with her future husband, two fleeting sentences are the only ones
describing her how she arrived at the Treuhaft firm and what she did there.

None of those interviewed for this article disputed Mrs. Clinton's
claim that she worked on a child custody case during her time at the
law office. "It's certainly plausible. We did those cases," Mr. Burnstein said.

One nationally publicized custody case that might have caught Mrs.
Clinton's attention was Treuhaft's representation in 1968 of a
California artist and photographer, Harold Painter, whose "bohemian"
lifestyle led the Iowa Supreme Court to grant custody of his son to
the boy's more traditional Iowa-dwelling grandparents.

The most eye-catching claim about Mrs. Clinton's time at the Treuhaft
firm is that she attended a plea negotiation on behalf of armed Black
Panthers who stormed into the California legislature on May 2, 1967
to protest a gun-control measure. The band of more than two dozen men
toting rifles, shotguns and pistols caused alarm when they emerged on
the floor of the legislature. They later insisted they were trying to
reach the spectators' gallery and used the wrong door.

"I just have a very distinct memory of going to Sacramento that
summer with Hillary in my car and working with the D.A.'s office to
resolve the Panther case. I really remember that quite clearly," Mr.
Burnstein told the Sun.

The account is featured in both "Hillary's Choice" and a San
Francisco Chronicle article that appeared shortly after Mr. Clinton
won the presidency in 1992.

However, the Associated Press reported that criminal cases stemming
from the Panthers' protest were resolved in August 1967, almost four
years before Mrs. Clinton turned up at the Treuhaft office. In
addition, a former partner there, Ms. Walker, insists that Mr.
Burnstein's recollection is faulty.

"I am positive that Hillary was not involved in any Black Panther
case with Mal," Ms. Walker told the Sun. "Mal has had a thing about
Hillary and the Black Panthers for years. The rest of us know it just
didn't happen."

Treuhaft, who sometimes repeated Mr. Burnstein's anecdote linking
Mrs. Clinton to the Panthers, died in 2001.

Asked about the four-year gap between the legislature incident and
Mrs. Clinton's clerkship, Mr. Burnstein said he simply could not
square the dates with his vivid memory. "I'm not mistaking her for
anyone. I was more connected with Hillary than with other clerks and
I remember meeting Bill that summer," Mr. Burnstein said. "If the
Black Panthers Sacramento incident was in fact in '67, then Hillary
did not come with me on the Black Panthers case. I may well remember
driving to Sacramento with her, but it can't be the same case and I
don't know what it was."

Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton was on hand for the Panthers'
legislature case, there can be no dispute that she was at the
Treuhaft firm as it played a role in a highly publicized trial in
which a top leader of the black militant group, Huey Newton, was
charged with killing an Oakland police officer, John Frey.

Newton's first trial in connection with the 1967 slaying took place
the following year. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to
between two and 15 years in prison. However, an appeals court
overturned Newton's conviction in the case, which inspired T-shirts,
buttons and posters emblazoned with the popular 1960s slogan, "Free Huey!"

Newton's first retrial began in July 1971, soon after Mrs. Clinton
arrived at the Treuhaft firm. Newton's defense was handled by Garry,
who had represented Seale in New Haven two years earlier, earning
Garry the title of "the Panthers' honky lawyer," according to Time
Magazine. Treuhaft represented a Panther activist and longtime friend
of Newton, Gene McKinney. On the witness stand, McKinney, who was
with Newton the night the policeman was killed, took the Fifth
Amendment. However, the mere suggestion that McKinney, who was
uncharged, could have been the killer may have helped Newton win a hung jury.

At a second retrial in December 1971, McKinney, again represented by
Treuhaft, also took the Fifth Amendment. Jurors deadlocked again and
prosecutors dropped the case.

Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999 that fascination with the Panthers
did not seem to have been what drew Mrs. Clinton to his firm.
"Hillary was only mildly interested in the Panther cause," Treuhaft
told the author.

The Black Panthers get a couple of brief mentions in Mrs. Clinton's
memoir, but she never offers a verdict or view on their conduct. The
former first lady does fault the FBI and other law enforcement
agencies that "sometimes failed to distinguish between
constitutionally protected, legitimate opposition and criminal behavior."

A review of some of Mr. Burnstein's legal files now at the archives
of the University of California at Berkeley shows that the Treuhaft
firm also handled two major cases in mid-1971 involving political
dissent. One involved a protest leader who was elected Berkeley
student body president, Daniel Siegel.

Mr. Siegel passed his the bar exam in 1970, but his admission was
blocked on grounds that he was morally unfit. He was criminally
charged with inciting the 1969 "People's Park" riot, which left one
man dead, others injured, and hundreds arrested.

Mr. Siegel was acquitted of that charge, but bar officials said his
statements prior to the riot and thereafter indicated he was not
suited to be an attorney. They also asked him if he was a Communist,
which he denied.

"The question is not violence versus non-violence, the question is
when violence, and how violence, and what violence," Mr. Siegel
declared at a March 1970 rally at Berkeley's Provo Park, according to
the archived records. "I can see very little objection theoretically,
politically or morally or anything else with burning down the Bank of
America and all its 500 branches."

At another gathering a month later, Mr. Siegel opined that
nonviolence was "not the way any more. We have to use whatever force
is necessary to make sure that this war stops."

Mr. Burnstein appealed the bar committee's rejection to the
California Supreme Court, arguing that Mr. Siegel was being punished
for his political beliefs. The court eventually sided with Mr.
Siegel, who joined the bar in November 1973.

Two other dissenters whose case was pending during Mrs. Clinton's
summer at the Treuhaft firm were Peter Cummings and Peter Rudd. Both
were medical students from Case Western Reserve University in Ohio
who won internships at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. On
arriving at Stanford, they discovered they were required to fill out
loyalty oaths to do a required rotation at the nearby Veterans
Administration hospital. "It was the typical, 'Are you now or have
you ever been a member of the Communist Party?'" Dr. Cummings
recalled in a recent interview. He said he and Dr. Rudd were not
Communists, but chafed at signing the oath. "I've always been very
annoyed by and not a fan of this kind of loyalty oath," Dr. Cummings said.

Through the American Civil Liberties Union, the pair became clients
of Mr. Burnstein. In the ensuing legal challenges, which went before
riders of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at least twice, the
government argued that disloyal medical students might try to kill
unsuspecting veterans who sought medical treatment. Mr. Burnstein
prevailed and the loyalty oath for Veterans Administration doctors
soon wound up as a footnote of history.

Mr. Burnstein said Mrs. Clinton would have likely been assigned to
some work on the cases stemming from dissent at the Berkeley and
Stanford campuses. "I don't remember her especially working on those,
but she would have if she was there," he said.

Ms. Walker said Mrs. Clinton probably also worked on a slew of cases
involving men seeking conscientious objector status to avoid the
draft. "We were doing so much Vietnam War stuff then," Ms. Walker
recalled. "I'm sure she worked on those."

As Mrs. Clinton left the Treuhaft firm in 1971, one of its partners
was gearing up for the defense of a Communist and black
revolutionary, Angela Davis, against murder, kidnapping and
conspiracy charges stemming from a 1970 shootout that left a
California judge dead. Ms. Walker became the resident Communist on
Ms. Davis's legal team. "I was asked by the Party to participate in
Angela's case," the lawyer said. She said no one else at the law
firm, including Mrs. Clinton, worked on Ms. Davis's case.

At the trial, held in 1972 at San Jose, the Treuhaft firm's winning
record held up again. A jury acquitted the polarizing
African-American activist of all charges.

A FIRM WITH HISTORY

By the time Mrs. Clinton arrived at the Treuhaft firm in 1971, its
reputation as a defender of left-wingers and radicals was well
established. Indeed, those at the firm assumed that reputation drew
the Yale law student in.

"She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who
went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a
Communist law firm," Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.

"This was an old-left, radical law firm," a staff attorney there
during Mrs. Clinton's summer, David Nawi, told the Sun. "Treuhaft was
suing the police and doing wonderful work with the black community in
East Oakland before anybody else."

A Yale Law student who worked as a clerk at the firm the summer
before Mrs. Clinton arrived, Mary Nichols, said Treuhaft was open
about his stint in the Communist Party. "Treuhaft, he himself was
proud of having been a Communist at one time. This was not something
that they hid in any way. They were not people stockpiling dynamite.
They were a respectable law firm, but still you knew they had
experimented in that kind of way," she said.

Another Yale Law student who ended up at the Oakland firm, Ms. Ramey,
insists she did not know of the partners' Communist ties before
showing up to work there. "It sounded like kind of a cool place to
work. I had no clue. I was pleasantly surprised," she told the Sun.
Mr. Siegel, the Berkeley protester-turned-lawyer, said committed
student leftists in 1971 would have viewed the firm's Communist
connections as quaint, perhaps even conservative. "We almost
universally thought Communist Party people were sellouts," he said.
"People of my generation who were getting involved were Marxists,
Maoists, even Trotskyists. The Communist Party was pretty unpopular,
unless your parents were in it."

The details of Treuhaft's membership in the Communist Party were not
formally disclosed until 1977, when his wife, Jessica Mitford,
published a humorous memoir of their years in the Communist ranks. In
"A Fine Old Conflict," she reported that her husband signed up in
1943 and that she followed in 1944. Both left the party in 1958, she wrote.

Ms. Walker told the Sun she is still a member of the Communist Party,
which she joined in 1942. "I'm still a Marxist, and that's why I
stayed in," she said.

While many American Communists quit the party in disgust in 1956
following the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Nikita Khrushchev's
denunciation of Josef Stalin's crimes, those events do not seem to
have been the impetus for the departure of Treuhaft and Mitford, who
stayed on for another two years.

A journalist who edited a recently published collection of Mitford's
letters, Peter Sussman, said the couple's falling out with the
American Communist Party was driven largely by its unyielding bureaucracy.

"She was bored with it," Mr. Sussman said. "It was ineffective. She
had worked to reform it and that was unsuccessful, and to give the
American party some autonomy from Soviet Communism."

Mr. Sussman said Mitford, who died in 1996, was also "bitterly
disappointed" about a decision the party made to cut ties with a
group dedicated to resolving racial inequities in America, the Civil
Rights Congress.

Mr. Sussman said Mitford and Treuhaft probably left for the same
reasons. "They usually made decisions on such things together and
they left the party together, though they had friends who remained,"
the journalist added.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKES INTEREST BUT HOLDS BACK

The new collection of Mitford's letters indicates that Republican
political operatives knew about Mrs. Clinton's work at Treuhaft's
firm months before the 1992 election, but apparently chose not to
raise it despite her prominence in her husband's presidential
campaign. In a July 4, 1992 letter to a veteran civil rights
activist, Virginia Durr, Mitford wrote, "There was a v. long article
in Vanity Fair by Gail Sheehy, an interview with Hillary in which
every detail of her life from childhood on was explored ­ no mention
of the internship in Bob's law office. Quite right, I thought, as
obviously if that came out it would be prime meat for the Bush campaign."

In the letter, Mitford recounts that she and her husband recently had
dinner with a novelist, Diane Johnson, who raised Mrs. Clinton's
clerkship out of the blue. "I hear that Hillary Clinton once worked
for you when she was a Yale law student," Mitford remembered the
novelist saying.

Mitford wrote that Ms. Johnson picked up the fact from her son-in-law
who "works in the White House dirty-tricks division…whose job is to
dig up dirt on all the Bush opposition."

"Presumably, the Bush campaign is hoarding this bit of non-news for
later springing on the public," Mitford wrote to Durr.

Ms. Johnson, best known for her book "Le Divorce," told the Sun she
has only a vague recollection of the discussion Mitford relayed. "I
remember our conversation about Hillary coming to work for Bob that
summer," the novelist said. "I don't remember who brought it up."

The son-in-law Mitford alluded to is David Tell, a Republican
operative who was director of opposition research for the 1992
re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush.

Mr. Tell, a former opinion editor of the Weekly Standard, confirmed
to the Sun that the Bush camp knew about Mrs. Clinton's connection to
the Treuhaft firm, but said last week that he couldn't recall how he
learned about it. "We sucked up everything we could possibly find," he said.

Asked why the campaign never tried to make hay of Mrs. Clinton ties
to a communist and ex-communists, Mr. Tell said part of the reason
was that Mrs. Clinton was not running for office. "We were shy about
going after the candidate's wife, and it was when she was 23," he said.

So far in Mrs. Clinton's current bid for the presidency, none of her
opponents has sought to tar her over her ties to the Treuhaft firm.
However, that is no guarantee that the issue will not arise, in part
because of the recent proliferation of independent political groups
known as 527s, for the section of the tax code under which they are
organized. Such groups often undertake attacks that rival campaigns
and political parties shy away from. Some 527s have had considerable
influence in the presidential race, such as when Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth attacked Senator Kerry in 2004.

Back in 1992, Mitford was not the only one who suspected Mrs.
Clinton's involvement with the Treuhaft firm would be seized on by
the Republicans. Mr. Burnstein said he, Treuhaft, and Ms. Walker
agreed upon learning of Mr. Clinton's presidential bid not to talk
publicly about Mrs. Clinton's clerkship because they anticipated it
would become fodder for Mr. Clinton's opponents.

"We expected it," Mr. Burnstein said. "We were very carefully not
talking to the press back then. ... We did not want her being
unfairly tarred with someone else's politics. Hillary's politics were
not Bob's politics, which were not Doris's politics, which were not mine."

"For Hillary to pick the most left-wing firm really at that time in
the Bay Area, it's still a surprise to me that more hasn't been made
of that," Ms. Walker said. "It was such an obvious thing for them to
pick up, but they didn't, and I've never understood it."

Mr. Burnstein said he never discussed with Mrs. Clinton the decision
to keep quiet about her clerkship during the 1992 presidential race.

Aside from the two bland lines in her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton has
been tight-lipped about how she came to work at the Treuhaft firm and
what she did there. A California oral historian who interviewed
Treuhaft at length, Robert Larsen Jr., told the Sun that Mrs. Clinton
seemed reluctant to discuss the clerkship when he asked her about it
at a San Francisco-area political function in the 1990s.

"I talked to Hillary once and said, 'You know you interned at
Treuhaft's firm….I've never seen anything about that anywhere,'" Mr.
Larsen recalled. "'It's not exactly secret, but it's not
publicized,'" he said she replied. "I just don't think she wanted to
have the charge of being an intern at a Communist law firm."

When the connection did emerge, halfway through a Herb Caen column in
the Chronicle on Nov. 12, 1992, eight days after the election, some
conservatives likely viewed it as confirmation of Mrs. Clinton's
radical views. However, some on the left side of the political
spectrum who knew the Treuhaft firm were taken aback.

"I was quite shocked when I found out that Hillary had been there the
summer after I was," Ms. Nichols, a Democrat who holds a top
environmental post under Governor Schwarzenegger, said. "She
certainly downplayed anything that would make you think that'd be the
kind of place she'd summer….Once the political career was actually
launched, Hillary's whole life has been about being moderate and
fending off criticism from friends on the left."

"I was kind of surprised when I heard she had worked there," Mr.
Siegel recalled. "Anything I've ever heard about her or known about
wouldn't have led me to think she was interested in Marxism, for
example, or any other kind of left politics."

Mr. Burnstein said Mrs. Clinton was probably drawn to the firm by its
civil rights work and not by the left-wing politics of its partners,
though she expressed no disquiet about that. "There was nothing
revolutionary about Hillary, and I do not say that pejoratively," he
said. "She was much more of a classic liberal than the rest of us."

Mr. Burnstein said he also detected a clear change in Mrs. Clinton's
political outlook after she faced real-world campaigning with her
husband. "The Hillary that clerked for us that summer is not the
Hillary that ran for the Senate and is not the Hillary that was in
the White House for eight years. The politics were noticeably
different," Mr. Burnstein said. "The Hillary of 1971 was much more
idealistic and progressive in the sense we would use the term today
than the Hillary we saw after her exposure to politics in Arkansas."
---

Tomorrow: How Mrs. Clinton's Berkeley summer led to dealings with a
prominent left-wing writer, Jessica Mitford, and what Mitford termed
"a furious falling out."

.

'Black Panther Rank and File,' Rallying Its Own Art Movement

[2 articles]

'Black Panther Rank and File,' Rallying Its Own Art Movement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201259.html

By Jessica Dawson
Special to The Washington Post
Friday, November 23, 2007; Page C02

BALTIMORE -- Can we distill the sweat and rage that fueled the
militant Black Panther Party into something suited to exhibition
walls? The group founded by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in 1966 was
as complicated as it was notorious, advocating violence against cops
even as it initiated free lunch programs in the poorest schools in
Oakland, Calif. Condensing its history would prove a fool's errand.

It's a good thing, then, that "Black Panther Rank and File" doesn't
try. On view in the Decker and Meyerhoff galleries at the Maryland
Institute College of Art here, the 40th anniversary of the founding
of the Black Panther Party inspired the show.

But the Panthers are just part of the story. Panther photos, video
and ephemera are juxtaposed with artwork and artifacts unrelated to
the movement yet evocative of American black experience. The show
expands from the particular to the general, engaging race in America
from a variety of angles.

The exhibition was organized by San Francisco's Yerba Buena Center
for the Arts in conjunction with Claude Simard, a curator associated
with New York City's Jack Shainman Gallery. Shainman represents many
of the contemporary artists on view; the gallery also supplied a
number of historical pieces.

Though Shainman is a well-known source for African American artists
and ephemera, Yerba Buena's association with a commercial gallery
raises questions about conflict of interest. The show favors Shainman
artists, who gain exposure on this small museum tour -- "Black
Panther Rank and File" originated at nonprofit Yerba Buena, traveled
to nonprofit Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art and now hangs
in a university gallery. That kind of exposure can translate into
higher earnings for Shainman artists, casting a shadow over this
otherwise strong show.

On view: photos and video capturing Panther rallies; Panther
pamphlets and newspapers; oral histories of former members. Those
unfamiliar with the group will leave with a strong sense of what they
stood for. Among the Panther ephemera hang works by 20th-century
artists engaging racial issues either head-on or tangentially --
Lawrence Weiner, Andy Warhol, Carrie Mae Weems, Margaret Bourke-White
and David Hammons among them. Historical artifacts -- 19th-century
cartoons, banners and lithographs -- round out the show.

And so the show veers from the didactic to the open-ended, from
artifact to artwork. It's an evocative mix, one that works more often
than it fails. On occasion, though, frank historical objects cast
weak artworks in harsh relief.

Take the page describing the proper transport of slaves, circa 1789.
Among its many harrowing details, the text counsels that slaves
negotiating the Middle Passage by boat should be brought on deck
daily for exercise. The author recommends that males should be
exercised by jumping up and down in their chains. "This, by friends
of the trade," the author writes, "is called dancing." And on it
goes, in chilling detail.

Nearby, a photograph of a clenched fist mounted on cardboard stands
six feet tall; it's a 2005 artwork by Hank Willis Thomas. The black
hand is raised in solidarity with black power but the arm betrays the
trappings of success -- a gold-and-silver watch hangs off the wrist,
a gray suit sleeve clothes the arm. The gesture deflates the
Panthers' Marxist leanings and questions the viability of rage in a
time of prosperity. But next to that 18th-century slave tract, such
ironies feel shallow.

