The Rag Blog

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate March 13, 1969
Ratified by U.S. President November 24, 1969
U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow March 5, 1970
Proclaimed by U.S. President March 5, 1970
Entered into force March 5, 1970

Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
…………………..

Comment.

The “crisis” over Iran’s supposed attempts to acquire nuclear weapons technology is a fraud. In the first place, there is no evidence that Iran is doing it; only US-sponsored allegations and EU efforts to placate Bush while pushing him toward diplomacy. On the other hand, there is indisputable evidence that the US is very much in violation of Article VI above. The US has never taken a single step toward disarmament of its nuclear weapons arsenal, an arsenal that includes more than 5,000 nuclear bombs and the vehicles required for their transmission to designated targets. This is many times larger than the number of such weapons that would trigger a “nuclear winter” and cause the end of most life on Earth, including the human species. It isn’t very hard to see the real danger, except for the American media. Thus, any article about Iran’s potential violations that does not mention those of the US is pure propaganda.

In addition, it is virtually certain that the US aided Israel in acquiring nuclear weapons, in clear violation of the treaty’s Article I. Israel, India and Pakistan (and Cuba) have all refused to sign the treaty, but we hear not a word of complaint from the US government about their blatant violations and refusal to sign the treaty.

This is an obvious effort on the part of the Bush administration to develop a justification for war against Iran and foster anti-Muslim sentiment. Further proof of this motivation is their demand to bring the alleged Iranian violations before the UN Security Council, where it is preordained that either China or Russia will veto the US initiative. This will allow the US to again declare the UN ineffectual, thereby giving it a specious rationale for a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But Iran is a large, powerful and ancient country with a population that will rally to its defense. And the US has no army available to attack Iran on the ground and will have no military allies other than its sycophant and fellow treaty violator, Israel, for its aggression. Furthermore, an attack on Iran will doubtless trigger a Shiite uprising against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are surprised at the extent of the demonstrations inspired by the cartoons depicting Mohammed, try to imagine the worldwide Muslim response to a US-sponsored attack of Iran.

So what can the dolts who run this place be thinking? Do they really want “the clash of civilizations” between the Muslims and Christians? I, personally, have no dog in that fight and would like to excuse myself from the consequences. On the other hand, having Christian and Muslim fundamentalists killing each other off might not be such a bad idea if one could find a safe vantage point – perhaps Scott’s favorite, Costa Rica, wouldn’t be downwind.

My friend Dale would say that they want these wars because they raise oil prices through the roof. If you want to understand them, think about the Exxon/Mobil and the Halliburton bottom lines. Another possible explanation is that they really believe God is on their side and the resulting apocalypse might bring on “the Rapture,” thus sparing the Christians from having to deal further with those pesky non-believers. Myself, I’m dismayed. Are they stupid or crazy or apocalyptic or greedy imperialists or all of the above? Regardless, it’s another wonderful example of testosterone run amuck.

David Hamilton

We took a 24-hour excursion to the country home of Gilbert Shelton and his wife, Lora. It’s a little more than an hour southeast of Paris on a slow train from Gare de Lyon in an idyllic village so small it’s only on the most detailed local maps. There is no commercial activity in the village, just a cluster of ancient houses, including one very grand chateau and a little pre-gothic church. The one recently-built home had to be built so as to conform to the existing housing. The village is in a shallow valley covered by forests and wheat fields, with poppies blooming along the edges. The nearest small city is 10 kilometers away and out of sight over the ridge. The area was the scene of considerable fighting between the French and the Germans in both world wars. Rusting ordnance is regularly uncovered as fields are plowed.

Their house itself is 18th century. Although somewhat remodeled during the 11 years they have lived there, it retains its original character. It is surrounded by gardens of vegetables, flowers, herbs and fruit trees and is enclosed by a moss-encrusted rock wall. Gilbert has plans to grow a giant pumpkin there. We had the quintessential French lunch on the terrace, accompanied by the bottle of Chateauneuf de Pape we had brought as a gift.

Then it was off to another nearby cute-to-die-for village where they were holding an art competition at the principal local chateau to benefit some local cause. The chateau’s current owner explained to us how the extensive gardens had been originally designed by Le Notre, who had also designed the gardens at Versailles. Much of it had grown over since the original work had been done. The chateau itself had been partially destroyed in the Revolution, but had been rebuilt by the family of the present owner. He explained that the property had only been owned by his family since 1848, “at the beginning of the Second Empire.” The competition was quite informal, with children and adults, amateurs and professionals participating. Gilbert did a pen-and-ink drawing of a forest scene centered around a straight row of poplars lining a stream that runs through the property. The chateau is only open to the public this one day a year and many neighbors were frollicking on the lawns and among the rows of antique roses. Sally and I appeared to be the only non-locals.