Other contemporary works come off better. Michael Britto's satirical
"Dirrrty Harriet Tubman" videos recast the Underground Railroad
conductor as a gun-toting Blaxploitation-style film heroine. One
memorable segment finds Tubman and a crew of six dancers gyrating to
Britney Spears's raspy "I'm a Slave 4 U." Tubman and company
coordinate moves miming hoeing, cotton-picking and brow wiping -- a
horrible vision and a hilarious one at the same time. You laugh even
as you think you shouldn't.

As for the Panthers themselves, they come off as a media-savvy group.
Their look was totally put together: the shades, the afros, the black
berets and leather jackets falling to the hip. Even their symbol -- a
fierce crouching cat, claws extended -- has remarkable graphic power.
These folks knew the power of an image.

But what of the Panthers' critics, of which there were many? For the
most part, this is a pro-Panther project. Yerba Buena worked closely
with former Panther Bill Jennings to construct the show; he's even
credited for suggesting the project.

To the organizers' credit, questions about the viability of a
movement employing violence to beget tolerance do arise. (By the
mid-1970s, even Seale had tempered his aggressive stance.) But the
only overtly critical work comes from the painter John Bankston, who
points out Panther homophobia in his 2005 canvas "The Sermon." In it,
two latter-day Panthers have seemingly strong words for a
transvestite and his companion.

But I can't fault "Black Panther Rank and File" for its point of
view. Its engaging mix of artifact and artwork leaves room for a
multiplicity of opinion.
---

Black Panther Rank and File, at Maryland Institute College of Art Fox
Building,1303 Mount Royal Avenue, Baltimore, Monday-Saturday, 10
a.m.-5 p.m, Sunday noon-5 p.m., closed major holidays, to Dec. 16.

http://www.mica.edu.

--------

Image Makers

http://www.citypaper.com/arts/story.asp?id=14835

Exhibition Keenly Observes That All Power to The People Was Aesthetic
as Well as Political

11/21/2007
By Martin L. Johnson

The Black Panther Party, a black nationalist organization that for a
brief period in the late 1960s and early '70s was a vital player in
American politics, is perhaps the most striking example of the power
radical ideas have when matched with radical aesthetics. Its party
platform, like the platforms of many radical movements and parties in
U.S. history, still reads as fresh and relevant, even if the
anti-colonial and separatist politics that run through its organizing
Ten Point Plan has been rejected by all but the most ardent black nationalists.

The Black Panther Rank and File exhibition currently on view at MICA
isn't interested in political nostalgia, or any form of political
expression as an end in itself. Instead, the exhibit, traveling from
San Francisco's Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, examines the
Panthers as consumers and producers of particular types of racial and
cultural imagery that were used in the service of radical politics.
These images also became inspiration for other artists who,
historically removed from the events of the '60s and '70s, more
deeply interpreted the Panthers' politics.

The focus on the Panthers' aesthetics--which are as striking, if not
more so, than their political platform--allows this exhibit to skim
past the particular arguments they made about society and their, at
times, violent solutions to political problems. Whether you agree
with these tactics or not, it's rare today to hear U.S. radicals of
any stripe propose violence and terror as an answer to the crises of
the moment. And it's this political disconnect between our times and
those of the Panthers that allow us to consider them as artists who
happened to be political, rather than what they were: radicals who
sought power by any means necessary, which included a brilliant media campaign.

If the exhibit were just political posters--many of them made by the
Emory Douglas, the party's first minister of culture--photographs of
rallies, and political platforms, it might still have been powerful,
but it would have been read too specifically as just another '60s
product, not unlike the psychedelic art produced by white artists of
the period. But the exhibit includes what might be described as a
visual history of international racism, a history that artists
inspired by or associated with the Panthers took very seriously as
they sought to undo the centuries of damage done by stereotypes of blacks.

The show works on three levels, with each one touching on but not
determining the other. From the archive of racist imagery comes a
postcard of a lynching produced in the 1920s, a diagram of a slave
ship from the 1700s, and anthropological drawings of African women
produced in the 1800s. We then see echoes of this imagery in Douglas'
pop-art agitprop posters he made for the Panthers in the 1960s, and
even in the most famous image of Panther leader Huey Newton, where he
sits on a wicker throne, surrounded by objects that could have been
collected by a European explorer newly returned from a visit to the
African continent in the late 19th century.

But it's the third level of the exhibit, which includes both recent
art that addresses the Black Panthers and community art that address
issues specific to Baltimore, that raises questions about the
longevity of the Panthers' radical chic and racist images from the
world's attic. Daniel Joseph Martinez's 2005 piece "We wanted to be"
reproduces a typeface common to 1960s radical press to argue that "we
live a sort of armed existentialism," a sentiment echoed by pieces
that attempt to show radicalism and despondency in a single stroke.
Hank Willis Thomas' 2005 sculpture "Untitled (Fist)" puts an ironic
spin on the Panthers' most famous gesture, the raised clenched fist,
by showing a luxury wristwatch and a suit jacket on the arm that
raises it. The revolution has been won, this work argues, if all you
need to win is to show a little bling when you make your battle cry.

The sheer amount of material on display, and the still potent images
and ideas of the Black Panthers, who showed as much interest in
feeding schoolchildren breakfast as they did staging media events,
makes this exhibit a must-see for the short time that it's here. And
some of the community projects--such as the one that asks people to
put blue pins on a map of Baltimore to mark locations of surveillance
cameras--insert a tiny bit of action into what is otherwise a passive
exhibit. But the Black Panthers were remarkable not because they
produced powerful posters and staged media events as effective as
anything President Bush's team has cooked up. Instead, we remember
them because they made a difference, sometimes using controversial
tactics, and succeeded even though they were attacked by the
government, the media, and often the communities in which they lived.
That's the statement we need to remember, not their aesthetic legacy.

.

Remembering Victor Rabinowitz: Legal Giant of the Left

Remembering Victor Rabinowitz: Legal Giant of the Left

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/cohn261107.html

26/11/07
by Marjorie Cohn

On November 16, 2007, Victor Rabinowitz, one of the giants of the
legal profession and a tireless fighter for social justice, died at
the age of 96. One of the founders of the National Lawyers Guild 70
years ago, Victor defended unpopular clients when other lawyers were
afraid to touch them. During the McCarthy period, he and his partner
Leonard Boudin represented unions that were considered to be
left-wing. The firm counted as clients Daniel Ellsberg, Paul
Robeson, Julian Bond, Dashiell Hammett, Dr. Benjamin Spock, the Rev.
Philip Berrigan, Alger Hiss, the Black Panthers, the Salvador Allende
government in Chile, and the Cuban government.

Victor handled several landmark cases. In 1950, he challenged the
provision of the Taft-Hartley Act that prevented unions from
representing workers unless all union officers swore a loyalty oath
that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist
Party. He lost the case 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court. His work in
the Supreme Court case of United States v. Yellin was instrumental in
the demise of the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee
(HUAC). In 1964, in a 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court held in
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino that U.S. courts cannot review
the legality of the Cuban nationalizations of U.S.-owned property
under international law. Victor represented the government of Cuba
in that case.

John Mage, prominent radical lawyer and an Officer and Director of
the Monthly Review Foundation, wrote a review of Victor's book,
Unrepentant Leftist: A Lawyer's Memoir, for Monthly Review. Mage
recalled his favorite Victor story: "In the Cuban bank litigation,
Victor (representing the Cubans) was served with a discovery demand
that he forwarded to the Cuban Finance Ministry, at that time headed
by Che. Shortly afterwards he was in Havana for an anniversary
celebration and was invited to accompany Guevara. Che directed
Victor's attention to the confetti being thrown from an office tower
and said 'remember that discovery demand? . . . There it is.'"

The Rabinowitz Boudin partnership "constituted the defining invention
of radical lawyering," said Northwestern law professor Bernardine
Dohrn, a leader of the Weathermen who became the Guild student
organizer while Victor was NLG president in 1967. The firm "always
represented the most controversial victims of oppressive state power:
labor struggles, the Community Party cases, constitutional right to
travel and political speech issues, defense of the Cuban revolution,
support for the civil rights/Black Freedom Movement, defense of
anti-Vietnam War activists, and legal defense of Palestinian
political activists," Dohrn added.

In his book, Victor characterized McCarthyism as "the era of Great
Fear." In those days, it was the fear of Communism; today, it is the
fear of Terrorism that the administration uses as an excuse to
decimate civil liberties. Describing the government repression
against Communists, leftists, and those suspected of being associated
with them, Victor wrote, "It was the worst of times . . . It was a
terrible and terrifying time." Even the ACLU "succumbed to the red
scare" in those days.

"It became dangerous to utter radical or even progressive thoughts in
an audible tone of voice," he added. The motion picture industry,
teachers, progressive Congress members, progressive organizations,
and those who read books considered "un-American" were
targeted. "Thousands of people lost their jobs, with little prospect
of finding new ones quickly. Families were destroyed and friendships
were wrecked," Victor reported.

Rabinowitz Boudin "probably represented more clients before McCarthy
and HUAC than any other law firm in the country, mostly for little or
no fee," said Michael Krinsky, a partner in the firm.

Victor wrote, "I was under surveillance by the FBI from the early
fifties until the late sixties. The earliest report on me I've found
in my FBI files states that on June 23, 1943, I was believed to be a
member of the Communist party, and it further described me as an
'agile-minded labor attorney' [Thanks]." Victor joined the Communist
Party in 1942 after the Soviet Union and the United States became
allies; he remained a member until the early 1960s.

During the Vietnam War, the Rabinowitz Boudin firm represented
hundreds of men facing the draft or criminal charges for refusing
induction due to their opposition to the war.

Lawyers pick and choose the cases they take for various
reasons. Victor's decisions were always based on principle. "I had
always adhered to a few basic rules," Victor observed. "I would not
represent a landlord against a tenant; I would not represent a drug
dealer; I would not represent an employer against a union; I would
not represent a fascist or right-wing institution."

Victor helped found the National Lawyers Guild, to, in his words,
"counter the anti-New Deal corporation-controlled American Bar
Association (ABA), which at that time did not admit black lawyers or
Communists to membership." As former Guild president and Yale law
professor Thomas Emerson wrote, "The National Lawyers Guild was born
in revolt -- a revolt that embraced the entire intellectual life of the times."

Victor's efforts contributed mightily to the Guild's survival after
the McCarthy period. He counted his work with the Guild as perhaps
his most significant accomplishment. "There are a few things I can
point to with some pride," Victor reflected. "The National Lawyers
Guild is almost sixty years old, and I played some part in building
it. I cannot think of more than a handful of national progressive
organizations that have lived so long in this perilous world."

Tributes to Victor are legion. Doris Brin Walker, the first woman
president of the Guild and one of its leaders during the McCarthy
period, said, "Victor was inspirational, witty, insightful,
tolerant/intolerant, humane, didactic -- one of the most important
and beloved persons in my life. And he will remain so." Ann Fagan
Ginger, another Guild leader in this era, noted, "During the
McCarthy/Truman repressive period, Victor played a particularly
important role in meeting with other lawyers to figure out the best
strategies to defend against, and finally to attack, the Red
Baiters. His principles were larger than his ego, and after the
meetings, he went back to his office and saw to it that the tasks
agreed on were actually carried out." She called the Rabinowitz
Boudin firm "a place of refuge and hope for many whose jobs,
reputations, and family relationships were under attack."

"In each decade, Victor managed to stay utterly committed to the
revolutionary principles of his youth," according to Dohrn, "to work
with the highest intellectual and professional standards of the law,
and to attract clients of the most urgent issues of the moment. His
passionate love of books, his dedicated friendships, and his wry
humor abide in our hearts."

The National Lawyers Guild and all justice-loving people will miss
Victor Rabinowitz. He was a giant of a man.
---

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and
the President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her
articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

.

How it will end for young 'Trotskyist'

How it will end for young 'Trotskyist'

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/219-11252007-1446205.html

by J.D. Mullane
November 25, 2007

So I asked the kid with the "Proletariat" pin in his hat, "You a Communist?"

"I'm a Trotskyist. So are they," he said.

He referred to a group of men nearby, who, like him, stood behind a
folding table at an antiwar rally in Philadelphia. The table groaned
beneath stacks of socialist newspapers, copies of Marx and Engels'
"The Communist Manifesto," and other socialist tracts, some with
forbidding titles such as "The Truth About Dialectical Materialism."

He is 19 and from Pittsburgh. He said he comes from a family of steelworkers.

"Growing up, I saw them struggling, ordinary workers, you know,
struggling to make it," he said. "I was trying to find an answer to
why that was happening. I got the idea of becoming an anarchist, but
as I got a little older, you know, 16, 17, I started to read a lot
more of the theoretical side of it. I sided with Marx and with his
analysis of class struggle, and what is necessary to end that class struggle."

Basically, he said, "class struggle" will end when capitalism is
wiped away and replaced with Trotskyism. Workers unite, set prices
and control production. Everything will be done for the greater good,
not for the individual.

He agreed this did not work so well in the defunct Soviet Union. No
matter, he said. "It will work ­ if it's done the right way."

He talked about "capitalism" and "imperialism" and how both are the
"greatest oppressors" of the "world proletariat." Vast personal
wealth appalls him. Private investment is for fools. Building
personal wealth through the stock market is beyond the means of all
but the rich.

I stopped him and asked, "Can I make a prediction?"

"Sure," he said.

"By the time you are 40, you will be a devoted capitalist."


He laughed.

"Look," I said, "I toyed with this stuff as a young man. I went to an
Angela Davis rally when she was running as the Communist Party's
candidate for president in 1984. I met Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.
Liked them both. But even Rubin became a devout corporate yuppie. So
can I tell you how it will end for you?"

The kid indulged me, the way a parent indulges a child who has a tale
about an imaginary friend.

"You will get tired of all this. I can't say when or where. But it
could be when you're at one of your Trotsky Club meetings, when you
hear your umpteenth lecture on dialectical materialism delivered by
some 50-something boomer who's still in college taking graduate
courses in library science.

"Maybe it will come at an antiwar rally, when you realize the songs,
the chants, the speeches and even some of the people haven't changed
in 40 years.

"Either this," I said, "or when you hit the Pennsylvania lottery for
$300 million. You'll say, "Proletariat? What proletariat?'"

The kid grumbled that it would be me who comes around to his way of thinking.

As we stood there, a man came to the folding table and perused the
papers, pamphlets and books. He grabbed a copy of "The Communist
Manifesto" and turned to walk away.

"Wait," called one of the Trotskyists. "You have to pay for that."

"I thought this was free," he said.

The Trotskyist said: "We paid for it, so you have to pay us for it."

Or, as a capitalist might say: Look, pal, there ain't no such thing
as a free lunch.
---

J.D. Mullane's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. E-mail:
jmullane@phillyburbs.com

.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Layla's Blues

Layla's Blues

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/music/layla_s_blues/Content?oid=569371

Mythological rock muse Pattie Boyd gives voice to the past with a new
book and photography career.

By Dave Gil de Rubio
November 14, 2007

If ever there was an era that could be credited with the now-common
high profile hook-ups between fashion models and rock stars, it would
have to be late '60s Swinging London. Beatle Paul McCartney was
squiring around Jane Asher while Anita Pallenberg was bouncing
between three Rolling Stones paramours. But the most notable couple
was that of the lithe and lovely Pattie Boyd and Fab Four guitarist
George Harrison, who eventually wed. A fixture on the covers of Vogue
and Vanity Fair along with being a favorite subject of fashion
photographers like Terence Donovan and David Bailey, Boyd met
Harrison while working as an extra on the film set of A Hard Day's
Night. But it wasn't until the Quiet Beatle's best buddy Eric Clapton
fell for her that she became rock 'n' roll's equivalent to Helen of
Troy. Not only did this passion yield legendary songs inspired by the
love both men had for her ­ "Something," "Layla," and "Wonderful
Tonight" ­ but it led to incidents such as the musicians having a
two-hour guitar duel over Boyd, and Clapton threatening to ingest a
packet of heroin if Boyd didn't leave her husband and eventually
following through on said ultimatum.

Between divorcing Harrison and subsequently marrying Clapton, Boyd
has these and many more tawdry anecdotes dotting her new memoir,
Wonderful Tonight: George Harrison, Eric Clapton, and Me. While
Behind the Music-flavored drama dominates these pages ­ such as
Harrison's and Clapton's rampant infidelity and the latter's many
struggles with drugs and drink ­ more than anything, the former model
comes off as a survivor, albeit one in an enabler's guise. Even
though she did not see Clapton for three years after his
aforementioned threat, the duo continued corresponding via mail.
Meanwhile, her marriage worsened as Harrison began isolating himself
with Eastern religion and cheating on the side, most notably with
bandmate Ringo Starr's then-wife Maureen. In her book, Boyd not
surprisingly chalks up this personal chaos to the tenor of the times.
"The whole period was insane. Our lives were fueled by alcohol and
cocaine, and so it was with everyone who came into our sphere." That
kind of candor typifies the tone of Wonderful Tonight and Boyd is
unflinching in telling from a first-hand perspective the story at the
heart of this mythical romance that's been a long time coming.

Well-earned bitterness would be expected given the horror stories
dotting the book, ranging from how unstable familial relationships
affected later romantic decisions to coping with Clapton's substance
abuse, her struggles with infertility, and eventually becoming her
own person. But remarkably enough, Pattie Boyd is a genuinely warm
and upbeat persona with no regrets save a lost opportunity at
motherhood. Credit goes to therapy sessions which not only got Boyd's
head straight, but allowed for the penning of her memoirs. "I was
seeing a psychotherapist for years and that's an extremely difficult
thing to do because if you want to get something from it, you have to
be totally open," Boyd recalled from her cottage in the English
countryside. "Being that open was the most difficult thing to do
because by being open, my idea was that I'd been disloyal to whomever
I would talk about. So I had to get over the hurdle [of feeling] disloyal."

Nowadays, the ex-Mrs. Harrison/Clapton has been busy with a nascent
photography career that took full flight following an exhibition
dubbed Shared Memories that made its debut at Theron Kabrich's San
Francisco Art Exchange back in February 2005. Armed with a
combination of older photos taken from her years hanging around as a
Fab Four spouse and more recent travel shots, Boyd went from staging
photo exhibits in both San Francisco and London to making her New
York debut this past September at the Morrison Hotel Gallery. At the
gala kickoff party, old and new friends appeared, including legendary
promoter Sid Bernstein and ex-John Lennon mistress May Pang.

Even as Boyd enjoys her new life, the songs still remain and not
surprisingly still hold plenty of meaning for the woman once married
to a Beatle and a man his devotees called God. "I have an
overwhelming recognition and my hearing is heightened when I hear the
first notes of those songs," Boyd wistfully explained. "If I were a
mother, I suppose it would be like recognizing your child's voice.
They are so a part of me. I hadn't thought about it till now, but
it's the only way I can come near to expressing what it does to me. I
just feel so close to them."

.

Out From the Weather Underground

Out From the Weather Underground

http://alternet.org/story/68504/

By Cathy Wilkerson, Seven Stories
November 23, 2007.

Weather Underground member, Cathy Wilkerson shares her experiences
and struggles in her new book Flying Close to the Sun.

The following is an excerpt from Cathy Wilkerson's book, Flying Close
to the Sun (Seven Stories Press, 2007).

We drove into the vast grid of Chicago streets, filled with children
finding ways to pass the hot, steamy summer days, and I was anxious
to find a place to land, to begin to work. We started at the SDS
national office, where the massive Heidelberg press was running
leaflets for the Black Panther Party up the street. The few staff
people around seemed intent on their tasks, none of which seemed to
involve casual talk. The familiar, dusty rooms no longer felt like a
place for travelers to hang out and exchange stories. Instead, we
arranged to meet with friends Jeff Jones and Phoebe Hirsch later that
day at their apartment uptown.

Jeff and Phoebe had moved from New York to California the previous
winter and had immediately immersed themselves in the active
political life of the Bay Area. They leafleted to support the
chemical and oil workers' strike, along with a mixed conglomerate of
other movement activists. They got involved in the student-faculty
strike at San Francisco State, which had continued for most of the
year, even as they were immersed in the celebration of counterculture
in Berkeley and the struggles to sustain it.

In June, however, Jeff had been enlisted by his friends, the
coauthors of the Weatherman paper, to run for SDS national officer.
When he reluctantly agreed, Phoebe resigned herself to going too.
Phoebe became a member of the local Chicago Weatherman collective,
while Jeff worked out of the national office as part of the national
leadership collective, now dubbed the Weather Bureau. I imagined the
Chicago collective to be like our Washington collective, although
perhaps more disciplined and with less spontaneous side activities.
Both Bill Willett and Jonny Lerner from the Washington staff were
around, but I didn't know where exactly, or what they were doing.
Both, it turned out, were working on specific tasks for members of
the Weather Bureau as sort of aides de camp, and neither was formally
in any collective.

When we got uptown, Jeff, Phoebe, Mike, and I sat around their tiny
kitchen table. As always, I was glad to see them and wanted to catch
up on the happenings since the convention. Immediately, Jeff got down
to business, launching into his summation of Weatherman's current
activities and thinking. In the five weeks since the national
council, Weatherman had set up collectives in almost a dozen cities.
The primary work of these groups of between ten and twenty young
people was to establish themselves as the most militant, aggressive,
outspoken voice in the area, on the theory that this would attract
untold numbers of alienated young people. Many out-of-school youths
didn't take movement people seriously, they believed, because local
activists were all talk and no action. So people in the collectives
would prove incontestably that they were the "baddest dudes in town."

Weathermen were also addressing another problem. The police had been
harassing and threatening black activists with a relentlessness and
brutality rarely used against white activists. If Weathermen
constantly challenged the police, they argued, they could divert some
police energy onto themselves, distracting them a little from the
black activists. This strategy also enabled the organization to prove
its resoluteness and to be taken seriously as allies of the black
movement. In any event, to sit by quietly while the black movement
was undergoing such a pummeling seemed yet another instance of hiding
behind the cloak of privilege.

As I listened to Jeff and Phoebe make this argument, I wondered if
this was what we had been doing in Washington. For the first time, I
began to look at the aggressiveness displayed by many of the current
Weather leaders in a new light. The strategic objective of their
provocations, both to other activists and to the authorities, was to
challenge whites in the most immediate way to step up and not be
silent. I still wasn't convinced that physically aggressive,
provocative confrontations would organize many more people, although
events sometimes seemed to prove me wrong. But I had never before
considered that our failure to "go berserk" meant that the police
assaults on blacks went unchallenged. This was both a moral argument
-- to not be "good Germans" -- and a tactical conjecture, that we
could draw away some of the intensity of the heat. This direct
challenge to complicity would compel others to actively confront police racism.

This strategy seemed to be working, at least in part. Already by late
July, the national office staff was being followed, stopped, and
charged with petty offenses by Chicago cops on a regular basis, just
as the Chicago Panthers had been for months. Suffering from the same
extralegal police sanctions as the Panthers did seemed to me then
like a first step in equalizing the stakes. It also fit in with my
long-held belief that until you walked in someone else's shoes, you
could not really understand their feelings and thinking. Besides,
while racism dehumanized black people, being complicit with it,
either because one agreed with racism or because one chose to ignore
it, dehumanized whites as well. The only way not to be entangled with
it was to be loud and clear in support of the black movement. Since
Weatherman believed that black efforts to gain equality were part of
a worldwide phenomenon, this confrontational strategy to disassociate
ourselves from the prevailing racism could only serve to strengthen
this international upheaval as well.

Weatherman's leadership seemed to have developed a close working
relationship with the Panthers. Since the advent of black power, I
hadn't found a way to act on my commitment to racial equality the way
I had during the civil rights movement. These people seemed to have
found a way to do that, and I wanted to learn more. I found the
thought that I had not been doing enough unsettling, especially if,
as a result, I might have actually contributed to the suffering of
black people.

Where this strategy was leading was still a mystery to me, but,
having heard nothing else that summer that seemed better, I was
willing to listen and was predisposed to make sense of it. Not only
was I impressed by the boldness of it, but also by its purity. It was
hard work to try to meet people halfway in their thinking, to present
new information that engaged existing misconceptions so that people
rethought their views on the war or poverty. This confrontational
strategy seemed like it might move such aims much faster.

Jeff went on to explain that the various "Weather collectives" were
made up of people who committed themselves to being cadre, full-time
revolutionaries. No one was working with students since it was
summer. Instead, collective members were preparing to reach out to
young people who were out of school, either already working or on the
street. Each collective was planning a series of confrontational
actions to initiate their program locally. In the fall, the
collectives would bring all of the people they had organized to
Chicago for a confrontational national demonstration. Membership in
the collectives was by invitation only, and, once approved, you had
to agree to be disciplined to the collective decisions and to the
leadership of the organization. Jeff proposed that Mike and I apply
to join the Chicago collective with Phoebe.

I found the talk of collectives and cadre exciting because I was
always interested in organizational efficiency. I accepted the
necessity of hierarchy in this context because it allowed a more
sophisticated division of labor and therefore greater productivity.
This organizational structure would also enable Weatherman to protect
itself from the increasing government infiltration.

I knew that the authors of the Weatherman paper saw these collectives
as the first step to forming a Marxist-Leninist party, but I imagined
that things were still quite informal. They were trying to create new
revolutionary personalities, to remake themselves to be their very
best to serve the revolution. Phoebe was proud of her progress in the
martial arts training they were doing every day. It was very intense
working with a collective, she added. She was unhappy that members of
the Weather Bureau were arguing that she should stop living with Jeff
because her relationship with Jeff, and the resulting potential
access to the leadership collective, gave her special status and
privileges over others in the Chicago collective. Phoebe could
understand the argument, but she really cared about Jeff and thought
there should be another way to deal with the bureau's concerns. She
didn't agree with the antimonogamy philosophy, and she didn't, she
said laughing, want to move out.

This was the first I heard of Weatherman actually acting on their new
"antimonogamy" philosophy. At this stage, they argued, existing
monogamous relationships between men and women held both people back
from new challenges, and from an open-minded approach to remaking
themselves as "socialist men and women" unburdened by the
individualism and selfishness that characterized the society we came
from. Some of the early writing by the women's movement had argued
that monogamous marriage was initially formalized to ensure male
parentage so a man could bequest his wealth to his own offspring. (I
had not yet read or thought about the fact that the social taboos
arising from monogamy had served women in many ways as well, offering
them, in theory, some protection from sexual assault as well as
support for their children.) Monogamy, according to Weatherman, was
implicitly sexist, and relationships between men and women needed to
be rethought. In our conversations, no one made note of the fact
that, in this instance, it was the men of the Weather Bureau
dictating "women's liberation" to a woman against her wishes.

From the conversation with Phoebe I gleaned that you could be part
of the collectives and maintain a somewhat critical stance; it wasn't
all or nothing. The challenges outweighed the weirdness. If I was
serious about revolution, even if I had no idea what it might look
like or entail, I needed to join with other serious people to figure
out how to create it. The only group around that seemed to focus on
the issues of both race and poverty was Weatherman. If it seemed too
heavy, well, my two of most light-hearted friends, Bill and Jonny,
were in it. Now Phoebe, a lover of theater and music like me, was
also giving it a try. Besides, if this was the cutting edge, I didn't
want to be left behind. I decided to join, and, Mike, too, wanted to sign on.

The new ban on monogamy didn't really bother us as it was clear that
while we had enjoyed our relationship, it wasn't headed anywhere
deep. In fact, the antimonogamy provision seemed to provide a
graceful way to separate without the hard work of sorting it through.
We never even talked about it. I wasn't convinced that monogamy was
bad, but since it worked in my favor at the moment, it didn't seem
like a big deal.

Having nowhere to live and little cash, we were to stay with one of
the members of the Chicago collective on the North Side. That
evening, we would formally meet with the group to be evaluated, one
at a time. In the meantime, after adding our sleeping bags and few
belongings to a pile of others in a corner of the apartment's living
room, we went to join the members of the collective at martial arts
instruction at the small storefront. I was eager to see what martial
arts was all about.

At the storefront, about twenty people were standing in rows,
practicing kicks and yells in response to a teacher in the front.
Most of the faces were new to me. As I looked at them, absorbed in
their physical tasks, I couldn't help wondering who we were going to
be using this against. Certainly not the police armed with billy
clubs, handguns, and mace. Perhaps these exercises were a symbolic
way to toughen the spirit, to teach self-discipline. I was more than
willing to take advantage of the opportunity.

I was told to do twenty push-ups, fifty jumping jacks, and some
stretches to warm up. Twenty push-ups? I couldn't do one! Despite my
active tomboy past, I had never been able to develop any upper body
strength. I started with the jumping jacks, but being a heavy smoker,
and never having exercised before, I was winded after twenty. All the
other women, some of whom I knew to be smokers as well, seemed to be
engaged. So much for my self-image as a member of the fighting
forces. I felt pathetic. I pushed myself to do my best, and faked it
as much as possible.

That evening, the collective assembled for a meeting, and I was
summoned. Most members had known each other and worked together at
the University of Chicago. The leader of the collective, Drew, was
also a member of the Weather Bureau. I had never met him before, but
knew he had a reputation for having read widely and being a
theoretical heavy. That summer of 1969, Drew had dropped out of the
University of Chicago graduate school, where he and a few other
graduate students and faculty had tried to replicate the model of
Columbia, with some limited success. In the process he had collected
around him a large number of undergraduates, several of whom
comprised the majority of the Chicago collective with him. The
collective, about ten before Mike and I joined, included seven women.

That evening, I was queried about the main ideas in the Weatherman
paper and asked to explain my politics, as we phrased it. Since I had
written many articles for New Left Notes over the past two years, I
thought most people there should know what I thought in general.
Nonetheless, since I didn't know these people, I plunged ahead,
explaining that I agreed with most of what had been in the Weatherman
paper except what I had discussed in my recent New Left Notes
article, which I summarized.

When I finished my short summary, Drew began to challenge my
understanding of the Weatherman analysis. My thinking was incomplete
and sloppy, he said. Occasionally one of the other collective
members, especially a couple of the women, gave further examples of
the points Drew was making or restated the critique in a different way.

They thought I had not given sufficient importance to the black
struggle and to the Panthers in particular. Why had I not organized
more support for the black movement in Washington? Why had I not
mentioned the Panthers in my article and talked more about my own
white-skin privilege and my unwillingness to let go of it? It was
true that in my article I had concentrated on the issue of women and
had not given priority to the fight for black economic and political
equality. I had, however, stated that the overarching conflict
between the US and the third world framed everything. I had focused
on women, I said, because that issue had essentially been left out of
the Weatherman paper. I was suggesting that working with women of all
ages around issues of abuse at home and on the job should be a
priority, at least for some of us.

When I tried to explain my thinking, however, I was told that in a
"criticism session" I had to respond to what others said, and that by
arguing with them, I was being defensive and evasive, fearful of
looking at the truth, perhaps protecting myself in some way. This was
not the way I had thought about criticism/self-criticism when I had
studied Mao's "little red book" in Washington. I had imagined the
whole process to be much more informal. In Chicago, the conversation
seemed to be framed by Drew's analysis, the Weatherman analysis,
which was the only way to look at the world. Any deviation from that
indicated a personal weakness. The structure felt like that of judge
and supplicant, rather than one of equal exchange.

I was taken aback by this close, somewhat hostile cross-examination.
In my earlier conversation with Jeff and Phoebe, I had felt open to
challenges to my thinking and my work, always concerned that I could
be doing more. Under Drew's scrutiny, however, these concerns were
turned back at me as an accusation burdened with judgment. It was
true, I had not focused on black organizations in the work we had
done in Washington, and I thought that was interesting. Why was it
that I never had a relationship with any of the leadership of any
well-known black organizations, and certainly not with the Panthers?
Perhaps, I began to think, if I had had a better analysis, I would
have been more effective in understanding how to support SNCC and the
Panthers in Washington. Instead, their separatist and sometimes
anti-white stance had seemed reasonable and had also intimidated me,
so I stayed away. I was afraid to state this explicitly, however,
because it would leave me open to the charge of racism, which I
didn't think was fair.

The session, Weatherman's version of a criticism session, became
increasingly confrontational. It had already been a long day when we
started, and as we continued late into the night, I grew tired. My
questioners moved on to the role of women's issues in the broader
struggle. By arguing for women's militia or women's organizations of
any kind, they said, I was encouraging women to pursue their own
selfish interests. My passion rose up inside me, strengthened by my
previous arguments with Marilyn Webb and other feminists in
Washington. While I had rejected the middle-class preoccupations of
much of their conversations, I justified it with a commitment to
organizing women around issues that really mattered to all women,
like protection from abuse and poverty. Women needed to organize
around their own needs, just as the black community did, and to have
opportunities for self-reliance and leadership.

Even this, I was told by the women in the collective, was "selling
out the most oppressed." Women's liberation meant that women should
be active in the fight to end racism and colonial exploitation, and
it was that process that would integrate women into leadership and
would gain respect and equality for women. I had thought that this
was another important aspect of a strategy for women's liberation and
had always supported SDS's resolutions for women to join the
movement. But over the past year I had become convinced that there
were times when it was important for women to organize together to
work for themselves, if for no other reason than that sometimes, men
wouldn't help.

By then it was way past midnight. Maybe I did need to rethink some of
my beliefs about women, I thought tiredly. Only by putting support
for the third world first, perhaps, could women have any chance.
Certainly it seemed that the few political black women I knew of
identified first with the black struggle and only secondarily as
women. The Vietnamese women certainly saw their liberation in the
context of a free, decolonized Vietnam. Maybe it was true, as Drew
and the others said, that despite my beliefs and work of the past
several years, I had been influenced by selfishness.

It appeared that my ability to join the collective hinged on my
agreement with all the criticisms of my past political thinking and
work, and not just a willingness to consider them. I was now more
curious than ever about this group, in which everyone took themselves
and each other so seriously. Suddenly it seemed urgent that I get
myself accepted, if I really wanted to make a contribution to
revolution. The criticism indicated that I was inferior to the other
members of the collective, and I wanted the opportunity to prove that
I had a substantial history of work and ideas, and that I should be
considered an equal. So I agreed with the criticisms in general, and
said I would rethink things in light of the criticism. I thought to
myself, I could always change my mind.

The fact that I had to fake it in both of my first encounters with
Weatherman, in the martial arts training and now in the criticism,
should have served as a warning that all was not right. Any life
experience that might have caused me to heed this warning, however,
was drowned out by my growing desperation to be part of the most
effective effort to stop the killing in Vietnam and the unfair
treatment of people at home.

The Weatherman criticism/self-criticism sessions of that summer
became famous throughout the movement. The youthful Red Guards had
been using this technique in their attempts to sweep out the old,
stuffy, bureaucratic procedures, and to democratize the communist
movement in China, we thought. I, like many in SDS, had identified
with the Red Guards, seeing them as the hope that would keep China
from decaying into a corrupt, Soviet-style bureaucracy. Mao did warn
that it was the ideas that should be criticized, not the person. The
metaphors of disease that Mao often used with "bad ideas," however,
definitely made the thought of having such an idea distasteful. The
safest path was to remake yourself in the image of those in
leadership, in order to win respect and power and avoid criticism.

Like many dedicated activists, I was vulnerable to any argument that
claimed I was not doing enough. Furthermore, like many Weathermen, I
was still trying to disentangle myself from the cultural and
political assumptions of my past. The Chicago collective seemed to be
willing to engage in the kind of intense scrutiny of beliefs and
goals that I wanted. As Phoebe had said earlier, we were "remaking
ourselves" into "new men and women," following the lead of Cuban
revolutionary Che Guevarra. In our case, we were trying to redefine
what it meant to be members of the "mother-country," who did not root
our behavior or identity in being "better," entitled to privileges.
My first encounter with this effort had been completely disorienting,
but I felt that I needed to quiet my reservations for the time being,
to take a leap of faith so I could become part of this community and
see what the process had to offer.

While I had been attracted by Weatherman's commitment to efficiency,
I didn't think about the implications of Weatherman's view of
organization and leadership. Rather than the diverse and chaotic
reality that had always been SDS, they were developing an image of an
efficient, hierarchical leadership of committed cadres. Even if a
majority of people in this country didn't support change, we were
obligated to side with the greater majority of people in the world.
Much of the script for change had already been written by leaders
like Lenin, Mao, Ho, Fidel, and Che. Embedded in this view was an
assumption that it was now left to the experts to interpret the
script and apply it, with a slight nod to local conditions. I needed
to suspend my own judgments, it seemed, and trust the more
knowledgeable leadership. Besides, as a person of European descent, I
didn't even have the right to enter into much of the discussion about
how many aspects of the future would be determined, and why those
determinations were made.

The collapse of my own sense of judgment that quickly followed my
embrace of this philosophy exacerbated my already existing sense of
inadequacy, the feeling that I wasn't doing enough. The source of
power for my own voice began to dry up, leaving a languid, anxious
passivity in its wake. There wasn't time for me to figure things out,
I rationalized. Besides, I wanted too badly to hear that somebody had
a foolproof plan to bring equality and justice to the world.

While these components set up much that followed, Weatherman's clumsy
misuse of religious-psychotherapeutic technique helped the process
along, leading smart, well-intentioned people in leadership to
inadvertently make the most insidious assaults on other participants'
ability to construct their own meaning of the ideas and realities we
confronted. Those of us who participated in this process quickly
became part of it. The idea of belonging to a vanguard was seductive,
whether it was religious, corporate, or ideological. It felt good to
be part of the elite, reassuring in an unsettled world. The process
of rigorous self-discipline appealed strongly to that part of me that
wanted to be a good soldier.

The highest form of sacrifice, of commitment, I believed, was to
dedicate oneself to the cause without asking for recognition, to be
without ambition, other than to serve. As a woman, I had been raised
to serve, of course, although expected to serve husband, children,
and society by doing good works. In high school, I had been moved to
tears by Nun Story, a film in which Audrey Hepburn is torn between
service in an imperfect organization and her own passions and hunger
for challenges of the world. Here, I thought, I had the opportunity
to serve in a far better organization and I could still live my passions.

In joining Weatherman, I was, finally and ironically, succumbing to
the desire to be one of the chosen, to have power indirectly through
my association with powerful men. Bernardine's unique place at the
top only made it more palpable. I could not yet imagine power in any
other way. Conversations among women were only just beginning to
reveal the ways in which society was still defined by ancient
agreements and social arrangements. Surrounded by the trappings of
modernity, we had the ability to imagine something different, but I
thought we had already arrived there. It would take years of
conversation to realize that we were only beginning to imagine, let
alone bring to pass, a different way of thinking about power. Women
can replace men in the existing paradigm, as many have, and that is a
tentative first step, although in reality, such a stance by itself
can easily reinforce the way things are, even as it leads to something new.
---

Cathy Wilkerson was an active member of the Students for a Democratic
Society and the Weathermen. Currently, she works as a mathematics
educator in New York City schools.