Gilbert continues to publish his cartoons. His current cast of characters centers around a modernized Freak Brothers-like rock band called “Not Quite Dead.” He says that copies of his recent work may be available at Oat Willie’s. He’s not sure. Lora works in Paris as a publishing agent for English-language books being translated and published in French. They also have an apartment in Paris and Gilbert has a studio nearby that he is in the process of converting into an art gallery. He urges Austin artists who want a Paris show to get in touch. It will only cost them a few thousand euros. He’ll supply the wine and cheese.

They have now lived in Europe for more than 20 years and have no plans to return to the US, even temporarily. “There isn’t much back there for me,” says the surprisingly understated Gilbert. He adds that they are currently boycotting the US. When asked under what circumstances he might end this boycott, he said, “When I can fly with my nail clippers in my pocket.” Don’t count on that happening anytime soon.

David Hamilton

The save-the-world topic is a set of arguments that improves in quality after the first few salvos get us past our shorthand versions and inspire us to defend and extend our thinking. Here are some contributions from my perspective.

[1] I don’t mind being seen as unpatriotic. It’s true, and I look forward to the day when national patriotism seems as quaint as Texas patriotism does today. One of the main contributions we can make to American political discourse is to push the idea that America and Americans have no special rights, and that we should be willing to abide by the rules that we want others to follow (and perhaps even let them help decide on the rules). The irony is that this idea is fully compatible with American traditions about equality before the law, due process of law, and democracy, which remain powerful and useful political ideals in spite of the serious shortfalls in their application. The most pressing problem with the neocons is not so much that they are thieves (so are the European ruling classes), but that they are vigilantes. Even bourgeois law offers evolutionary potential, and keeps the peace in a coarse way.

[2] Americans are not all that different from others, even if our flaws are particularly obvious just now. Greed and generosity, ignorance and wisdom, and fear and hope are prominent in all societies, often mixed in the same individuals. Many conservatives I know are painstakingly honest, excellent parents, and generous with their time and money within the boundaries they draw. Their fear (of other races, lifestyles, or countries) is partly from provincial ignorance, but also often reflects a sober awareness of the dangers of the world. While I agree that we shouldn’t waste political energy trying to convert the neocons, we should use every opportunity to encourage our compatriots to expand the boundaries of their community and to show by example how one can live large and more lightly at the same time. This is why the hippy-ness and feminism of the 60’s has had more cultural impact than the leftism. But one thing leads to another, and once people get used to a large world successfully shared with diverse others, most of them lose interest in conquest.

[3] A critical factual issue where I differ from many who have spoken is the question of how limited the resources of the world are. The assumption by many on both the left and the right is that sharing resources fairly would leave everyone much poorer than middle-class Americans are right now. I see this as profoundly incorrect – instead (if we can manage to make it through the next decade or so without irretrievably poisoning ourselves), we are on the verge of science-driven productivity increases from computers, genetics, and nanotechnology that will dwarf those of the industrial revolution. Much of this progress will take the form, exemplified by electronics, of greater utility combined with much smaller cost and resource usage (including much less energy). While I do not deny the danger of some fatal stumbles from this increased power, anyone who wants to shape the future needs to realize that this is the way things are going – we all are going to be rich or dead, not mostly at subsistence while fighting about how big to make the ruling class.

[4] There is a vital political message here – we no longer need to steal from poor countries to live well. We can also afford to produce things cleanly, with no net environmental impact. In fact, we will all live a lot better if there are no poor countries, as few poor people as can be contrived, and fully sustainable production processes for all human needs. How well America’s children and grandchildren live will depend much more on how quickly we make this transition than on how much oil we can grab. I don’t pretend that this tech-optimism analysis will placate the truly greedy, as is shown by their pathological pursuit of wealth (and tax cuts) even after they have more money than they can effectively use. It also will not replace the need for a vanguard whose desire for a fair world comes from the gut rather than an intellectual analysis. But this analysis will encourage those who would like to see a fair world but who lose their nerve because they are afraid that the price of that world would be poverty for themselves or their children. We need to show them that their fear should be in the opposite direction.

[5] I’m not an unbridled optimist, and see the tunnel as well as the light at its end. In particular, I see three places where this future is at substantial risk. Unsurprisingly, Bush is spectacularly wrong at all three. Each risk is a sector that is worthy of as much political work as we can manage or inspire.

[a] The environment – even with the much greater capability for remediation that I expect to see soon, we are being wildly reckless on greenhouse emissions (runaway positive feedback is a distinct danger) and self-destructive on air pollution by poisonous substances. We may luck out and get through this with only moderate damage, but major disasters could disrupt things enough to get us stuck in authoritarian poverty.