.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Why Woodstock May Have Saved John McCain's Life

The Senator Should Thank the Hippies

http://counterpunch.com/richman11082007.html

Why Woodstock May Have Saved John McCain's Life

November 8, 2007
By SHELDON RICHMAN

John McCain scored a standing ovation at the last Republican
presidential debate when he attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton for
proposing -- unsuccessfully -- to spend a million taxpayer dollars on
a museum commemorating the 1969 Woodstock festival, saying,

"Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and
pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time. But the fact is, my
friends, no one can be president of the United States that supports
projects such as these."

It would be easy to criticize McCain for politically exploiting his
five-and-half years of suffering as a captive of the North Vietnamese
during the Vietnam war. But there's a more important point to be made.

Had McCain simply attacked Clinton's attempt at pork-barrel spending
-- the museum is set to open next year in Bethel, New York -- that
would have been fine (although McCain, too, has some pork-barreling
on his record). Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to support any kind of museum.

But McCain had much more on his mind than presidential ambition and
protection of the taxpayers. He was making a point about war and
dissent. And here's where he gets it very wrong.

McCain says he was unable to make Woodstock because he was "tied up."
How so? Was he kidnapped while sleeping in his own bed and carried
off to the Hanoi Hilton? No, he was a naval pilot flying an A-4
Skyhawk near Hanoi. The A-4 is an attack aircraft. Wikipedia says it
was "the Navy's primary light bomber over ... North Vietnam during
the early years of the Vietnam War." It was used to drop some of the
first and last bombs on that country during the long war, which is
estimated to have killed two million Vietnamese. On October 26, 1967,
anti-aircraft fire brought down McCain's plane. He was beaten by a
mob, then taken as a POW and tortured and permanently disabled during
his long captivity.

While McCain undoubtedly suffered beyond imagination, the full
context of his situation needs to be maintained. In the eyes of the
North Vietnamese -- and by any objective standard -- McCain was the
aggressor. He was dropping bombs on their country -- about 8,000
miles from his home.

He and his defenders would respond that he was serving his country
and protecting Americans' freedom. He wasn't. North Vietnam never
attacked the American people. The public was told it had attacked an
American warship in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, but the U.S.
government knew that was not true. And in any case, U.S. naval forces
were gathering intelligence in behalf of the South Vietnamese
government, with whom the North Vietnamese were at war. The U.S. navy
was hardly minding its own business.

McCain, then, was not protecting the American people. In fact, he was
interfering in a civil war, and was protecting a repressive, corrupt
South Vietnamese government and an American president (Johnson) who
knew that Americans and Vietnamese were dying in a futile U.S. intervention.

McCain's self-righteous excuse for missing Woodstock is tissue-thin.

What about the folks who were able to attend Woodstock? (Lots of
Republican war hawks, such as President Bush and Vice President
Cheney, were available, but apparently did not attend.) It's safe to
say that everybody at Woodstock was against the war in Vietnam and
the draft that was sending young guys over to kill and risk being
killed. If that crowd had had its way, the war wouldn't have been
fought. The people attending cheered to songs such as this one by
Country Joe and the Fish:

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

Thus, if the Woodstock war position had prevailed, McCain wouldn't
have been dropping bombs on Hanoi and wouldn't have been shot down,
imprisoned, and tortured. Moreover, as one blogger speculates, had it
not been for the anti-war movement, McCain might have been executed
rather than eventually released by the North Vietnamese.
---

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation

.

Chasing after Aquarius with the Source Family

[3 articles]

Ya Ho Wa 13 Has Risen from the Grave

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=6526&IssueNum=233

Fun for kids, senior moments for hippies at the Echoplex

11-22-07
By RON GARMON

er name was Mecca, and her Delta-bumpkin dress twisted in stylish
frenzies as she danced. Whatever the psycho-dramatic issues at stake
with her blonde moppet partner, the furious conviction of their
performance at Echoplex stopped everything else going on. It was
abandon and ravishment contained in choreography that led
imperceptibly into the syncretic pandemonium of the night's opening
act. Psychedelic Pecksniffs might dismiss Hecuba as a beat-heavy
update of first-wave L.A. hippie-rock, like Sweetwater or
Kaleidoscope, but such revered ancestors are simply more chunks in a
cauldron already brimming with punk, prog, hip-hop, and the kind of
bracing dada typified by pixie-ish Isabelle Albuquerque cooing, "I
taste the black/I taste the white/I taste the brown/I taste the Filipino."

Indeed. They shut down far too soon and we were left to our devices.
The heavily-advertised rebirth of local 1970s psych-curiosities Ya Ho
Wa 13 fetched a sizable haul of Hollywood neo-hippies and their
crusty elders on Friday, November 16. There were many friends in the
crowd, along with some accouterments of Burning Man subculture. The
massage table and (V.I.P. only) chill space looked like bric-a-brac
displaced from the Mutaytor show uncoiling many blocks west on Sunset
at Safari Sam's, leaving much slack to be picked up by hipsters,
stoners, and assorted beards. Onstage, Entrance mainman Guy Blakeslee
was taking care to set his microphone's reverb at Tomb of Zuul
levels, which made a hallucinogenic smear of between-song banter. The
set was a long series of heavy psych jams, varied at intervals with
Blakeslee's shot-dog ululations echoing dismally off the concrete.
Outside, a scabby 1970s animated version of Alice in Wonderland
flickered on stretched canvas like a low-budget acid trip.

Veteran rockers took things over from there. Sky Saxon had worked
with a spin-off version of Ya Ho Wa 13 long after his brief fame as
lead singer of the epochal 1960s proto-punk quartet the Seeds, his
career bookending L.A. psychedelic rock's weird history from first
proto-punk snarl to last cosmic sigh. Roky Erickson's recent stand at
the El Rey showed off old-skool psyche's still-potent charms to
advantage, but Saxon just appeared tired and the hard-boy sneer of
1967 is now thinned to a conversational wheeze. Outfitted with a new
band (featuring the ubiquitous ex-Germ Don Bolles on drums), Saxon
presided absently over distended versions of Seeds hits like
"Pushing' Too Hard" and "I Can't Seem to Make You Mine," pausing at
intervals to jabber obscurely of the cosmos and Arthur Lee.

The great man eventually shut down to make way for the headliners.
YHW 13 released nine albums worth of "spontaneous music" back in
their brief mid-'70s heyday, as house band for the Source religious
cult. The Source operated a trendy Hollywood vegetarian restaurant of
the same name, and the albums they gave away for a dollar each at the
eatery now command exorbitant prices on the vinyl underground. The
cult slowly disintegrated when the leader, Father Yod, died following
a 1975 hang-gliding accident after the Source cult decamped for
Hawaii, but YHW 13's un-nameable, ad-hoc combination of tribal
drumming, folkie fervor, ecstatic chants, and deep-space musings
borrowed from German kosmiche was too strange to stay buried forever.

The catalysts for this unlikely comeback were Saxon's tireless
interest in the cult's music and message plus publication of the
Family's memoir, The Source: The Untold

Story of Father Yod, Ya Ho Wa 13 and the Source Family (Process
Books). YHW 13 was bright-eyed and full of excitement as they led us
through an opening chant that ended with our taking 108 deep breaths.
Tonight, they unlimbered a ferocious barrage of astringently abstract
rock that sunk the audience into a swaying trance. These long
white-noize ragas achieved a rare kind of ragged grandeur, even as
the crowd began to thin perceptibly. The bedraggled Saxon joined at
the finish, his suddenly stronger voice lifting the gentle cacophony
skyward, toward that Yahweh who reportedly knows a good joke when He sees it.

--------

Remain in light

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=4972&catid=110&volume_id=317&issue_id=325&volume_num=42&issue_num=07

Chasing after Aquarius with the Source Family

BY MAX GOLDBERG
Wednesday November 14, 2007

"The body, and its pleasures and powers, is rarely far from the
spirit in California," Erik Davis writes in his introduction to Isis
Aquarian's firsthand account The Source: The Untold Story of Father
Yod, Ya Ho Wa 13, and the Source Family (Process). Many generations
of Californians have enjoyed a mix of healthy eating, nature
appreciation, and magical thinking, but few have done so with as much
colorful exuberance as the Source Family, a group of angelic
longhairs that thrived in the Hollywood hills in the late '60s and
early '70s under the guidance of Father Yod (a.k.a. YaHoWa, Shin Wha,
and Jim Baker), a fast-talking rascal with the hair, beard, and robes
of a latter-day Zeus.

What began as a small commune of hippie restaurateurs (the group ran
the Source, the veggie restaurant where Woody Allen has his Los
Angeles lunch with Diane Keaton in Annie Hall) soon swelled into the
hundred-plus-member Source Family.

As Baker grew more assured in his Father role, so too did his
leadership become more outlandish, both in terms of teachings (which
dabbled in many incoherent mystical strands) and practices (which
infamously incorporated tantric sex rituals and polygamy). The
family's experiment in living had stops in Hawaii and San Francisco
(the Guardian's classified section is mentioned twice in The Source)
before Father Yod died in a hang-gliding accident in 1975, a notably
quiet way to go in a decade that also saw the Manson Family's carnage
and Jonestown's horror.

Three events this week ­ an audiovisual-enhanced discussion at
Artists' Television Access, a signing at Aquarius Records, and a live
performance at Cafe du Nord ­ commemorate the publication of Isis
"Keeper of the Record" Aquarian's Source Family primer, a stitching
together of testimonies and primary documents. As is often the case
with informal accounts, the book is wracked with cliché, most
frustratingly in the form of new age truisms used to elide meaningful
experiences. There are, though, more than enough weird and wonderful
details to make it an enjoyable read (for example, the rainbow diet
of avocado, eggplant, red onion, banana, filberts, tomatoes, and
alfalfa sprouts), and something like pathos emerges when family
members reflect on their experiences ("Probably 60 percent of my
memories come from one single year of my life").

Still, it's their glamour that holds our attention. There were dozens
of similar-minded spiritual groups at the time, but nothing quite
like the Source. Comparing the group with the earthier Love Israel
Family, Aquarian writes, "[We] had a house in Hollywood and served
organic cuisine to rock stars; our women wore custom-designed
jewelry.... They had trucks, and Father had a Rolls Royce." The
Source Family cut a path defined more by aestheticism than
asceticism, and one of the chief pleasures of Aquarian's book lies in
the ephemera ­ commandments, names, menus, costumes ­ that, even in
their most disposable forms, explode forth with the group's high
hippie style. Davis makes the crucial point that for the Source
Family, "spirituality was a creative act of avant-garde exploration.
In this regard, cults can be like art collectives."

This is certainly the case with the music, most of which came under
the aegis of Ya Ho Wa 13, a core group capable of the thundering
Dionysian grooves necessary to underwrite Father Yod's commanding
vocal presence. Besides being incorporated into Source Family
meditations, the band played in town (a supplementary CD to
Aquarian's book includes a surreal performance at Beverly Hills High
School) and cut numerous one-take albums (she estimates 65 in a
two-year period, though many have been lost).

The band's changing permutations and relentless output anticipated
the working methods of collective groups such as Acid Mothers Temple
and Sunburned Hand of Man.

Can one enjoy the art without being a kind of spiritual tourist? It's
a difficult question, but one worth asking in light of the Source
Family's reemergence amid major excavations of the Age of Aquarius
(see: freak folk, hippie chic). It goes without saying, but the
various sponsors of this week's Source events are impeccably hip:
Other Cinema, Aquarius Records, and the locus of much of the current
Aquarian fever, Arthur magazine.

What distinguishes today's backtracking from the brief vogue for
peace signs and psychedelic guitar washes in the early '90s is the
depth of the fascination. Seekers aren't contenting themselves with
the usual icons; they're hungrier than that. How else to explain
reissues of everything from Terry Riley to Karen Dalton, the
popularity of Arthur, and the crowds when Alejandro Jodorowsky's
fantasias (El Topo, The Holy Mountain) played at the Castro Theatre
some months ago? A week before the Source Family gathering at ATA,
the same venue hosted another convergence of '60s esoterica: Ira
Cohen (the publisher and filmmaker behind the mirror- and
mind-warping Invasion of the Thunderbolt Pagoda) introducing Julian
Beck's documentary Paradise Now: The Living Theatre in Amerika.

As the cultivation of influences matures, younger artists and
musicians begin to reshape the past in more interesting, nuanced
ways. One such avatar is the LA-by-way-of-Baltimore blues banshee
Entrance (né Guy Blakeslee). Booking him as the opener for the Ya Ho
Wa 13 reunion is a brilliant stroke, since it properly asserts the
bill as a cross-generational dialogue. Did Devendra Banhart consult
the Source Family group shots before convening his own family
portrait for the cover of Cripple Crow (XL Recordings)? Might there
be something of Father Yod's TEN (the eternal now) teachings locked
in White Rainbow's recent bliss-minimalism opus, The Prism of the
Eternal Now (Kranky/Marriage)? I'm inclined to think so, especially
after having learned that certain taste-making record producers love
to gab about the Source Family. It would seem that the sons of Father
Yod have become elders in their own right.

Elements of Aquarian culture will always be at best ridiculous and at
worst morally vacuous. As Father Yod could pass megalomania off as
free-spiritedness, so too is the current crop of (mostly white)
aficionados sometimes guilty of confusing creativity with fetish: for
surface, ornament, texture, and, inevitably, Native American
signifiers. And yet, now as it was then, much of the work being
produced is vividly realized and buoyantly energetic. Flipping
through The Source, one does indeed experience a kind of timelessness
quite apart from the star gates, comets, and prophecies.

Forty years later, the book's disarming photographs do not seem to
represent individuals so much as an ideal, a vision of beauty that endures. *

--------

Father Yod Knew Best

http://www.laweekly.com/news/features/father-yod-knew-best/17104/

Looking back on L.A.'s Source restaurant and the cult that fed it

By DOUG HARVEY
Wednesday, August 29, 2007

On August 25, 1975, former Sunset Strip restaurateur Jim Baker
launched himself off a 1,300-foot-high cliff on the easternmost shore
of Oahu. Although he had never hang-glided before ­ or even trained
for it ­ he was confident his instincts would kick in and allow him
to negotiate the notoriously tempestuous thermal trade winds off the
mountainous coastline. And they may well have, except for a sudden
calm that caused him to immediately plummet downward hundreds of
feet. He recovered control and managed to glide out over the Pacific
for 10 minutes before navigating back to crash-land on the beachfront
Waimalano campground. Although he appeared to have no serious
injuries, Baker was unable to move and was taken home, where he died
some nine hours later. He was survived by his 13 wives and 140 or so
sons and daughters.

For the most part, these were his "spiritual" sons and daughters, as
Baker had been going by the names Father Yod (rhymes with load) and
YaHoWha for five years as the leader of the Source Family, a
quintessential sex, drugs and rock & roll New Age hippie commune that
lived in the Chandler mansion in Los Feliz and operated a highly
successful health-food restaurant ­ also called the Source ­ at
Sunset and Sweetzer. "Father," as Baker was most consistently
referred to, was a Cincinnati-born Medal of Honor Marine and jujitsu
expert who came to L.A. after WWII to audition for a role as Tarzan
and fell under the sway of Philosophical Research Society founder
Manly P. Hall's eclectic mysticism and the proto-hippie lifestyle of
barefoot granola-munching Nature Boys like eden ahbez and Gypsy
Boots. Baker opened a Topanga Canyon sandal shop, followed by two
successful health-food restaurants favored by the Hollywood elite.

Things started getting freaky early in 1969, when Baker opened his
third restaurant ­ the Source ­ and became a devotee of Sikh
kundalini master Yogi Bhajan. Baker began speaking and directing
meditation sessions in the restaurant, and ­ though still a follower
of the yogi ­ channeling a new synthesis of traditional and original
esoteric teachings. Attendance soared, and soon Baker and his growing
group of followers were dressing in white cotton robes and turbans,
living communally in the Chandler mansion (a.k.a. the Mother House)
and following a rigorous program of spiritual practices involving
elaborate breathing techniques (beginning with a single six-second
hit of sacred herb at 3 a.m.), cold showers, radical shifts in gender
roles, yoga, chanting the Tetragrammaton, natural home birth,
magickal visualizations, Aleister Crowleyian ego-suppressing rituals
and tantric sex.

During this period, the Source Family was one of the most
high-profile and unusual of the many new religious movements
proliferating in Los Angeles, not least because of their uncommonly
high standards of grooming and cleanliness, their economic
self-sufficiency and work ethic, and the fact that they didn't openly
proselytize. Potential members, in fact, were obliged to undergo a
period of sexual abstinence and cross-examination as well as
surrender all their material possessions to the group, washing dishes
(or other chores) at the restaurant and taking a vow of
confidentiality in order to partake of the spiritual teachings.

It was this commitment to secrecy and the modest recruitment schedule
(along with the fact that the story ends with a hang-gliding accident
instead of a mass suicide in Guyana) that kept the Source Family a
vague rumor for 30 years. In fact, they probably would have remained
in limbo had it not been for the efforts of an on-again, off-again
member of the group called Arlick ­ known in the mundane world of
maya as Sky "Sunlight" Saxon. Saxon had been the driving force behind
the seminal L.A. garage band the Seeds, whose "Pushin' Too Hard" was
a national hit and was later recognized as one of the essential
precursors of punk. By the punk era, Saxon had pretty much fallen off
the cultural map except for occasional
where-are-the-acid-casualties-now appearances marked by cryptic
utterances concerning God being a dog. Then, sometime in the '80s,
rumors began circulating among record geeks about Saxon's involvement
with an obscure psychedelic tribal musical collective called Ya Ho Wa
13 ­ whose flurry of self-released recordings quickly became one of
the most sought-after (not to mention strangest) of vinyl rarities.

Ya Ho Wa 13 was, it turned out, the musical wing of the Source
Family. Between 1973 and 1975, various incarnations of this loose
subcult (Father Yod and the Spirit of '76, the Savage Sons of
YaHoWha, Fire Water Air, etc.) recorded approximately 65 albums'
worth of mostly improvised material ­ nine of which were released on
their own Higher Key label and sold through the restaurant. The
earliest recordings featured actual songs written and performed by
newly renamed members of the Family ­ primarily Djin, Pythias,
Sunflower and Octavius. It wasn't until Baker ­ now known as YaHoWha
­ mandated improvisation and began contributing freestyle
vocalizations that something extraordinary occurred. Just how
extraordinary would remain pretty much a secret until 1998, when
Saxon ­ who turns out to have been only peripherally involved with
some of the later recordings ­ negotiated the release of a
now-legendary 13-CD box set by the Japanese specialty label Captain Trip.

Over surging psych-rock jams, YaHoWha sang, howled and chanted
extemporaneous sermons (as well as playing gong and kettle drums
while whistling like a theremin) that summarized much of his
philosophy in catchy slogans like "Die to live again" or "I can be
you and you can be me ­ ultimate orgasm we will see!" The originality
of the best of these albums ranks them with the greatest outsider
musical artifacts of the era, on par with An Evening With Wildman
Fischer or lounge-singer-turned-acidhead Johnny Arcesia, whose vocals
are often remarkably similar to YaHoWha's. Most strikingly, YaHoWha's
obvious humor about himself and his situation dissolves the
prejudices that most of us have regarding "cults" and their often
difficult cultural byproducts. (Battlefield Earth, anyone?)

In spite of the sudden availability of this wealth of rare material,
the Source remained pretty much an unknown quantity ­ though
speculation was plentiful. Unbeknownst to the world at large, the
remnants of the Source Family ­ which had officially dispersed within
a couple of years of YaHoWha's death ­ were coming to terms with its
legacy. A couple of Hawaiian reunions occurred ­ first to finally
scatter YaHoWha's ashes on the 20th anniversary of his fatal flight,
and then to observe the birth of the Aquarian age on September 17,
2001 (as predicted by the Great Pyramid). Family archivist Isis began
organizing the enormous quantities of photographs and ephemera and
writing a definitive history of Baker and the group. Initially
published privately for Family members, The Source: The Untold Story
of Father Yod, Ya Ho Wa 13 and the Source Family came to the
attention of Jodi Wille and Adam Parfrey of the maverick publishing
house Process. Wille helped edit and expand the history, which now
includes a number of dissenting voices regarding the purity of
YaHoWha's motives (and a CD of previously unreleased recordings,
including a live gig at Beverly Hills High!).

Not that Isis' version of the story is all peaches and cream. As with
most prophets, YaHoWha's thoughts began turning to the coming
apocalypse. At around the time he began to lose interest in the
musical project, he became convinced that America was on the brink of
a series of cataclysmic upheavals ­ nuclear war followed by
earthquakes, tidal waves and volcanic eruptions. When one of the
Family children became seriously ill with an untreated staph
infection, emergency-room doctors alerted the authorities. Fearing a
crackdown, YaHoWha realized it was time to sell the restaurant and
head for the hills of Hawaii. No danger of military invasion,
tsunamis or volcanoes there!

While the inside scoop on the high-functioning days of a utopian
religious movement is a rare and fascinating thing in itself, it is
the account of its unraveling that makes for the most compelling
reading, throwing the accomplishments of the spiritual social
experiment into high contrast. Without the income provided by the
restaurant and the relatively tolerant and supportive environment of
Los Angeles, the vision began to fray at the edges. The populace of
the Family's first Hawaiian destination, Kauai, was decidedly
unwelcoming, and doubts and paranoia arose among the flock ­ and
their shepherd. A contemporary article from the local paper The
Garden Island quotes YaHoWha desperately offering the services of the
Family to "police the airports" to drive the also-unpopular hippie
"parasites" off the island, if only the authorities would "look the
other way."

That didn't work. In 1975, YaHoWha bailed with a small entourage on a
peripatetic world journey, searching for a new home in Thailand,
India, Nepal, Egypt, Greece and a half-dozen other locales. The
remaining Family members had to persuade the Hawaiian welfare
authorities to buy them airplane tickets back to the mainland. After
regrouping briefly in San Francisco (where they refurbished a haunted
mansion and YaHoWha basically revoked the sexual privileges of his
sons in a vain attempt to make them get jobs), they decided to try
Hawaii again. It was around this time that Father got interested in
hang-gliding.

Usually, accounts of communal spiritual movements are
sensationalistic "exposés of brainwashing cults" or whitewashing
"defenses against prejudicial conspiracies." The Source: The Untold
Story of Father Yod, Ya Ho Wa 13 and the Source Family is something
else. The participants in this story seem uniformly intelligent,
straightforward and better off for their brush with the infinite.
Most cherish their time with YaHoWha as a central transformative
period in their lives, even when they have gone on to make millions
in the construction industry or found other fringe spiritual
communities to shelter them. And the Source Family is just one of
many such under-documented experiments from a period of recent
American history that was quickly swept under the rug with
unwarranted ridicule and fear mongering. I'm not convinced that the
release of this book is a harbinger of the imminent transformation of
our species' consciousness and the basic structure of society. But it
at least allows us to discuss the possibility again without snickering.
---

Also read Tapping the Source: Excerpts from Isis Aquarian's cult chronicle
http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/tapping-the-source/17105

.

'Chicago 10' Gets a Trailer

[2 articles]

'Chicago 10' Gets a Trailer

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/11/15/chicago-10-gets-a-trailer/

Posted Nov 15th 2007
by Jessica Barnes

It does strike me a little funny that after watching the trailer for
the documentary Chicago 10, it managed to make me just a little less
interested in watching the flick (not the best start for a movie
trailer, IMO). Written and directed by Brett Morgan, the doc is a
re-enactment of the infamous trial of the Chicago Seven in 1969. For
those of you out there who aren't up on your counter-culture history:
In 1968, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden,
Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale organized a
large scale protest at the 1968 Democratic convention. After an
unfair conviction of inciting violence and numerous appeals, five of
the eight members finally had their convictions overturned and were
able to walk away free men in 1972.

This is Morgan's second animated documentary, and uses the same style
as Morgan's acclaimed Robert Evans flick, The Kid Stays in the
Picture. Last November, a NYT piece had profiled the doc as a brand
new approach to making documentary films. Instead of a bunch of
talking heads, Morgan decided to use actual court transcripts to
re-enact the trial with actors providing the voices on the infamous
seven (well, eight if you count Seale, and in my opinion you really
should). The cast includes Mark Ruffalo, Hank Azaria and Nick Nolte.
Initial buzz surrounding the film was good, and there was even talk
of a bidding war for the property. But after reading James' review
back in January, as well as getting my first good look at the motion
capture, I have to admit my enthusiasm has been dulled ever so
slightly. Luckily, I'm a big enough documentary nerd that I can
probably overlook it. Chicago 10 is scheduled for release in February.

--------

DOCNZ 2007: Chicago 10

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0711/S00199.htm

Wednesday, 14 November 2007,

Asia Pacific Premiere

USA 2007 / 104min.
Director Brett Morgen / Producer Brett Morgen, Graydon Carter

"A Democratic Convention is about to begin in a Police State", the
venerable broadcaster and conscience of the nation, Walter Cronkite
declares grimly on national television.

Chicago, 1968: The Democratic National Convention and the city is
militarized in anticipation of the arrival of the "Yippies". The
Yippies came to protest the war in Vietnam and groove to rock 'n'
roll. A showdown ensues in which the resolute demonstrators are
subdued with tear gas and truncheons by Mayor Daley's men.

The "Chicago 8" including the charismatic Abbie Hoffman are put on
trial, charged under the Anti-Riot Act, and the Generation "Gap"
quickly becomes a Gulf.

Chicago 10 is a revolutionary retelling of the story of the Siege of
Chicago that pushes the boundaries of documentary with its
re-enactments of the trial done completely in animation. With voice
overs by Nick Nolte, Hank Azaria, and others, the trial sequences
function almost as a form of comic relief from the unrelenting
intensity of the footage of the confrontations in the parks and
streets of Chicago.

The current political context in the U.S. makes it impossible to
treat Chicago 10 as mere nostalgia. Will it be the Republicans' turn
in 2008? From the producer of An Inconvenient Truth and Syriana,
Chicago 10 with its pounding rock 'n' roll soundtrack engages,
stimulates and flat out entertains you from start to finish.

.

Hippie horror! The wizards of Oz face trial by film

Hippie horror! The wizards of Oz face trial by film

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/hippie-horror-the-wizards-of-oz-face-trial-by-film/2007/11/16/1194766965791.html

Paola Totaro
November 17, 2007

THEY were creative, fearless and used a mordant satire in their war
against, well, everything. Nothing was sacred, not the Queen, the
prime minister, the military, religion nor race. In the end, they
were arrested, charged and locked in the slammer, and made front-page
headlines in both hemispheres.

This was not the Chaser but the legendary Oz magazine, launch pad of
Australia's hippie intelligentsia, 1960s firebrands, artists and
anti-establishment rebels all.

Until Hollywood came along, keen for permission to rewrite their
stories for the big screen and armed with fat cheques to smooth the way.

The movie's script, based loosely around Oz editor Richard Neville's
memoirs, Hippie Hippie Shake, was written by Lee Hall (Billy Elliot)
and filming has just finished in London with a star-studded English cast.

Neville sold the film rights, reportedly for six figures, more than
10 years ago. "The script kept changing and I made some changes
myself on the last draft, but I have not seen it since. I've got my
fingers crossed that they'll do a good job and if they don't, I'll be
disappointed," Neville says.

But many of Oz's other luminaries and protagonists, including
Germaine Greer, the Sydney artist Martin Sharp and the Los
Angeles-based film director Philippe Mora, have questioned their
former colleagues' decision to allow their personal lives and history
to be rewritten in a movie funded by General Electric, produced by a
Universal Studios-owned British production house and played by
non-Australian actors.

Greer, portrayed in early drafts of the script as a joint-smoking
nymphomaniac, fired the first salvo in her Guardian blog, saying the
writers had fashioned her likeness "out of their own excreta".
Others, like Richard Neville's then girlfriend, Louise Ferrier, had
suffered an even worse fate on film. Greer said Ferrier had been
dubbed a "siren with a penchant for threesomes" because she once
posed naked with Jenny Kee for an Oz cover: "She was actually better
known for her Sunday lunches."

Greer describes Richard Neville as "one of the least talented people
on the London scene in the '60s".

Neville says he toyed with responding to Greer but decided against
it: "I feel I have been ennobled by Germaine's comments … I've been
jammed somewhere between Steve Irwin, Princess Diana and the stingray."

Martin Sharp, the artist behind many of Oz's most famous covers, says
he allowed the reproduction of some of his artwork but had signed no
waivers to the movie's producers, accepted no money for his
portrayal, and continues to be appalled by the script.

He counted 55 scenes in which his character appears and which he says
were concoctions: "It was complete fiction. It is not even about mere
historical inaccuracy. That is the inherent problem with this sort of
filmmaking. I was really shocked when I read the first one (script)
and I am not much less shocked now.

"They are trying to use real people as an anchor for their fantasy …
it is a theft of one's life and is a very uncomfortable feeling. If
they want to make a fantasy, why don't they use fictional characters?"

According to insiders, the director, Beeban Kidron, flew to Sydney in
July for a series of quiet crisis meetings and met several
protagonists, including Louise Ferrier, the designer Jennie Kee and
Neville's Oz co-editor in London, Jim Anderson.

Dozens of script changes were made, incidents and events rewritten
and even relationships and sex scenes were amended after being
branded "fictions" by other real protagonists. Further, say insiders,
some characters who did not appear in the early script drafts were
added as their waivers were signed and cheques for "research" accepted.

At least four of the original Oz types, including Kee, Ferrier and
Anderson, are said to have been paid $25,000 each for their
characters to be fictionalised on screen.

According to the LA-based film director and former Oz illustrator
Philippe Mora, his colleagues have simply sold out.

"The issues of the '60s were freedom of speech, integrity,
anti-hypocrisy from the establishment … Personally, I don't think you
can be against the war on terror, as Richard Neville has continued to
write, and then go and sell your life story to General Electric. I'm
no saint … but if you sell out part of your life story, do you sell
out to the parties you publicly opposed using moral and political arguments?

"Accuracy in history is another point but no one seems to care about
that. And if real names are being used, why not keep it factual. I
also think this was a very Aussie story because our perspective as
outsiders was part of the impact we had on London at the time … so
why use English actors in the main roles? Can't Australians act as
Australians?"

Mora directed Trouble in Molopolis, a fictional portrayal of the
Australians' storming of London, shot in 1969 and funded by his then
flatmate, Eric Clapton. Still held in the national archive in
Canberra, it starred many of the Oz protagonists, including Greer,
Neville and Sharp, as themselves.

Oz burst on to the Australian publishing scene in 1963 and launched
the work of some of Australia's best known authors, critics and and
artists, from Robert Hughes and Greer to Sharp, Mora, Lillian Roxon,
Bob Ellis and Michael Leunig.

The first edition, published on April Fool's Day, contained
irreverent drawings by Sharp of the Queen on roller skates. When it
was launched in London in 1967, Oz quickly gained a huge underground following.

The movie focuses on Neville, Sharp and Jim Anderson's move to London
and the years following when Sharp drifted away. Felix Dennis, who
had then joined the group, brought in a group of high school students
to guest-edit the May 1970 issue.

They produced a parody which featured a highly sexualised image of
Rupert Bear. Known as Schoolkids' Oz, and mistakenly interpreted as a
publication for children, issue number 28 came to the attention of
the Obscene Publications Squad, sparking a landmark legal battle in
the Old Bailey.

It became the longest obscenity trial in the history of English law.

The boys from Oz, who once turned up to court in school uniforms,
were initially sentenced to hard labour but appeals led to their
sentences being commuted so long as they ceased publication of the
offending mag.

Neville says he was impressed with director Kidron's approach and
that she seemed determined to throw herself into it "and make a great
film … if it's not a good movie, nobody blames the book's author, anyway.

"And of course the film has the chattering classes chattering. More
than ever. That is how it should be, and why not?"

.

Change and relevance: Is women’s studies still relevant?

Change and relevance

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/8032

Posted: Thu, 11/15/2007
By Kendall Anderson, Minnesota Women's Press

Is women's studies still relevant?

Founded in the late '60s, the academic discipline of women's studies
has now expanded to include gender and sexuality studies as well as
racism, environmental equity and peace studies. With all these
changes ... is women's studies still relevant?

Boy, have we come a long way baby (and girl, do we have a long way to go).

That's what many scholars and graduates think about women's studies,
the multidisciplinary field that sprang from the women's movement of
the 1960s. Founded and nurtured amid social activism and rampant
gender discrimination in the late 1960s, women's studies programs are
now offered at more than 700 U.S. colleges and universities. The
discipline's success has also brought challenges, among them the
everlasting question of relevance. There is a lack of knowledge among
some students about the discipline, scholars say.

"Female students today have so many opportunities: Their mothers
work, they've seen female senators and maybe, soon, a female
president, so they think the women's movement is done," said Prof.
Joanne Cavallaro, chair of women's studies at the College of St.
Catherine. She pointed out that though white middle-class American
women have more opportunities, "If you look at the statistics around
the world on women, that's obviously not true."

Nearly four decades after it was founded, women's studies is
undergoing a kind of redefinition, said Jacquelyn N. Zita, an
associate professor in women's studies and former department chair at
the University of Minnesota. Along with proving the field's relevance
to students who sometimes lack historical perspective, Zita and
others work to keep society at large educated about what a feminist
lens can bring to our complex issues of the day. Both goals must be
accomplished at the same time women's studies leaders protect their
programs and grow their historically low funding in an increasingly
competitive academic world.

From the streets to the ivory tower

Women's studies departments grew out of the largely Caucasian women's
liberation movement of the 1960s and '70s. The first women's studies
classes were taught in the late 1960s, after the passage of the Civil
Rights Act, which banned discrimination in education, employment,
housing, government contracts and public facilities. Second-wave
feminists were ignited by the civil rights issues of their decade,
just as first-wave feminists had been motivated by the abolitionist
movement and women's suffrage issues of the 19th century.

A wider net

Today's women's studies departments often include "gender studies" or
"sexuality studies" as well. The 1970s brought the discipline into
being, the 1980s followed with an explosion of research, and the
1990s through today has been a time of casting a wider net. Just as
second-wave feminism changed the universal assumption of male as the
norm, third-wave feminism and today's women's and gender studies
departments are challenging the idea that white, middle-class females
are the norm.

The discipline has exploded to include gender and sexuality studies
as well as racism, environmental equity and peace studies.

"The expansion across the country is really a deepening and a
maturation of the field without losing the radical edge," Zita said.
"The focus has been taken away from women's liberation as the
defining metaphor."

That is demonstrated by the diversity of offerings. Working Class
Women's Cultures, Engendering Whiteness, Chicana Feminisms, and Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Social Movements in the U.S. are
some popular women's studies courses at the University of Minnesota.
At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Women, Ecofeminism
and Development is among the most popular courses.

Low funding, high relevance

The broader and more global focus of today's women's studies has made
the discipline acutely relevant in society, one scholar said.

"As society has embraced these concepts of equality, civil rights and
social justice, more students understand the value of learning a
broad perspective on the issues," said Kristin Mapel-Bloomberg,
associate professor and director of women's studies at Hamline
University. "Women's studies graduates are able to help organizations
grapple with today's issues of justice and equality and where gender
intersects with race and culture. They take courses you might not get
with a straight business degree."

Women's studies graduates at Hamline and other local schools have
gone on to leadership positions in the executive leadership ranks of
both for-profit and nonprofit organizations as well as to launch
their own companies, travel the world doing social justice work and write.

The discipline is uniquely qualified to respond to issues of economic
and racial inequities, human rights violations and other injustices, Zita said.

"We're preoccupied with accumulating things," she noted. "And there
is an aggressive ignorance we've all absorbed about what's happening
to us with the environment. We're just beginning to understand the
enormous trauma; but the problem is, we're not aware of it. That's an
educational problem." Violence against women-murders of women by
spouses or boyfriends have become almost routine headlines-along with
gender discrimination lawsuits at large U.S. companies such as
Wal-Mart, show the ongoing need for a feminist perspective.

"We still get these spectacular things, like the Anita Hill case,"
said Zita. "We still have no good public rhetorical space to discuss
incest, rape and sexual harassment."

Christina McElderry, a 2001 College of St. Catherine graduate with a
triple major in women's studies, sociology and urban policy, said she
views-and responds to-issues of power, privilege and justice
differently because of her women's studies education.

"Women's studies ... allows, on some level, a way to 'step back' ...
from situations and evaluate them in a way that dominant discourses
elude," said McElderry, now a graduate student in political theory
and international politics. "It changed the way I see, think about,
and act in the world. ... I think we need people in all disciplines
trying to think about our world differently."

Women's vs. gender studies debate

The inclusion of gender identity studies in women's studies
departments over the last decade has been controversial. Some say
it's a natural step, since gender and sexuality identities are
different from women's issues. Many colleges have expanded the
discipline to appeal to men; a number of scholars worry that the
unique needs of women may be short-changed if the women's studies
curriculum gets watered down.

"I have a problem with changing the name of a discipline to attract
more men," Mapel-Bloomberg said. "Yet women are so socialized in
caretaking men, even to the point of undermining their academics. ...
There is a lot of good work to be done by allowing women to have
their own space in which to talk, discuss and theorize."
Zita said there is room for both areas, with care. "It's always a
danger-it requires a program to be vigilant about whether it's an
erasure of the needs of women," she said. "But it's just not
exclusively [women's studies] anymore."

Third-wave feminists

Professors see many students today who lack an understanding of
feminist history and are not trained to think critically or
theoretically. Sometimes students lack urgency and passion.

Yet they are hopeful, too.

"Students are not as militant or socially engaged but they are
hungry," Zita said.

Mary Pruitt, who co-founded Minneapolis Community and Technical
College's (MCTC) women's studies program 34 years ago, sees new
energy in our area's burgeoning immigrant population. "The new
immigrants from all over the world have stimulated us to look at a
wider global view," Pruitt said.

African refugees have brought renewed interest in issues of global
oppression and poverty to MCTC's classes, she said; Hispanic
immigrants as well as those from other parts of the world share their
own unique stories that enrich the classroom discussions on gender
roles, power, environment and more.

Parting thoughts

An old saw often lobbed at women's studies is that feminist scholars
are male bashers. In fact, women's studies helps men, some note.
McElderry considers it "unfortunate that women's studies [are
considered] specific [only] to women," noting that men, too, can be
the victims of a dominant culture which "essentially coerce[s] [them]
into hyper-masculine performances and identities. ... The importance
of women's studies is that it calls these cultures and performances
into question, and asks us to think through them in new ways."