[b] Feminism – one element in my optimism is the decrease in population growth that prosperity has been shown to cause in every modern culture that has experienced it. This in turn is largely a consequence of improved status of women in the culture (generally accompanied by less oppression of gays and lesbians). Any successful attempt to return women and children to being valued primarily as possessions could set off population growth that would absorb the wealth increase. While I doubt that feminism can be reversed in the current developed countries, Bush’s encouragement of religious fundamentalism and attacks on birth control in the underdeveloped world are clearly having tragic consequences, and could conceivably lead to eventual conquest of the low-birth-rate cultures by high-birth rate ones.

[c] Property – the shift (exemplified by computer software and entertainment items) of economic value toward tiny-cost-to-copy information and away from costly-to-replicate stuff is steadily undermining the already-shaky moral foundations of the concept of property. The US response has been to adopt and expand draconian “intellectual property” laws and to attempt (with some success) to force the rest of the world to follow them. This is the mechanism to ensure that the head start that the US and Europe have on the world will widen rather than narrow as other countries develop. Probably we can depend on Brazil, China, and India to lead a repudiation of patents at some opportune moment, but this will be easier for them to do if people in the developed countries cooperate in discrediting them.

Enough already. Now let’s hear from the Luddites.

Hunter Ellinger

The Last Spring

This is the last spring for these few remaining vacant lots

down south of the river.

The signs are already posted:

“AVAILABLE!” and “COMING SOON!!”

The college even wants to turn the old golf course,

home to deer and coyote still,

into more cookie-cutter condos.

Five years ago, the creek was home to herons and big turtles.

Fifty years ago, this was all farmland and open woods.

Next year, it will be clear-cut, under construction, civilized, gone.

The small rains we had last week

have decked the woods in color.

A big mesquite, on the only corner without a gas station,

is covered in yellow flowers.

Does it know that this is the last spring?

Is its bright display a desperate bid for attention,

a vegetative cry for help?

We’ve noticed a few improvements since we were last here. The most important is the public toilets. They have been around for a long time, but previously they cost about half a euro (65 cents) and often didn’t work. They are quite a contraption. They are rounded rectangles of concrete and corrigated metal with a sliding metal door. Inside, they have a porcelain trough emerging perpendicularly from the wall into which you are to place your very personal deposit. However, there is no flushing mechanism that requires action on the part of the user. You just open the door and leave, feeling somewhat guilty that you have neglected something crucial. This means that no one in their haste is supposed to jump in just as you leave. The door closes automatically behind you and then an impressive watery convusion takes place inside. A minute or so later “libre” replaces “occupé” on the external instruction panel and it’s ready for reuse. They are usually quite clean and even have toilet paper. There are about 450 scattered around Paris and they can be, if not a life saver, at least an anxiety saver. Now they are free and generally working, in defiance of those who claim capitalist incentives are required for efficiency.

These public toilets are a great leap forward compared to Paris of old where one was often required to rush into a cafe with outside seating, claiming if questioned to be a client “au terrase.” This strategy was particularly difficult to pass off on sceptical waiters late at night when the outside tables were already being stacked for removal.

Finding a public toilet wasn’t such a problem back in my army days – at least for men – when they had these quaint metal urinals, frequently photographed by admiring American tourists. These, however, were for stand up use only and now have all been removed, apparently victims of emerging French feminism. But back then, men felt quite free to pee just about anywhere. This practice seems to have become unfashionable. In a related radical change, dogs are now required to have a human attached who carries a plastic bag.

Another advance is the Sunday closing to motorized vehicles of the two-lane freeway that runs along the right bank of the Seine. It’s now for the exclusive use of bicyles, runners, roller bladers, walkers, skateboarders and the like on that day. This is part of the effort by gay Socialist mayor Delanoë to reduce car use in central Paris by half by 2012 and the part of the plan that has met the least resistance. This freeway is one of several modern innovations within the heart of Paris that seem to have been later regretted. Other examples include the 688-foot tall Monparnasse Tower, a gray slab office building that looks like it was transplanted directly from Houston. Finished in 1973, it is a blight on the otherwise six-story central Paris skyline. Nothing remotely similar has been built since and we have heard rumors that they are considering tearing it down. When taking broad view pictures of the Paris landscape, it is recommended to have a traveling companion stand so as to block it out.

Another example of architectural misadventure is Les Halles, the once quaint but antiquated wholesale food distribution center where those seeking to follow in Hemingway’s footsteps would eat onion soup at 3 a.m. In the late 60’s it was converted into an ultra-modern shopping center with its original function transfered to the edge of town. Fortunately, it is mostly underground. They are already discussing a redesign. But the grand champion of modern architectural atrocities is the Pompidou Center, the National Museum of Modern Art. Its obnoxiousness is a metaphor for most of the “art” collected inside. I keep hoping that Christo, the contemporary master of artistic absurdity, will decide to wrap the whole thing, including the entrances, permanently. I predict that in 100 years it will have followed most of what is displayed inside into the garbage can of taste, but I’m decidedly old-fashioned in these matters.

An architectural achievement more to my liking was the recent remodeling of part of the Samaritaine department store. The entire 19th century Haussmann facade was maintained by a fantastic supporting superstructure while the interior was gutted and modernized. We are told that in many Franch villages, the law requires that new construction blend in with the old.

Another new architectural wrinkle in central Paris is an innovative extension of the right to housing. The city government is handing out two-person backpacker tents to people living in the streets. Most are identical and they appear in little clusters under bridges, in alleys and in the rear vestibules of churches. In what I regard as a special improvement, there is one group on the backside of the Pompideau Center. I doubt that foreigners travelling cheap qualify for them. This reform may not last. They seem to get very funky after extended use. We hear that there are also free public showers.

Finally; there is the new Batobus, the city-operated boat transportation system on the Seine from the Eiffel Tower on the west to the Jardin de Plantes on the east with eight stops at important points along the way. Private tourist boats have long been a major attraction. With the Batobus, the “floating metro,” the city has horned in on the action. These are large, wide vessels with seating for a couple of hundred people, largely covered with clear plastic canopies. With a ticket stub from any of several major museums you can get a five-day pass for 10 euro, getting on and off as often as you like. They are great for a romantic ride through Paris, except that they shut down about 10 p.m., when it is just twilight here at this time of year. There is also a new all night bus system running on a circuit that covers all six Paris train stations, but we can’t stay up late enough to use it and we walk almost everywhere we go.

David and Sally Hamilton

The current debate over a corporation owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates managing six US ports is intrinsically absurd. The factors that make it absurd, however, are not discussed openly, because to do so would call into question popular myths. The basic absurdity is that we could ever make our ports or any other element of our crucial infrastructure secure from attack by some military means.

Just over a year ago, I took a short cruise on a paddle wheel steamer on the Mississippi River at New Orleans. We passed under I-10, by a big chemical plant and among several large ocean-going vessels. A single large pillar rising from a small island in the middle of the river supports the highway. Being a person with some insight into terrorist thinking, I wondered what was to stop a private boat loaded with high explosives from pulling up beside that pillar in the middle of the night and blowing it away. In one move, they could shut down a major interstate highway and close down ship traffic on our largest river. And while waiting for the timer to set off the explosives, they could proceed downstream to fire a few missiles into the chemical plant before torpedoing an oil tanker anchored in midstream. Such scenarios aren’t at all hard to dream up. I could reel off a hundred before my second cup of coffee, all entirely plausible given sufficient money, will and expertise. The notion that some governmental entity called “Homeland Security” could actually prevent such an attack is illusion. I call this the Law of Immutable Vulnerability. In any advanced industrial society, the extent and complexity of the infrastructure make its secure protection from a determined attacker quite impossible.

This is not to say that the “Homeland Security Department” is completely useless. Like the “Defense Department,” it is basically a device to channel public money into the pockets of the owners of corporations that sell the illusion of security. A vast new government bureaucracy was created to transfer government funds to corporations controlled by those who make major contributions to powerful politicians. In terns of economics, government is a system of transfer payments. In a government such as the current one in the USA, they take from all and spend selectively, concentrating money into the hands of the owners of capital. Providing security against terrorist attack is just the motivational cover story.

So, if “homeland security” is such a fraud, why hasn’t the US been attacked again since 9/11? There are several possible answers. First, the attackers sought to exacerbate already-strained relations between the US and the world’s Muslim community. They also sought to expel the US military from the Saudi Arabian holy land. They succeeded on both counts without risking further attacks on US territory. They probably also underestimated the US response, the invasion of Afghanistan, the success of which necessitated a period of reorganization. In the meantime, the invasion of Iraq provided them with a new fertile field of activity. Also, the erosion of civil liberties in the US, especially for Muslims, has probably made domestic US operations more difficult. Besides, there have been more terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 than previously. These potential attackers have the money, the will and the expertise and the US has provided plenty of motivation and new recruits. So, ultimately, it’s only a matter of time, no matter how much money is wasted trying to avoid it.

The only real way for the US to avoid being attacked is to not piss people off in the first place. For example, telling Israel that US support would no longer be available unless they achieved a just resolution to their conflict with the Palestinians would save us hundreds of billions and who knows how many lives. Otherwise, “the clash of cultures” is inevitable and the “homeland” will never be secure.

David Hamilton

“My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th when we got attacked. I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people.” President George W. Bush in response to a question by Helen Thomas at his news conference on March 21, 2006.

There is a good possibility that the Bush regime will soon attack Iran with nuclear weapons, particularly if the situation in Iraq and their domestic approval ratings continue to deteriorate, as they very likely will.