Sharon Ramirez, a St. Olaf graduate with a women's studies
concentration who has been successfully self-employed as an
organizational consultant for more than a decade, said she'd like the
discipline to be more widely explored through the context of family
and society. "There is still discrimination in the workplace,
policymakers are still trying to limit reproductive choice and there
are still lots of policymakers doing all they can to erode conditions
for women and families," said Ramirez, 47, who has also worked as a
public policy researcher and advocate in housing and domestic violence.

Keeping women's and gender identity studies relevant-and funded-is
behind the National Women's Studies Association's recently
commissioned survey of the discipline, which will be completed within
the next two years.

Until then, scholars like Zita say they'll keep teaching women's
studies to hungry students.

"The work of education is to go deeper and figure out how things are
interconnected. How does power and capital work and how does that
look globally?" Zita asked. "In our little department, we're trying
to bring those lenses into use."
---

Women's Studies Programs in Minnesota
Augsburg College, Minneapolis
BA in Women's Studies
www.augsburg.edu
612-330-1523

Carleton College, Northfield
Concentration in Women's and Gender Studies
www.carleton.edu
507-646-7594

Century College, White Bear Lake
Certificate in Gender & Women's Studies
www.century.mnscu.edu
651-779-3200

College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph
BA in Gender and Women's Studies
www.csbsju.edu
320-363-5011

College of St. Catherine, St. Paul
BA in Women's Studies
minerva.stkate.edu
651-690-6867

College of St. Scholastica , Duluth
Minor in Women's Studies & certificate in Women's Spirituality
www.css.edu
218-723- 6620

Hamline University , St. Paul
BA in Women's Studies
www.hamline.edu
651-523-2091

Macalester College, St. Paul
BA Major or minor in Women's, Gender, & Sexuality Studies
www.macalester.edu
651-696-6318

Metropolitan State University, St. Paul
BA majorminor in Women's Studies
www.metrostate.edu
651-999-5949

Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Minneapolis
AA in Women's Studies
www.minneapolis.edu
612-659-6048

Minnesota State University Mankato , Mankato
BA BS MS minor/major in Women's Studies
www.mnsu.edu
507-389-2077

St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud
BA or Bachelor of Elective Studies in Women's Studies
www.stcloudstate.edu
320-308-3947

St. Olaf College, Northfield
Women's Studies major or concentration
www.stolaf.edu
507-786-3236

University of Minnesota - Duluth
Women's Studies major & minor
www.duluth.umn.edu
218-726-7953

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
BIS , IDIM, PhD and Graduate Minor in Feminist Studies
www1.umn.edu/twincities
612-626-6006

University of St. Thomas, St. Paul
BA in Women's Studies
www.stthomas.edu
651-962-5725
---

READ ABOUT IT

Books about women's studies:

Disciplining Feminism: From Social Activism to Academic Discourse by
Ellen Messer-Davidow
Exploring Women's Studies: Looking Forward, Looking Back by Carol R.
Berkin, Judith L. Pinch and Carol Appel
Women's Studies For The Future: Foundations, Interrogations, Politics
by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy and Agatha Beins
Handbook of Gender and Women's Studies by Kathy Davis, Mary S. Evans
and Judith Lorber

.

Former Black Panther speaks on party's history, social issues

Former Black Panther speaks on party's history, social issues

http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/11/16/CampusNews/Former.Black.Panther.Speaks.On.Partys.History.Social.Issues-3106344.shtml

Melvin Dickson encourages student activism for social change

By: JAYNE WILSON
Issue date: 11/16/07

Former Black Panther Party member Melvin Dickson spoke to a scattered
audience of approximately 50 students at the Memorial Union patio
Thursday afternoon in an attempt to put the violent image of a
gun-wielding urban army to rest.

"Most of the time the media gives you a distorted view of what the
party stood for," Dickson said.

The event opened with music from KDVS DJs and poetry from Henry
Reneau, Jr. In addition to speaking about the party's history and
platform, Dickson touched on socio-political issues such as literacy
and government negligence, and encouraged student activism.

Dickson, hailing from West Memphis, Ark., joined the Black Panther
Party after his involvement with the Navy landed him in Alameda,
Calif. When the party was founded, Dickson was living in Oakland,
Calif. and working as a delivery boy.

In an interview before his scheduled appearance, Dickson said that
upon first hearing of the controversial civil rights group he was
struck with disbelief.

"My first response was, 'These guys are crazy!'" he said.

Though the party officially disbanded in 1982, Dickson stressed the
importance of its continuing legacy. He currently serves as chair on
the Commemoration Committee for the Black Panther Party. He also
helps release the committee's paper, The Commemoration, which
publishes the party's Ten-Point Platform in every issue.

During his speech on the MU patio, Dickson addressed the Black
Panthers' first concern for the African American community upon their
formation: police brutality.

"It was the commonest thing to hear of a young man shot in the back
point-blank, and nothing was done about it," he said. "It was always
ruled as justifiable homicide."

Dickson revealed that as a result of this party leaders Huey P.
Newton and Bobby Seale started a police alert patrol. This program
allowed the community to address the issues that directly affected
them. After its establishment, the results spoke for themselves.

"We saw a decrease in these kinds of attacks against the community,"
Dickson said.

He then explained that apart from this program, the party also
designed educational programs, including a literacy outreach campaign
most prominent in the Bay Area.

"In Oakland, with the population of 400,000, you have about 85,000
adults who are functionally illiterate," Dickson said. "This is
typical…. Illiteracy is a growing problem … and poverty is the root
cause of all this."

This continuing problem is the main cause for lack of organization
within communities, he said.

"There's no way we can organize if people aren't reading," Dickson
said. "We need organization to demand change in the political order
of this country."

Dickson also offered encouragement to the audience of students,
proclaiming that they could all make a significant impact on the world.

"Each one of us can make a difference," he said. "Everything you do
on this planet makes a difference. That's why we study.... Knowledge
is to be applied."

Alice Vasquez, a fifth-year senior dramatic art and sociology
double-major, said she was motivated by Dickson's speech and his
continued activism.

"It's extremely inspiring to see that he continues to speak on and
advocate these issues," she said.

Fifth-year senior anthropology major Marisol Lopez, on the other
hand, took notice of the small crowd.

"I felt like there was a lack of student participation," she said. "I
don't think people [on campus] are active politically."

The event was sponsored by Students Organizing for Change. The
organization can be reached at studentsorganizing4change@gmail.com.
---

JAYNE WILSON can be reached at campus@californiaaggie.com.

.

The Politics of Black Masculinity

The Politics of Black Masculinity

http://gcadvocate.org/index.php?action=view&id=230

by Lavelle Porter
November 2007

Back in June, while waiting in O'Hare Airport for a flight back to
New York from Chicago, I picked up and thumbed through the pages of
the Chicago Sun-Times and I was struck by an editorial titled "Pull
up Your Pants, Lift Up Your Head," by one Bill Maxwell. In the
article Maxwell takes aim at the hip-hop fashion phenomenon known as
"sagging," which has been in the news in recent months because
several American cities have begun to pass ordinances making the
style illegal. Maxwell argues that this particular fashion has its
origins in prison, where a low slung waistband is a sign of one's
sexual availability (he cites television's Judge Greg Mathis as the
source of this insightful information). He goes on to suggest that
young black men would cease to wear their pants in this style if they
knew its origins. In effect, Maxwell's argument seems to suggest that
if only black men embraced a more homophobic ethos all our cultural
problems would be solved.

Part of me recognizes this article for what is: just another
disposable piece of reactionary conservative armchair sociology. On
the other hand, I also find it instructive for its attention to
gender in the political discourse on black masculinity, and for its
steep, abiding nostalgia for a stable past when, as Archie Bunker
would say, "goils were goils and men were men."

I mention the Maxwell article because it illuminates three particular
unifying themes in the books reviewed here. For one thing, all three
books reviewed here seek to historicize black manhood to confront
precisely this sort of nostalgia that Maxwell produces. Unlike
Maxwell, however, Ross, Reid-Pharr, and Murray all demonstrate that
ideas about appropriate black manhood (not to mention ideas about
authentic blackness itself) have always been in a constant state of
negotiation and re-negotiation throughout American history. Secondly,
all three books are clearly invested in dismantling homophobic
ideology, but they move beyond the simple platitudes about the black
homosexual's exclusion from the black community to examine how
same-sex desire is a fundamental part of all masculine ideology and
nationalist projects, black or otherwise.

Lastly and most importantly, all three books actively insist on the
idea that black men have been more than just passive victims in their
own presentation. In making that claim these authors recognize they
are tip-toeing through a rhetorical minefield, where conservative
ideologues wield ideas about "personal responsibility," rejecting
victim-hood, and "just getting over" injustices of the past as a way
of trivializing the structural inequalities of American racism and
favoring a pro-corporate, anti-government public policy based on
mythical notions of meritocracy and individual achievement. And yet,
I find it compelling and inspiring that these intellectuals are
willing to take the risk, knowing that any change in the conditions
and representations of black manhood must come from the realization
that black men have had an active hand in those representations.

While Robert Reid-Pharr is the only one of the three who explicitly
(and I believe, appropriately) frames this concept as a
philosophically existential matter, the theme of an existential
reclamation of agency runs throughout all three books. As Reid-Pharr
boldly suggests in the introduction to Once You Go Black: "the Black
American has not only had a great hand in the creation of America and
thus the world but also and importantly…the Black American, quiet as
its kept, has had a substantial role in the creation of himself".

Manning the Race: Reforming Black Men in the Jim Crow Era is an
ambitious intellectual history of black manhood reform in the New
Negro Movement, dating roughly from the 1890s to the 1940s. Ross is a
professor of literature, but he goes against the disciplinary grains,
surveying a broad range of intellectual production in this period
including race tracts, photographic race albums, autobiography,
novels and sociological studies. Since it covers such a massive
amount of ground, Manning the Race can be a dense read at times, but
it rewards a patient reading.

Ross examines what he calls the "double paradox of Jim Crow
disentitlement," a concept that explains the particular challenges of
New Negro manhood reform, but also resonates in contemporary
political discourse on black manhood. He writes:

"The more black men attempt to man the race through a fit masculinity
patterned on dominant gender norms, the more they risk emulating the
white ruling men whose Jim Crow racial/sexual codes unman them. At
the same time, the more that African Americans resist the gender
norms set up by the Jim Crow color line, the more they seem to lack
the resources of manhood power and influence to man the race for a
defeat of the very Jim Crow regime that unmans them."

According to Ross the work of modernizing the Negro is dominated by
three genres of writing in particular: 1) new-century race treatises
and anthologies, such as race tracts and race photo albums, 2) New
Negro personal narratives, including autobiography and fiction, and
3) professional sociological studies – most significantly W.E.B.
DuBois's pioneering study, The Philadelphia Negro, and the work of
sociologists Robert E. Park, E. Franklin Frazier and others of the
so-called Chicago School of Sociology based at the University of Chicago.

What sets Ross's work apart is his attention to matters of sexuality
in the construction of black manhood during this era. The spectacle
of black sexuality has long been a part of racist discourse in
America, and it was often invoked as a sign of inherent difference
and racial inferiority. But a curious thing happened around the turn
of the century as anthropologists began to embrace ideas of cultural
relativism and Freudian concepts began to filter into intellectual
artistic and cultural practice, calling into question the sanctity
and sanity of bourgeois Victorian sexual mores. This became shaky
territory for black intellectuals because it created a space to
celebrate the healthy vitality of black sensuality, but it could also
reinforce stereotypes of black inferiority. The literary work of the
New Negro/Harlem Renaissance certainly illustrated the advantages and
pitfalls that a focus on black sexuality could create for the black
intellectual. Ross looks at the variety of strategies for black
reformers in this era and sees them engaged in what he refers to as
"unsexing, desexing or resexing" the race. At times these various
strategies would overlap, employed by the same individuals in a
simultaneous yet contradictory fashion.

The theme of mobility was among the most important for the New Negro.
No longer would the black majority be located in the American South,
as urban migration to the industrial North began to happen around the
turn of the century. That white supremacist edict that Negroes should
"stay in their place" was not just a figure of speech, but spoke to
the very real anxieties about the New Negro's mobility. That anxiety
wasn't just the province of Negrophobic whites, but was also held by
black race leaders themselves who were trying to make sense of both
the exciting possibilities and potential dangers of this new mobility.

Focusing on the theme of mobility, Ross theorizes from abstractions
about race down to the particularities of the black body. For
instance, he sees a profound anxiety in the founding of interracial
political organizations such as the NAACP where black and white
persons, specifically black men and white women, would share the same
spaces as equal participants in a racial uplift organization.

Certainly the South has its peculiar history of close proximity
paradoxically combined with rigid social strictures, but this New
Negro phenomenon of educated, self-determined Negroes sharing space
on equal footing with whites, and doing so in mass numbers was
something altogether different, and not all were happy about it. Ross
cites a passage in the Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois where Du Bois
writes of his distaste for one of the NAACP's founders Oswald
Garrison Villard, who married a white Southern woman from Georgia,
and adopted her stringent racial codes about not allowing any blacks
(and probably not any Jews either, Du Bois speculates) to set foot in
their home. As DuBois writes, "I knew the reasons for this
discrimination, but I could hardly be expected to be happy over them
or to be his close friend."

This is but one example of the cross-gender and cross-racial tensions
of the period, and there is much to chew on in Manning the Race. Ross
brings fresh analysis to a variety of pivotal moments and statements
of the era such as Booker T. Washington's writings and speeches,
Robert Park's sociological career and his infamous aphorism that the
Negro is "the lady of the races." Ross also makes some interesting
comments on philosopher Alain Locke's self-presentation as an effete
high-brow aesthete and how other intellectuals, namely Langston
Hughes and Claude McKay, responded to his image by trying to assert
their own manhood as artists of "the people."

Ultimately Ross pays close attention to the self-production of black
intellectuals, and this is what sets this work apart as important
scholarship on the study of black manhood. He ends by recounting how
some colleagues of his questioned why a nearly 400 page book on the
topic of black masculinity was necessary when a mere peer-reviewed
article might suffice. He also calls into question the over-reliance
on contemporary pop culture and scandal in discussions of black
manhood. "By insisting on the complexity, intricacy, subtlety and
richness of black manhood's cultural history, I hope – at the least –
that this book also resists this long-standing tendency to reduce
black manhood identity to the shock of the latest fad in clothing or
the prurience of the most recent racial scandal."

One of the great flashpoints in the history of black American
masculinity was the period of the 1960s and 1970s that included the
Black Power Movement and the Black Arts Movement. Rolland Murray
evaluates the literature of this period in a lean, but scrupulous
book, Our Living Manhood: Literature, Black Power and Masculine
Ideology. The title is a reference to Ossie Davis's famous eulogy for
Malcolm X, one of black America's most visible and inspiring symbols
of black manhood.

Murray surveys black literature of the 1960s and 1970s paying
attention to how the assertion of black manhood became the focal
point of the movements of that era. He begins the study with a look
at James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time (1963) and No Name in the
Street (1972) in which Baldwin wrote on the Nation of Islam and the
Black Panther Party respectively. Baldwin's relationship to Black
Power is of course one of the most vexing parts of his intellectual
legacy as many feel he acquiesced to the homophobia of the movement
instead of challenging it. However, despite the fact that Murray sees
Baldwin's critique of Black Power as "incomplete" he acknowledges
that "Baldwin allows us to begin telling an alternative story about
the evolution of nationalism, one in which the instantiation of
racial solidarity rooted in the masculine also produced its potential undoing."

Here Murray's critique builds upon the controversial and
ground-breaking work of Michele Wallace, whose 1978 book Black Macho
and the Myth of the Superwoman was a scathing and scandalous airing
of dirty laundry. In it Wallace suggested that the black power
movement was more about the reclamation of the black man's rightful
place atop the patriarchal black family and the black man's revenge
on the sanctity of white womanhood than it was about the uplift and
self-determination of the black community. As she infamously put it,
the objective of the male-dominated movement seemed to be "a white
woman in every bed and black woman under every heel."

Murray seeks to add to Wallace's work by emphasizing that there was
perhaps more of a critique of the masculine ideology of mid-century
black nationalism going on during the movement than we previously
believed. Naturally, Murray had to address Eldridge Cleaver's nasty
depiction of James Baldwin in Soul on Ice. He points to Baldwin's
response to Cleaver in which he tries to distinguish between his own
homosexuality and the forced homosexuality of the prison experience.
Baldwin wrote in No Name in the Street, "I was confused in his mind
with the utter debasement of the male – with all those faggots, punks
and sissies, the sight and sound of whom, in prison must have made
him vomit more than once." Murray sees Baldwin's formulation here as
an attempt to reassert his own masculine authority to speak for the
race, albeit a faulty and evasive one.

Murray goes on to survey some novels of the 1960s and 1970s that
interrogated masculine ideology in Black Nationalist politics. His
choice of genre is significant. The Black Arts Movement privileged
the genres of drama and poetry as more authentic forms of black
resistance and more effective means of getting the message to the
people than novels. Thus, Murray finds that some black male writers,
particularly John O. Killens, John Edgar Wideman, and Hal Bennett
among others, used the longer sustained form of the novel to carry
out a critique of the masculine excesses of Black Nationalism. Hal
Bennett's Lord of Dark Places (1970) provides one of the most damning
critiques of an overemphasis on patriarchal domination in Black
Nationalist politics and the black church, as well as an astonishing
critique of the culture of racism in America as a whole. (In fact, I
stumbled on to Murray's book while Googling for more information on
Lord of Dark Places.) I was delighted to see that Murray paid
attention to what I believe to be one of the more important and
underappreciated satirical novels in black literature. The main
character of the novel, Joe Market, is the best embodiment of James
Baldwin's idea (quoted earlier in Murray's discussion of Baldwin and
Cleaver) that "straight cats invent faggots so that they can sleep
with them and not become faggots themselves." Market is a hustler in
the classical gay sense of the term, pimping himself out to men for
money, all the while maintaining his own staunch heterosexuality. The
pornographic satire that Hal Bennett creates includes a critique of
the sexual hypocrisy and economic corruption of the black church, the
condescending fascination of white liberals with black sexuality, and
the sexually charged nature of the culture of racial segregation in
general. Unfortunately, Murray's analysis of Lord of Dark Places is
too brief (for my tastes at least), but it is encouraging to see the
novel slowly being reappraised by literary critics.

Last, but certainly not least, is Once You Go Black: Choice, Desire
and the Black American Intellectual by the GC's own Robert
Reid-Pharr. In Imagined Communities, his famous study of nationalism,
Benedict Anderson suggested that a "Copernican spirit" is necessary
to disrupt and dismantle nationalistic thinking. Reid-Pharr takes up
that challenge with Once You Go Black by taking aim at some of the
most sacrosanct notions in Black Nationalist thought. Chief among
Reid-Pharr's interventions is a direct confrontation with the idea
that modern black Americans are essentially the same persons as those
black Americans who were enslaved under chattel slavery. Instead,
Reid-Pharr insists upon his own modernity as a black intellectual, as
well as the modernity of the contemporary black American community as
a whole. Suffice to say you won't find appeals to reparations or
"post-traumatic slave disorder" in this book.