The primary impetus for this attack will be Bush’s poor standing in opinion polls, with approval ratings currently hovering in the mid-30’s and falling. Such numbers spell doom for marginal Republican candidates in November who have loyally stood by Bush and now face reverse coattails. The Republican US Senate candidate in New Jersey failed to show up when Cheney went there to endorse him last Tuesday. Unless something changes radically, there is almost no doubt that the Democrats will improve their fortunes markedly in the fall congressional elections regardless of their stance on issues.

How can the Republicans possibly revive their political fortunes before November? If they don’t rebound they may lose control of at least one house of Congress, possibly opening the door to impeachment. The public’s high level of disapproval is primarily based on unhappiness with the failure of the occupation of Iraq. Unless a bird flu pandemic breaks out or the economy collapses, there is no other issue that might conceivably supercede Iraq in importance with the electorate. The situation within Iraq is largely beyond the capacity of the US military forces or political agents to change the historic tides running against them.

Iraq as a unified nation is very likely history. Of its creation as part of the Versailles Treaty ending WWI, a prominent historian of the period said, “Putting together the three Ottoman provinces and expecting to create a nation was, in European terms, like hoping to have Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs make one country.”* Ethnic divisions are rapidly solidifying everywhere outside the Green Zone. Integrated areas are ceasing to exist as each sectarian component flees to the security of homogeneous areas. Kurds now control in the north and Shiites in the south without central government interference. Sectarian violence is escalating all along the boundaries between ethnic communities and the Sunni-Shiite boundary runs through Baghdad. The Bush experiment with nation building has backfired.

What does Bush do in this situation? It is certain the Bush cabal will do something, but whatever they do, it probably will make the situation worse. To expect them to make a second term change toward a façade of moderation a la Reagan is completely out of character. These are “true believers” who will do everything within their power to conform reality to their ideology.

Although many in the “reality-based community” as yet cannot accept the likelihood because of all the political and military reasons against it, it is nonetheless clear from their pronouncements that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. Using much the same PR model they used to prepare the public for the invasion of Iraq, they say as much with their unrelentingly bellicose rhetoric and their unstinting efforts to bring Iran before the UN Security Council for alleged, but unproven, violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This move is entirely cynical because they know in advance that their demand for sanctions will be vetoed by the Russians or the Chinese. They believe this will give them a justification for unilateral action, based on the UN’s failure to take action. Their current demands that Iran end its nuclear arms program and threats to stop them by any means necessary echo unattainable prewar ultimatums flung at Saddam Hussein. Their propaganda seeks to establish that an attack on Iran is unavoidable. Unless restrained by determined outside forces, the question is not if, but the nature of their coming military attack on Iran.

Circumscribing their options are some unavoidable realities. First, they have no available ground army and they will have no military allies besides Israel. With every ally in the Iraq invasion and occupation now looking for a way to extricate itself, none will be willing to contribute troops to a far more dangerous invasion of Iran. Blair has been battered for being Bush’s sycophant and Berlusconi faces defeat in next month’s election in Italy.

Secondly, Iran is very much not like Iraq. Iran (aka – Persia) has been a major national entity for millennia. It has its own language, more than three times as many people as Iraq and they are largely ethnically unified, technologically modern and nationalistic. They have a powerful military funded by their very considerable oil revenues and the will to fight. Iran is also vast, rugged and mountainous, a much better defensive fighting turf than the flat deserts of Iraq. In addition, Iranians justifiably hate the US for the CIA-sponsored coup that overthrew their democratically elected Mosaddeq government in 1953, for installing and supporting the Shah during 25 years of brutal dictatorship, and for arming and encouraging Saddam Hussein to attack them during the 1980’s. These factors limit the Bush regime to an air assault.

Many think that the US will get the Israelis to make a surgical, conventional bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, knocking them out like they once did to the Iraqi nuclear facilities. But, Iran in 2005 is not Iraq in 1981. For starters, it is hard to bomb a nuclear weapons facility that you don’t really know exists. Based on the Iraq experience, US “intelligence” is doubtless spotty at best. Iran’s nuclear research facilities are dispersed, protected and often underground. Any conventional bombing is likely to be inconclusive and largely symbolic. It would, however, likely cause an environmental nightmare. World public opinion will be inflamed. Iranian retaliation through its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and on the world oil market would be certain, with great potential negative consequences to Bush’s interests. But if it were a nuclear attack, the whole world might be cowed into submission. It’s like Texas Hold-em and Bush wants to go “all in.” With the US in possession of 5,000 armed and ready nuclear weapons, who calls that bet?

The Bush regime espouses the neoconservative ideology that the USA has a historically unique opportunity to dominate the world and that because of its inherent virtuousness, it has the moral obligation to do so. This opportunity is based on predominant US military and economic power in the post-Cold War era, especially on the US monopoly of deliverable nuclear weapons that can hit anywhere on Earth. For the Bush regime, the lesson of Vietnam was don’t fail to use every weapon in your arsenal. They must also see their window of opportunity diminishing. The Iraq War has seriously weakened American imperialism and threatens to seriously damage the Republican Party. But as Bush and his political allies are weakened and isolated, they become more desperate and dangerous.

The neocon ideology is failing. It did not accurately predict reality in Iraq. Yet, they cling to their creed and intensify their efforts to mold reality to their ideology. Their blind devotion to their beliefs makes them unable to understand and interpret the meaning of events around them, the basic characteristic of psychosis. Add to this disability the anti-historical hubris of the mediocre sons of the overly-privileged now leading this nation. These are people who were born with the innate belief in their ability to be in complete control of their own destiny, yet too shallow to appreciate their limitations.

There are many signs pointing in the direction of a nuclear attack on Iran. Most pundits reject this possibility because they just can’t grasp that level of evil on the part of anyone, especially an American. But the US is the only country ever to have attacked another country with nuclear weapons and their justification will mirror the one used against Japan. Bush will say that a nuclear attack will save the lives of thousands of American soldiers, which would have otherwise been lost in a ground invasion. In both cases, the invasion was never going to happen anyway.

In 1945 the nuclear attack of Japan was to intimidate the Soviets. This one will be to intimidate everyone.

David Hamilton

* “Paris 1919” by Margaret MacMillan, p.397.

Here’s the pic:

I’ve come to understand that “history” is important. It defines the context in which those who come after (and even those who were present) extract the “meaning” of events after they have passed.

The phenomenological (what a word) process through which we “create” our interpretations of the past influences (if not determines) our sense of the possibilities for the future, our sense of the wisdom of various strategies and courses of action, and, indeed, our personal philosophies of life and how we live day-to-day. That’s why it is so important to have these historical debates and go through the process of reexamining and reinterpreting the meaning of past events.

From the review, I suspect I might have a different perspective on the “roots” of the new left movement. I can’t remember, for example, any explicit discussion of Christianity (liberal or otherwise) in most of what we did. Still, there is probably value in looking at the moral and intellectual underpinnings of what we thought and did in those days.

Without thinking much about it, I think three things were at work.

1. The beginnings of an understanding of what ultimately came to be embodied in the expression that “the personal is political” (and vice versa). This is where all the discussion about philosophy (existentialism, for example), religion and morality (doing the right thing long before WWJD was ever envisioned), and the many and varied movements that emerged for self determination, self-awareness and self-expression came into play.

2. The development of a historical understanding of what our nation (and US and multinational corporations) actually were doing in the world, starting with the War in Vietnam but going on much further. I remember Carl Oglesby’s insightful analysis at the time as to the roots of the War in Vietnam, for example.

3. The coming of age of the baby boom generation and the emergence of “youth culture” that was, simultaneously, both an opportunity for youthful rebellion and expression and a reflection of the natural development of a mature national economy in need of new customers and products. (Rebellion never had a chance in that mix.)

4. The “structural” fact that we (youth, the new left, etc.) had no real power and little ability to change the balance of power in the society we faced.

Somewhere in the interaction of all this — and many other things — the history of the ’60s and ’70s was written.

Doyle Niemann

… it was kind of surreal—I don’t ever remember any of us ever having anything positive to say about organized religion — even though the YMCA/YWCA buildings were our base of operations. I think most of us were — and maybe still are — basically pagans. Christianity was never mentioned at any of the hundreds of meetings I attended at these venues.

I too have acquired a profound sense of the importance of history, but I’ve probably arrived at a different set of conclusions. I think artists are the engines of social change; the Harlem Renaissance artists of the Twenties and Thirties opened the way to the Civil Rights movement of the Fifties.

Allen Ginsberg declared he had a constitutional right to take drugs and to sleep with any man he wanted to in the 1950’s, more than 20 years before Harvey Milk galvanized San Francisco’s gay community into a political force to be reckoned with.

Jack Kerouac pointed out “the road” and the “Rucksack Revolution” to millions of disaffected Americans in the late Fifties, even though they didn’t achieve critical mass for another decade. I think Janis Joplin had far more more influence on late Twentieth Century American culture than any other woman. These artists contributed more to the way we Austinites of the sixties led our lives than any group of religious liberals. Maybe all reality and our personal identities are, in the final analysis, socially constructed; perhaps the personal in fact turns out to be the political (and vice versa).

Jeff Jones

With all due respect, Doyle, you are a year or two too young. I believe the Rossinow book concentrates, when digging up roots, on an era which was already fading when I came to Austin in ’64. Certainly George Goss, Val Liveoak, both Frances Barton and Elaine Brightwater if I’m not mistaken, Benny Adams, and George Vizard were Christian-motivated activists at first, anyway, and this is not to diss Jewish-motivated activists (Austin had a few; oh man, Thorne, Alice, help me out, the beautiful, big, red-headed woman from Houston who played guitar?) George Vizard seriously considered the Episcopal priesthood at one point. Chet Briggs, who spearheaded Vietnam Summer here in ’67, was a religious activist, I think, and I’m sure there were many more.