One of the most provocative chapters in the book is "Saint Huey" an
evaluation of the life and career of Huey Newton, co-founder of the
Black Panther Party. The cover of Once You Go Black is adorned with a
striking domestic photo of Huey Newton standing in his apartment,
shirtless and looking well-chiseled and buff, wearing white pants,
holding a copy of Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited. The photo is
meant to be a jarring juxtaposition to the more famous image of Huey
Newton (one that has adorned many a black college dorm-room wall)
seated on a huge wicker chair decked out in black leather jacket and
beret with a spear in one hand and a rifle in the other. In the
chapter Reid-Pharr effectively argues that any serious analysis of
the Black Panther Party's significance must take into account the
carefully crafted self-presentation and images of the organization.
Newton's dashing good looks were a cultural currency utilized by the
Party, as were their famous images of defiant blackness represented
by black sunglasses, black berets, black leather jackets and afros.

This emphasis on "style" in Black Nationalist politics became even
more prevalent in the 1970s when "black consciousness" entered the
American mainstream. Nowhere was the power of style seen more clearly
than in the so-called blaxploitation films of the 1970s. In the last
chapter, "Queer Sweetback," Reid-Pharr analyzes Melvin Van Peebles's
groundbreaking film Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971). This
film, like much of the blaxploitation cinema that followed it, was
all about style and spectacle, and Reid-Pharr makes much of the fact
that the main character, Sweetback, only speaks six lines throughout
the whole movie. While Reid-Pharr doesn't spend much time discussing
contemporary hip-hop, one can see how hip-hop's defiant posture
evolved out of blaxploitation era film by way of the black power
movement, and thus we end up with a popular cultural art-form that is
almost all style and emptied of much of its political substance.
Perhaps my favorite representation of this phenomenon was Public
Enemy's quick-stepping drill team which adopted the look of the
Panthers (sunglasses and berets) and the intimidating pose of the
Nation's Fruit of Islam, but with none of the actual self-defense
skills and training. They are clearly trained dancers on stage for
show. While I find some genuine creativity in Public Enemy's sound
and I respect Chuck D's political sincerity in recent years, it's
hard to take "Fight the Power" seriously when one knows the rights to
such a song are owned and distributed by some multinational media
conglomerate. (And, needless to say, the embarrassment that is Flavor
Flav pretty much speaks for itself these days.)

It is worth noting that two of the reviewed authors here, Reid-Pharr
and Ross, are self-identified gay men who have announced themselves
as such in their work. (I can assume that Rolland Murray is straight,
from the acknowledgements to his wife and children in the book, but
that is only an assumption.) Readers familiar with other works on
black masculinity studies will notice a preponderance of works in the
field by and about gay men. The GCs Africana Studies Group recently
hosted a successful conference on Black Masculinity in 2005, and I
heard through the gossip grapevine that the overwhelming presence of
openly gay men in the conference did not go unnoticed by some
detractors. This brings up one of my own pet peeves about the
political discourse around black masculinity, that it seems no black
achievement is considered legitimate unless it is carried out by
heterosexual black men. Sure, there is concern when we see high
incarceration rates and lackadaisical attitudes toward black
fatherhood. But too much of the rhetoric around the statistics that
more black women graduate from college than black men strikes me as
so much Moynihanism, and it unfortunately trivializes the genuine
achievements of black women. Likewise, we would also do well to
acknowledge that the black pool of genius has been populated with
many lesbians and gay men and that their contributions shouldn't be
marked with an asterisk.

Near the end of Once You Go Black, Robert Reid-Pharr writes, "We
should not continue with the logic in which there is no distinction
between the enslaved body and the body that now participates in the
writing of these lines." Clearly, such a statement is fraught with
troubling implications and I suspect it will be met with a great deal
of resistance as the book makes its way through academic circles. One
of the real challenges of the book is that Reid-Pharr's rejection of
victim-hood sounds dangerously similar to the rhetoric of cultural
conservatism. (Case in point, the title of Bill Cosby's latest
screed: Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors.) Yet,
what I find most compelling about Once You Go Black is that it is a
deeply local and deeply ethical book and Reid-Pharr is willing to
risk the misunderstanding in order to insist on the importance of
black political agency. There is a refreshing honesty in the way
Reid-Pharr directs his comments toward readers who are most likely to
pick up the book – academic and non-academic intellectuals who are
concerned with black and queer studies – rather than posturing toward
some mythical mass audience of street-corner readers. Likewise,
Reid-Pharr is concerned with announcing his own position – as a
professional academic intellectual, as a black gay man, as an
American citizen – as honestly as possible. Reid-Pharr uses the
particularities of the black American intellectual condition to
suggest possibilities for a more progressive intellectual practice at
this critical political moment. Once You Go Black is very much a
post-9/11 book, particularly in Reid-Pharr's analysis of "innocence"
in political discourse, considering that "America's fascination with
its own presumed innocence has become part and parcel of the many
apparatuses with which our country justifies and enacts its dominance
and violence." What is at stake in his book, and in the others
reviewed in this essay, is a reevaluation not just of the history of
black masculinity and Black Nationalist politics, but of the ethics
of intellectual practice itself.

.

An Infamous Explosion, and the Smoldering Memory of Radicalism

An Infamous Explosion, and the Smoldering Memory of Radicalism

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/nyregion/14about.html

By JIM DWYER
Published: November 14, 2007

On a brisk November morning, Cathy Wilkerson strides down one of the
city's finest streets, 11th between Fifth and Sixth Avenues, her
glance sweeping across the row of handsome town houses, alighting
nowhere in particular. "The street I remember," Ms. Wilkerson says,
"was a lot less polished."

If streets had memories, this one would recall a far less polished
incarnation of her.

On the morning of March 6, 1970, Cathy Wilkerson stumbled onto 11th
Street in tatters, bleeding and her clothes all but ripped off her
body. Her father's town house, 18 West 11th Street, which she had
borrowed on a ruse, had just been blown to pieces, killing three
members of the Weatherman group who were building bombs in the basement.

After the explosion, Ms. Wilkerson lived underground for 10 years,
surrendering in 1980 and serving less than a year in prison; the only
other survivor, Kathy Boudin, was captured in 1981 during the robbery
of a Brink's truck in which three people were murdered.

For many, the town house explosion defined the instant when the
highest-octane rhetoric of the era was dismally realized in the
rubble of the pulverized house and the bodies of three young people.
It sobered ­ though did not completely halt ­ the most violent of radicals.

And in the annals of New York life, the 11th Street explosion had its
own peculiar niche: The house had been built by a founder of Merrill
Lynch, and was next door to the home of the actor Dustin Hoffman,
whose desk fell into the rubble.

Until now, neither Ms. Wilkerson nor Ms. Boudin have spoken publicly
about the events. Now Ms. Wilkerson has written a memoir, "Flying
Close to the Sun," which unsparingly maps the idealism, fanaticism,
moral absolutism and personal passions that carried her to the town house.

She writes, "I abandoned myself to the sanctimoniousness of hating my enemies."

In a walk down 11th Street, in an interview, and in the book, Ms.
Wilkerson, now 62, a math teacher and the mother of a grown daughter,
describes her own acquiescence to violence as a slow-motion personal
collapse, taking place in a wider cast of people who had lost their
bearings in anger at United States policies in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Her father's house was being used as a factory for pipe bombs, with
the first one to be planted in an officer's club at Fort Dix, N.J.

"The political point of the town house was that we had to take on the
U.S. military, like we were a third world country," she said. "The
accident at the town house showed the absurdity of our approach."

As a girl growing up in Connecticut, Ms. Wilkerson had attended
Quaker meetings. At Swarthmore College, moved by the triumphs of
people fighting for civil rights in the South, she joined the
Students for a Democratic Society. African-Americans set an example
for women and others shut out of full participation in society, she
said, spurring the antiwar movement.

But those protests did not change foreign policy.

A cadre of individuals, prepared to use physical force not only to
stop the war but also to topple the government behind it, broke out
of the SDS.

They called themselves the Weathermen. Propelled by her desire to end
injustice, Ms. Wilkerson said, she joined them.

She describes self-criticism sessions led by individuals who used the
jargon of psychotherapy. Many in the ranks slept on floors and
survived on pennies, but the leadership enjoyed opulent creature
comforts. A strict "need-to-know" policy was enforced, meaning
individuals could share little information, creating a culture of paranoia.

In the interests of creating "new men and new women," she writes, the
leadership pushed an antimonogamy policy, giving joyless parties
where virtual strangers had public sex. "We threw ourselves into the
possibility of remaking ourselves as more effective tools for
humanity's benefit to the point of sacrificing our own humanity," she wrote.

In December 1969, a Weatherman gathering in Flint, Mich., called for
war on the United States, in bloodcurdling terms. For many, Ms.
Wilkerson writes, the message to take back to their cells was:
"Violence was cleansing and resurrecting."

That same fanatic heart, it would seem, could get 19 people to fly
airplanes into buildings.

In February 1970, Ms. Wilkerson was ordered to go to New York,
reuniting her with Terry Robbins, a leader of the group with whom she
had defied the antimonogamy policy. They set about building pipe
bombs, with Fort Dix the main target. She persuaded her father to let
her stay in the town house on 11th Street while he was away, saying
she had the flu. He reluctantly agreed. The rest of the group moved in.

On the day her father was to return, she was ironing bed linens.
Revolutionaries they may have been, but Ms. Wilkerson did not want
him to know they had been sleeping in his beds; it had never been her
own home.

As she worked in the kitchen, the room exploded. The pipe bombs in
the basement had gone off, detonating three cases of dynamite. Mr.
Robbins, Diane Oughton and Ted Gold were killed.

Ms. Boudin had been taking a shower, Ms. Wilkerson writes, and
together they crawled out of the wreckage. A neighbor brought them
inside and gave them clothes. They found a single subway token, then
walked to the subway on Sixth Avenue. They went through the turnstile
together and did not look back.

She helped in "symbolic" bombings in the early 1970s, including a
courthouse in California. By 1976, the war was over, and the group
had dissolved. "I was profoundly messed up," she said, but a new
daughter and three years of minimum-wage jobs helped her to reflect.
She turned herself in, came out of prison and began to teach math.

Her father has since died. Walking down 11th Street last week, she
recalled that after the blast, she did not speak to her father for 10
years, until she surrendered. "I said to him, 'I'm sorry,' " Ms.
Wilkerson said. "He said, 'It's water under the bridge.'"

She continued down 11th Street, veering for an instant toward the
house built in its place, but only to make room for people on the
sidewalk. She did not look up.

E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

.

Writers puzzle out Mailer's legacy

[2 articles]

Writers puzzle out Mailer's legacy

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mailer17nov17,0,2813587.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar

The provocative author isn't as widely read as other leaders of New
Journalism. But the literary world says he's a tough act to follow.

By Scott Timberg, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 17, 2007

Norman Mailer, who died last weekend at 84, was incontestably one of
the titans of American letters: novelist, journalist, essayist,
would-be politician and overall provocateur. Whatever the genre, he
was a powerful writer -- New Yorker editor David Remnick calls his a
"locomotive prose style" -- who could combine sheer intellectual
force with great literary finesse. As Peter Kaplan, editor in chief
of the New York Observer, put it, Mailer "made nonfiction writing
into an intellectual and soulful exercise," in the process
transforming American journalism with his "pyrotechnic" style and
"massive, cosmic" ideas.

And yet in the past week the literary world was not just mourning him
but also grappling with his complicated legacy.

"If there's a conventional wisdom over the last week, it seems to be
that his great literary talent was always at war with his judgment
and exhibitionism," Remnick said. "And there is no doubt in my mind
that some of his political judgments, especially early on, were foolish.

"But if you were to judge all literary reputations on consistent
liberalism, and even temper, you'd have a very small canon, wouldn't
you? It wouldn't just eliminate people like Pound and Eliot and the
obvious people who were edging toward fascism, but even people I know
now -- I wouldn't want them to be president of the United States."

Remnick added that besides the acknowledged classics such as "The
Armies of the Night" and "The Executioner's Song," such books as
"Harlot's Ghost," the 1,300-page novel inspired by the CIA, have a
lot of Mailer's strengths.

Still, for all of his importance to what's known as New Journalism,
Mailer is not as widely read as the other lions of the movement,
according to Marc Weingarten, author of "The Gang That Wouldn't Write
Straight: Wolfe, Thompson, Didion, and the New Journalism
Revolution," and he lacks the following those iconic three have among
the current crop of younger writers.

Sexual politics may have often kept this supposed sexist off college
reading lists, said his friend and fellow writer Gay Talese. "With
feminism so powerful in the academic world, he was not up there with
Toni Morrison."

Similarly, said culture critic Lee Siegel, who praises the late work,
including the recent "The Castle in the Forest," as well as the
early, Mailer was the object of envy throughout his life. He was also
disliked by many fellow Jewish writers and critics, Siegel said,
because he didn't write about Jewish life, and didn't effect their
gentility. "His personas were usually redneck Texans or tough Irish
cops, and that alienated a lot of Jewish critics."

His work was more difficult, with fewer surface pleasures, than the
other writers who merged journalistic and fictional techniques,
Weingarten said. "Hunter was a comedian, in a way, and Wolfe was a
deconstructor of a specific time in our social history. While Mailer
was sort of a dark skeptic of everything going on in that era,
neither a cheerleader nor a funny debunker." Thompson's books, he
said, became "self-help guides to personal desecration. And Wolfe was
more fun to read."

And especially as the nation's gender politics changed in the '60s
and '70s, he became harder for men and women to like because of a
machismo widely interpreted as misogyny. Though he was a founder of
the alternative press -- Mailer helped establish the Village Voice in
1955 -- he was not often claimed by a subculture that went in a very
different direction than he did.

"His propensity toward violence, the fact that he stabbed his wife
Adele, the Jack Henry Abbott stuff" -- in which Mailer lobbied for
the parole of a prisoner who killed a waiter soon after his release
-- "left a bad taste in people's mouth," said Weingarten. "That's why
they embraced Didion the way they couldn't embrace Mailer."

It's a shame, he said, because despite spotty recent novels -- "The
last decade has been a lost decade for him" -- Mailer's best
nonfiction work can compare with anyone's. (Weingarten is fond of
Mailer's writing about Los Angeles, as when he described the city, in
a piece about the 1960 Democratic National Convention, as looking
like it "was built by television sets giving orders to men.")

" 'The Armies of the Night' to me was the best examination of the
counterculture I've read -- anything that was wrong and right about
it. How the counterculture had alienated the civil rights movement.
By making himself a flawed character, with self-doubt and his own
divided loyalties, he made himself a conduit for all these questions.
It's more insightful than the books of Thompson and Wolfe."

Influence on writers

Remnick thinks Mailer continues to be "a big influence" on writers.

"As a young reader," Remnick said, "excited by the world for the
first time as a teenager and as someone who had it in mind to be a
journalist and writer, Mailer's work, particularly his nonfiction,
and his self-advertisements, were thrilling to me: The taking of ads,
the running for mayor, the essays assessing the other talents in the
room as he put it . . . the insistence on being at central events,
from political conventions to a heavyweight fight."

Novelist Marianne Wiggins said she had feminist problems with Mailer,
but that she admired his insistence on being "larger than life,
pugnacious, politically vigorous" and added that now "no one on the
American landscape" is doing what he did.

"We celebrate anemic, cautious writers in a time that needs more
Mailers," said Wiggins, author of "The Shadow Catcher." "Bless his
misogynist, much-missed, heroic bones."

Talese, who praised Mailer's endless curiosity and a graciousness
that was rarely remarked on, said his influence in journalism is negligible.

"I don't think he had any influence at all," he said. "What he had
was a healthy disrespect for journalism. He once compared journalism
to a goat: Every day you had to feed the goat, and the goat would eat
anything. It would eat tin cans, you can throw junk, all kinds of
stuff into the mouth of the goat. That's really a Mailer way of
looking at things."

Maybe tellingly, the great Mailer achievement of the last decade,
said Weingarten, is 1998's "The Time of Our Time," a career-spanning
doorstop of an anthology that shows the writer's incredible range and
power -- and recently went out of print.

Novel's declining power

Mailer sometimes wrote about the way the literary novel, and the
literary novelist, moved offstage during the course of his career. It
wasn't that the American novel had declined from its postwar heights
"so much as that the people we knew seemed to care much less about
novels," he wrote in "The Spooky Art." "One hardly heard one's
friends talking about a good new novel anymore."

This marginalization makes it hard to find a similar figure.

Ed Park, a founder of the Believer, saw a parallel in William T.
Vollman, who shares Mailer's wide range of interests. Weingarten
nominated Christopher Hitchens, because of his provocative opinions
and integrity.

Several others pointed to Dave Eggers, whose writing includes memoir,
novel and biography, and who runs a publish- ing cottage industry
around McSweeney's and the coast-to-coast educational effort 826 Valencia.

But Eggers is a subcultural figure who seems comfortable on the
indie-alternative edge: Despite his rabid following, it's hard to
imagine him running for mayor of San Francisco as Mailer once did for New York.

Or, say, head-butting Jonathan Franzen on national television, as
Mailer did to Gore Vidal.

Nobody, said Siegel, would have the guts to do that now. "I found
that absolutely thrilling. I'd love to see someone be himself as much
as Mailer was." With one gesture he cut through all the cocktail
passive-aggressiveness of the literary culture.

"Speaking as an editor, I don't think young novelists lack ambition;
look at Michael Chabon," said Remnick. "But they're not inclined to
do this other thing. They don't rotate their crops in quite the same
way, don't generally see it as their literary business to go to war,
to immerse themselves in a political campaign. I think that's too bad."

Can a literary figure be so central again?

Vidal, who discussed the literary writer's loss of prestige with
Mailer, doubted anyone would be read in 50 years since movies and pop
culture have captured people's attention.

But he said he'd miss Mailer's sense of fun. "He had radical notions
about everything. And whether they were correct or not was not
important: They were invigorating and life-enhancing and good for
others to hear." Vidal called "Barbary Shore" among his favorite of
Mailer's novels.

Talese said Mailer was more accessible and wide ranging than the
generation of writers who came after. "Don DeLillo would give an
interview to the Paris Review. Mailer would give an interview to
Hustler, and the Paris Review. Mailer would have a lot to say to
anybody. He thought a writer should have in his collection of friends
a range of classes. He would know cops, he could know prizefighters,
he would know secretaries of state."

"What I loved about Mailer was his fearlessness, his bravery," said
Weingarten, adding that the writer's belly-flops came from that same
courage. "Where do you see that now? There's a timorousness. I don't
think we'll see the likes of Mailer again."

scott.timberg@latimes.com

--------

Norman's conquest

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071117.BKREAD17/TPStory/Entertainment

As a hipster guru, Norman Mailer may not have made the 'revolution in
the consciousness of our time' he wanted, Norman Snider says, but he
certainly did so in the consciousness of more than one young writer

NORMAN SNIDER
November 17, 2007

When I was a teenager, my father haunted second-hand bookstores,
buying whole cardboard cartons full of used paperbacks. Rummaging
through the pile one day, I discovered a book, published a few years
earlier, titled Advertisements for Myself, by somebody called Norman Mailer.

There I was, mired in the early-sixties tedium of Toronto's Lawrence
Park Collegiate, surrounded by white-shoe WASPS, mostly headed to
Queen's University commerce and the family business. By the time I
finished with this collection, I was changed forever.