“Half-Asbury House”, named for Asbury Methodist Church in East Austin, which Goss, Adams, and others attended when Delwood was still a “black” (if middle-class!) neighborhood (before Jim Simons moved there!), was a hotbed of radicalism in West Campus, on a par with the Ghetto but shorter-lived, where late-night “rap sessions” over wine and weed earnestly examined Christianity in a social context, i.e., racism, as much as tactics for the next sit-in. Non-violent resistance was certainly rooted in Christianity as much as in Ghandian philosophy.

The Methodist Student Center was a seminal gathering place for activists, as was the old YMCA, that’s “C” for “Christian”, which of course you will recall well. Later on the Catholic Student Center south of campus also got into the radical events/philosophies act. I met the first person who turned me on to pot at the Meth. (I was living in the Methodist dorm, a year after Alice and Terry Martinez were there; nobody stayed any longer in that dump than they had to!) The workbooks for the first Vietnam Teach-in, spring of ’65, were mimeographed, collated, and stapled at the Meth; Bob Speck recruited me to help. Bob Breihan there was, of course, a stalwart supporter of peace and justice for many, many years.

But the dominance of religiously-motivated activists in campus peace (ban the bomb) and civil rights activity was, like I say, already fading by spring of ’65, as more people got involved, with different, and equally valid, motivations.

Mariann Wizard

What makes the artists so important is that the spread of truth in the world is limited much more by lack of demand than by lack of supply. To open the mind, you have to wake the spirit with stories, songs, poems, proverbs, and images. Or a good slogan or Rag headline.

Hunter Ellinger

— The Rabbi at Hillel was a big supporter too…. —

Yep. Not that I disagree with what Jeff and Hunter are saying about the importance of art, song, etc – (“everytime I go to town, the boys keep kickin’ my dog around!”) but look at Hunter’s choice of words – proverbs, awake the spirit, etc. – man, those are religious roots! That part’s all wrapped up in Roy’s Lounge for me, “We Shall Overcome” and “We Shall Not Be Moved” send chills up my spine today, even if my participation came out of having a cute, black lab partner and, before that, reading Malcolm X, and, before that, watching the rise of Muhammad Ali, and the police dogs of Alabama, on the evening news.

I went to church all the way through high school – required in my mama’s house! – and it started there, too, wondering, “Why is everybody here white if Jesus loves all the little children of the world?”

I don’t think we will ever isolate the revolutionary germ that bit us – it was in the air, everywhere. MAD Magazine (sixth grade onward) was as radical an influence on me as anything after.

Mariann Wizard

Speaking of the New Left and Christian roots, George was an acolyte at All Saints Episcopal Church when I was still going with my family during my first years at UT. Recently, I have been involved with Austin’s Religion and Labor Network. The Network has been active here for about a year building bridges between the faith community, organized labor, and immigrant workers’ rights projects. I figure any bridge that takes you in a different direction than the fundamentalist (Timothy McVeigh and Osama) one is worth constructing at this point in the Empire’s bizarre declining years. Does anyone else find it ironic that the networks are doing shows on Rome while Bush is in Crawford fiddling? What a frat boy.

Peace, Alice Embree

The religion/politics connection that I found interesting during the civil rights movement was that many people raised as racist Baptists were troubled enough by “What would Jesus do?” concerns to seriously examine the issue, and to withdraw support from the racebaiting that had been very effective politically up until then. They never agreed with sit-ins or marches, but also not with the police dogs, and they voted for Ralph Yarborough in spite of the “nigger-lover” accusations that had previously been quite effective.

But it seems to me that most of the Christians who actually ended up as leftists were predisposed toward “nothing human is alien to me” and then found that Jesus was on their side (which I agree is a fair reading, but so are Buddha, Marx, and Bob Dylan), rather than being recruited into the revolution via Christianity. This became more obvious later, since the soundness of the gospels on peace and racial
discrimination issues is not at all matched on feminism, but the people of this sort kept pushing for progress.

Hunter Ellinger

The Catholic Student Center was a partner with The Rag in the mid-1970s, back when I labored as Hezekiah J. Funnel on the Letters page of The Rag in its later years. One of my enthusiasms was about letters we would get from people behind bars in state and federal prisons. They loved the Fabulous Furry Freak Bros. cartoons! No one objected to my encouraging prisoners to subscribe, which they did, by the hundreds, from all over the country. We even got subscriptions from military brigs in Germany and Japan!