I was not only on fire to become a writer, I wanted to be a hipster
just like Norman Mailer. In an essay called The White Negro, Mailer
wrote, "One is Hip or one is Square (the alternative which each new
generation coming into American life is beginning to feel), one is a
rebel or one conforms, one is a frontiersman in the Wild West of
American night life, or else a Square cell, trapped in the
totalitarian tissues of American society, doomed willy-nilly to
conform if one is to succeed."

Not much of a choice there for me. Mailer's was a message calculated
to appeal to adolescents with a desire to rebel. The Churchillian
cadences, elegant in their very formality, had a prose rhythm as
compelling as anything Elvis ever put out.

Mailer was pounding a generational drum and, like millions of others,
I was all too eager to follow him into "the Wild West of American
night life." Failing that, the Wild West of Yorkville would do fine.
(There was a skinny kid in my class at Lawrence Park named Neil
Young. But that's another story.)

In the essays of Advertisements for Myself, Mailer, using all his
novelistic cunning, involved you intensely in his own persona not
only as a writer, but a writer with Napoleonic ambition. "The sour
truth," he wrote, "is that I am imprisoned with a perception which
will settle for nothing less than making a revolution in the
consciousness of our time."

Imprisoned with a perception. The guy had an unmatched gift for
combative metaphor. Not only that, he took you backstage in his
writing career, described what it felt like to be catapulted at the
age of 25 to worldwide fame with The Naked and the Dead, "a mode in a
new electronic landscape of celebrity, personality, and status."

Mailer was as hip as Kerouac but much more profoundly intellectual.
Marx and Freud stood behind his writing, and Stendhal and Malraux. He
didn't have much respect for the small ambitions of the competition.
J. D. Salinger was "the greatest mind never to leave prep school."
Ernest Hemingway was "afraid to think." Saul Bellow was "timid."

Mailer depicted himself, the embattled author, feuding with lunkhead
editors, critics and publishers, and battling his way onto the
bestseller lists with The Deer Park.

He showed you, page by page, his revisions to the novel, made under
the influence of marijuana and bebop, how he had created that crazy
rhythm in his prose style. It all looked pretty damned attractive to
me, a good way to spend your life.

Mailer became one of those charismatic figures of the times, like
Kennedy, Trudeau, the Beatles. The exact same lunkheads who detested
Pierre Elliott Trudeau were liable to deplore everything about Norman
Mailer and his books. It's been said a thousand times, but it's worth
saying again: Norman Mailer created modern political journalism with
his Esquire article about John F. Kennedy, Superman Comes to the
Supermarket. In Canada alone, journalists like Peter C. Newman and
Dalton Camp showed his influence every time they sat down to write.

Then, just as much as his pal Truman Capote did with In Cold Blood,
he made an indelible mark on the modern true-crime epic in The
Executioner's Song. Check out Stephen William's book about the
Bernardo-Homolka case, Invisible Darkness, if you doubt me.

At every step of the way, the protean Mailer created stylistic
innovations. In Armies of the Night, he wrote about himself in the
third person, creating a wry comic distance on his own persona. In
The Executioner's Song, he reversed field. He appeared nowhere in the
text, he excised all that Churchillian rhetoric; the sentences were
spare, short; all flashy metaphor was banished. The effect was
powerful. Last year, at 83, in his much-underrated novel about Adolf
Hitler, The Castle in the Forest, Mailer created a narrator out of a
spirit, a demon. What he had done, in fact, and brilliantly, was
reinvent the omniscient Balzacian narrator of the 19th century.

Mailer's influence was not restricted to those of us who aspired to
be writers. Those countercultural activists of the sixties, such as
Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, were clearly his disciples in their
shit-disturbing antics. Mailer once tried to take over heavyweight
champ Sonny Liston's press conference in order to promote a book in
front of a national audience. Hoffman lurched onstage at Woodstock to
promote his agenda. Like Mailer, Hoffman and Rubin weren't afraid to
be seen as ridiculous in order to make an impact.

It has to be said that there were few women among Mailer's admirers.
For feminists like Germaine Greer, he mostly served as a sparring
partner or a target. All the same, you had the feeling he represented
an attractive opponent for intelligent women such as Greer. They
wanted to hug Mailer, pudgy though he might be, just as much as they
wanted to wrestle him. They picked up on his disruptive methods of
making a public point. Nobody ever wanted to get in the ring with a
zhlub like Norman Podhoretz.

"The literary world," the 32-year-old Mailer wrote in Advertisements
for Myself, "likes to murder their writers, then decorate their
grave." For six decades, censorious critics tried to do Mailer in,
panning his books, ridiculing his marriages, his feuds, his run-ins
with the law. They were the ones who failed; Norman Mailer was
writing and battling, right to the very end.

True enough, like Kennedy and Trudeau, his legacy is bound to be
eternally controversial. However, his example and teaching endure.
For Mailer, as for Ernest Hemingway, the prime virtue was courage.
Without courage, they were always saying, there is little else good
in life. And that's lesson enough for anybody, man, woman or child.
---

Norman Snider's collection of essays and articles, The Roaring
Eighties and Other Good Times, has just been published.

.

The Re-emergence Of Protest Music

[2 articles]

Music In The 21st Century:
The Re-emergence Of Protest Music

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/17/181332.php

Written by Kevin Eagan
Published November 17, 2007

In this month's issue of Paste Magazine, there's a very brief
interview with John Fogerty on how to write a good protest song.

In the interview, Fogerty has this observation of the power of
protest music: "For years, I've said that if any one person stopped
the Vietnam War, it was Bob Dylan. In the '60s, millions of kids
began to hear his songs and discuss their meanings...Eventually that
evolved into a great big protest movement."

Fogerty, of course, had something to do with ending the Vietnam War
as well, since his songs with Creedence Clearwater Revival certainly
revealed the disdain and social unrest of the day.

Earlier this year, Fogerty released Revival, a true return to form.
Fogerty sings of his dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration and
the Iraq War. But his music is not overly preachy; in "I Can't Take
it No More," for example, Fogerty sings: "you know you lied about
WMD's / You know you lied about the detainees...I can't take it no
more." It's his most direct lyrics in a long time, but it reflects a
general feeling of dissatisfaction Americans share with Fogerty today.

Fogerty is only one example of a musician that realizes the power of
protest music, and uses it when the time is right. But Fogerty
represents the old school of protest musicians, and although other
artists (such as Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan) still write music
with reflected social commentary, what can be said of new musicians
doing the same thing?

Thinking of it in this way, I see a new wave of protest music coming
out, and it has the same freshness as Dylan had in the '60s. And it's
not just because there are a couple of popular bands that happen to
be politically minded, it's because most of America is upset and
confused with the state of the world.

Bands like Arcade Fire, Iron & Wine, and Stars have released albums
this year that deal directly with issues like war, religious
ambiguity, and societal change without reverting back to cliché's and
political division.

Last night, I watched a recording of Arcade Fire's performance on
PBS's Austin City Limits. The concert revealed a band at their
artistic height with their latest album Neon Bible, an album that
many critics have compared to Springsteen because of its culturally
minded lyrics that show the confusion and division in America.

The band played with an energy that brought the crowd closer, with
fists pumping in the air as if they are yelling "End the War!" When
they played "(Antichrist Television Blues)," singer Win Butler sang
of the fear and uncertainty among Americans today: "I don't know what
I'm gonna do / 'Cause the planes keep crashing always two by two /
Don't wanna work in a building downtown / No, I don't wanna see it
when the planes hit the ground."

The song also shows growing religious confusion: "the world can see
what your true Word means / Lord, won't you send me a sign? / 'Cause
I just gotta know if I'm wastin' my time."

The song seems perfectly relevant in a time of confusion. Just as
Pete Seeger focused on worker's rights in the '50s and just as Dylan
sang of the fear and uncertainty of Cold War America in the early
'60s, Arcade Fire sing of uncertainty in a time of 21st century
terrorism and religious conservatism.

It seems especially appropriate as our current President holds what
would otherwise be two opposing viewpoints of the world: he advocates
democracy and Christian values while also supporting unethical
torture techniques and a war that has crippled the world's goodwill
towards America.

And it's songs like "(Antichrist Television Blues)" where the true
protest of the state of America lies (granted, Arcade Fire are a
Canadian band, but that doesn't mean they can't hold strong opinions
of modern American society). Members of Arcade Fire aren't the only
ones revealing the state of the world, but their lyrics certainly
suggest a level of protest that rate up there with Creedence
Clearwater Revival's "Bad Moon Rising."

Really, all you need to do is look at the history of protest music to
see that, when America is in a time of identity crisis, musicians
respond back and challenge the status quo.

To use an example, Dylan's post-McCarthy, pre-Vietnam lyrics were
prophetic, and as a result, songs such as "The Times They Are
A'Changin'" and "Masters of War" take on social significance whenever
the world seems full of chaos. Equally, Springsteen's songs
portrayals of working-class American families in the '80s took on
significant meaning in a time of Reagan boom that left out the
average Joe, but his songs still have deep meaning for almost all
members of society today.

The 21st Century is here, and we are left with a President who has
carelessly brought us into war by using confusion and fear as a tool.
And we have serious questions too: Are we all crazy and President
Bush was actually right, or is he a reckless demagogue waging a war
of ideologies?

Either way, I agree with Arcade Fire and John Fogerty: something is
wrong, and something needs to change.

--------

[See URL for videos.]

Revolution Rock?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1b379504-aee5-40da-8bb2-6cb86cf6c0f7

The regrettable decline of the protest song.

by David Browne
Post Date Thursday, November 15, 2007

The first time I played Bruce Springsteen's new album, Magic, one of
its songs stayed with me for hours afterward. No big news there;
especially when he reunites with the E Street Band, Springsteen
always plugs back into anthemic mode. What was surprising this time
was that it was the disc's most explicit anti-war number. Arriving
near the record's end, "Last to Die" is driven by mournful-pageantry
violins and a bustling, nearly desperate intensity that recalls
Springsteen's earlier, '70s work. From the opening line--"We took the
highway till the road went black"--it places listeners in the mind of
an American soldier in Iraq going about his job, increasingly numb at
what he's doing and seeing, "stack[ing] the bodies outside the door."

"Last to Die" is neither the best nor worst Springsteen song of all
time, but the fact that it works as both words and music
automatically makes it one of the sharpest of the recent anti-war,
anti-Bush songs. In the last few years, the protest song has been on
something of a comeback tour. Old schoolers (Springsteen, John
Fogerty), alt-rock veterans (Pearl Jam, Green Day, Beastie Boys,
Flaming Lips), and relative newcomers (Bright Eyes, the Roots) have
all become furious enough by what's happening here and abroad to
write their own protest songs. But unless you're a music geek or a
web troller, chances are you've never heard--or heard of--most of them.

The problem could be radio's reluctance to play these songs, some
type of veiled censorship. (Let's not forget that after September 11,
the monolithic Clear Channel dispatched a memo to radio stations
suggesting they suspend playing such incendiary songs as ... "Fire
and Rain" by James Taylor.) But the under-the-radar quality of modern
tunes of dissent points to an artistic problem as well. Compared with
so many topical diatribes that came before (and a few current
exceptions, like Springsteen's "Last to Die" and a good chunk of Neil
Young's riled-up but grabby Living with War album last year), too
many rely more on bile than beat. Which means the protest song has
arrived at an odd place: more necessary than ever, and more marginal, too.

I was reminded of this situation last month, when I took part in a
panel discussion on war and popular culture at the New Jersey Vietnam
Veterans' Memorial complex. To prep for a talk on the way pop music
has (or hasn't) influenced public opinion on war, I listened again to
the Vietnam-era standards: Phil Ochs' "I Ain't Marching' Anymore,"
Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On," Edwin Starr's "War"--you know the
list. I was struck by the way the songs grew angrier and more heated
by the year. The gentle anti-violence sentiments of Seeger's "Where
Have All the Flowers Gone?" from 1961 gave way by decade's end to far
angrier missives like Creedence Clearwater Revival's scathing
"Fortunate Son." The transition is similar to what we're seeing now.
Paul McCartney's mixed-message, post-September 11 "Freedom" ("I will
fight for the right/To live in freedom," it declared, over a
lackluster, nursery-rhyme melody that telegraphed its ambivalence)
has been replaced by the rattled, angry likes of Bright Eyes' "When
the President Talks to God."

But something else about the old hits struck me as well: how
musically strapping and vibrant they still were. From all of the
above to the Temptations' "Ball of Confusion" and even a hokey bit of
cash-in apocalypto like Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction," the
songs stayed with you in every way. It was protest as pop, a
tradition that continued into the '80s with Nena's anti-nuke "99
Luftballons" and Little Steven and company's rabble-rousing,
rock-to-rap "Sun City."

Although the current batch means well, it also includes some of the
worst songs--topical or otherwise--of the last decade. The Beastie
Boys openly question the link between warfare and corporations in "In
a World Gone Mad," but the sludgy track is borderline unlistenable.
Green Day's cover of "Life During Wartime" has wonderfully sarcastic
lyrics about the absence of national sacrifice ("Doing
something/We're making changes/Like changing the brand of crap we
buy"), but a melody you'll forget the minute the song ends. The
Rolling Stones' "Sweet Neo Con" was more a publicity stunt than a
good song; Pearl Jam's "World Wide Suicide" was another example of
the band's largely shapeless bluster; and Pink's "Dear Mr. President"
was the first and hopefully last time we'll hear Bush bashing done
with a folksy, adult contemporary twist.

The near-misses are even more exasperating. Eminem's "Mosh" had
brilliant imagery and atmosphere--it felt like a march right into the
end of the world, and his line about a "mosh pits outside the Oval
Office" was terrific--but three years on, I had to play the song
again to remind myself how it sounded. (Warning: explicit language)

Bright Eyes' "When the President Talks to God" is a self-conscious
attempt to follow in Dylan's, Ochs', and Woody Guthrie's footsteps,
yet like too much of Conor Oberst's work, it's labored and strained.
Country music has weighed in with some decent entries--Darryl
Worley's "I Just Came Back from a War" and Tim McGraw's "If You're
Reading This" come to mind--but since the genre is more of a
storyteller's medium, it doesn't do societal rage as well as it does
personal heartbreak (in these cases, tales of soldiers who've died or
returned in a faith-shattered haze).

The closest thing we've had to a topical pop hit in the last few
years, improbably, has been the Black Eyed Peas' "Where Is the
Love?," which paired a sing-songy, lite-rap chorus with rhymes that
dared to equate the CIA with terrorists. Even if the song wasn't that
teed off--it was mostly a laundry list of generalized societal ills
and didn't even have anything approaching Eminem's quick-cut take on
America's role in emboldening Bin Laden in the '90s--the mere fact
that it made the pop charts at all was remarkable.

Why haven't any of the others joined it there? It's easy to rattle
off a list of possible explanations: a decline in pop songwriting, a
form of elitism that feels pop hooks cheapen the message, audience
(and radio) fragmentation that prevents one genre-specific song from
reaching a truly mass audience. Maybe it's psychological: In the way
the new songs are almost defiantly tuneless, they seem
self-defeating, as if musicians have faith in themselves as
spokespeople but have lost faith in the power of song. They appear to
accept the notion that only the converted will hear (and like) these
songs, a thought that never seemed to have occurred to Pete Seeger
and Lee Hayes when they wrote "If I Had a Hammer," or to Peter Tosh
and Bob Marley when they worked up "Get Up Stand Up."

Whatever the reason, modern rockers seem to have forgotten that
protest songs shouldn't be the equivalent of homework, and that the
message goes down a lot easier when the "song" is as powerful as the
"protest." As another old-timer, Dick Clark, might have put it: It
helps if it has a beat, and you can demonstrate to it.
---

David Browne is the author of Dream Brother: The Lives & Music of
Jeff & Tim Buckley. His biography of Sonic Youth, Goodbye 20th
Century, will be published next spring.

.

Kerry takes on 'Swift Boat' challenge

Kerry takes on 'Swift Boat' challenge

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerry17nov17,0,5368587.story?coll=la-home-center

The senator accepts a Texas oilman's offer to pay $1 million for each
statement from the veterans group that can be proven false.

By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 17, 2007

Renewing a debate that raged through much of the 2004 presidential
race, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Friday accepted Texas oilman T.
Boone Pickens' offer to pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove
allegations by veterans who disparaged Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Kerry and his top aides said that failing to respond more quickly and
aggressively to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had been a
mistake, and they attributed the Democrat's narrow loss to President
Bush, in part, to the attacks.

Kerry said Friday that he would no longer let such challenges go unanswered.

"I welcome the opportunity to prove that you are a man of your word
and that the so-called 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' lied," Kerry
wrote to Pickens. "While I am prepared to show they lied on
allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one
million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am
prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."

Pickens was one of the principal financial backers of television ads
that alleged Kerry had lied about his war experiences, didn't deserve
his medals and had betrayed soldiers with his vehement protests after
the war. The Texas billionaire, a prominent supporter of Bush and
other Republicans, made his $1-million challenge at a Nov. 6 dinner
in Washington sponsored by the American Spectator magazine.

Kerry said in an interview that he only learned of Pickens' gambit
this week, in an e-mail from a friend.

When the allegations against Kerry surfaced in 2004, a Los Angeles
Times review of Vietnam-era public records generally supported the
view put forth by Kerry and his crew mates -- that he had acted
courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three
Purple Hearts honestly.

All but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two
patrol boats Kerry commanded in the remote southern coast region of
Vietnam supported the view of him as a hero. Critics had offered
sometimes inconsistent and contradictory accounts, The Times found.
But the paper also concluded that Kerry had left himself open to
criticism by giving subtly varied accounts over the years of his
Vietnam service.

Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label
what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift
boating." Even President Clinton, in defending his wife, Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) last week, compared her presidential
opponents' barbs as "Swift boat"-style attacks.

In his letter to Pickens, Kerry suggested that they hash the truth
out in a public forum in either Dallas or Massachusetts. The
four-term senator said he would have Pickens pay the $1 million to
the Paralyzed Veterans of America, an organization that assists
troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Friday afternoon, Pickens issued a letter of his own, saying he
was "open" to Kerry's response but wanted more -- for Kerry to
provide his Vietnam journal, his military records, and copies of
movies and tapes made during his service.

Pickens also upped the ante: He challenged Kerry to risk his own $1
million, to be paid to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation,
if Kerry "cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue."

Kerry had left on an overseas trip by the time the counterproposal
was delivered. "It appears that Mr. Pickens is backing off his
original challenge," responded Kerry aide David Wade. "Sen. Kerry
took Mr. Pickens as a man of his word who, when he talks the talk, is
willing to walk the walk."

When questions about Kerry's service first surfaced in May 2004,
Democratic operatives saw the matter as an inconsequential diversion.
But they later concluded that the allegations had undermined a
central premise of the senator's candidacy -- that he was a brave
veteran prepared to lead America in a time of war.

The verbal jousting with Pickens may have been prompted by the
senator's remarks to a Boston-area chamber of commerce on the morning
of Nov. 6. In that appearance, Kerry said he was now much better
prepared to respond to attacks on his Navy record.

One published report said Kerry told the business group that he had a
"documented portfolio that frankly puts their lies in such a total
light of absurdity and indecency that -- should they ever rear their
ugly heads again -- we have every single 'T' crossed and 'I' dotted,
and I welcome that in a sense."

james.rainey@latimes.com

.