Those hundreds of free subscriptions didn’t help The Rag’s bottom line and I always wondered if that drain of revenue hastened The Rag’s demise. At one time, I started a Pen-Pal project to match people outside prison with people inside; you know, “write your pal in the pen.” I asked all the local churches and one, the Catholic Student Center, responded. Father Robert Rivers, a Paulist priest, took this project on whole-heartedly. At one time there were 70 people at the Catholic Student Center corresponding with prison-bound Rag subscribers. The project ended when Bob was re-assigned. I was not then a Christian, but that was never an issue for Bob, who is now active in the Paulist National Catholic Evangelization Association.

Danny Schweers

The circles go round and round…. it’s amazing how the arguments of today mirror in so many ways the ones of the past.

For myself, I think the fight for social change, peace and justice is always a fight to win the support of 51% of the people. And they aren’t “bubbas.”

While it might truthfully be said that they are uninformed, uninvolved, unmotivated and even misguided, the “people” we all used to claim to want to speak for have their own ways of speaking and thinking. Unless we understand that — and learn how to define our issues in their terms and to correctly distinguish rhetoric from reality — we will continue to preach to the converted and whistle in the wind.

Having had the experience now of several times running for and winning (sometimes) elected office, I’ve had to confront this question head on. The district I represent now in the Maryland House of Delegates is among the most diverse in Maryland. It is made up overwhelmingly of low and moderate income households — 40% or more are first or second generation immigrants (the majority Hispanics, but also a lot of Africans, West Indians, Asians and others), plus young and older African-American families. Less than 20% whites (the majority being older residents). There is also a good sized gay community spread throughout the district and mixtures of lots of other cultures and groupings.

I’ve found that the critical issue is one of trust and the ability to establish a relationship feel that you will do a good job working for and, just as importantly, with them. The more I have gone out and interacted with people, the more I am convinced that it is possible to win people over. That’s not to say it is easy. Words alone rarely do it. And certainly ideology, rhetoric and political theory never work.

In an ironical way, I think it is a question of “values” — not the kind of moral values spouted by the religious right (or the left) — but the kind of values that people use to make decisions in their own lives. That is a debate that the left has too often foolishly abandoned in recent years, leaving the field to the right.

I recall a discussion we had on this listserv not long ago about the “religious” roots of activism in Austin. That’s an example of what I think is important. Not necessarily the “religious” part, but the kind of values that propelled people to action.

I believe change is a process — to borrow another term from the past, a dialectical process. I distrust anyone who says they know how it will develop, but there is no question in my mind that anything that moves people towards progressive involvement is part of that process. That includes Cindy Sheehan, Move On and even Howard Dean. As was true before, any role that we might have in providing leadership and direction depends on our ability to be engaged in the processes that move people towards action.

Doyle Niemann

The nice thing about imperialism is that it motivates others to defeat it. For now, most countries are still tip-toeing around the U.S.A. because of the nuclear arsenal and due to the destabilizing effect on international economic activity of cutting off the U.S. markets. In one particular, though, the rest of the industrialized world has an anti-imperialist strategy – even Great Britain is in on this one.

Exploitation of renewable energy is the main feature of this strategy – particularly solar-derived power. Ten years ago, largely as a function of government (NASA and military) contracts, the U.S. was the world’s leading producer of photovoltaic generation devices. Now there is no U.S. manufacturer in the top 10, although there are a lot of start-ups and GE is talking a good game. The U.S. ranks third in cumulative, installed capacity; but, if it were not for tax breaks and other incentives in California and New Jersey (of all places), this country would be in a relative holding pattern.

Japan is now number one in installed capacity and in manufacturing output. Germany is number two. Japan has more than three times the installed capacity of the U.S. and produced five times the solar cell capacity in 2005; Germany has double the U.S. numbers in both categories. Four of the top five manufacturers in terms of rated output are Japanese, five of the top 10 are European (including the solar division of British Petroleum).

Germany has rebates and incentives that cut the cost of modules roughly in half. Japan has energy (petroleum-based) prices at an unsubsidized level – the upshot is that their manufacturing output for “solar modules” is sold out for some time to come. Spain, I read recently, has promulgated policy to require new roofs to be constructed with photovoltaic capability. Shanghai has a similar “100,000 roofs” policy.

These are the numbers that are reported by “Western” interests. China, India and Russia all have extensive policy and capacity development projects designed to diminish reliance on hydrocarbon-based energy production. China in particular aims to become the world’s chief solar power producer and purveyor. The Chinese government instituted a policy at the first of this year that includes reducing the cost of solar modules by about 60 percent in the next six years. The Chinese intend to invest $180 billion (billion, not million) in photovoltaics over the next 14 years with a target of 80 percent (45 percent in terms of compound rate) growth in manufacturing and use per year over the next five years, as a starter. Chinese and Japanese technical papers seem now to dominate both the engineering and the scientific conferences, and Indian researchers are just getting warmed up.

One of the myths that the anti-solar (oil-supported, of course) contingent promotes is that the energy cost of solar cell production is more than the cell’s output during its operational lifetime. Research now shows between one and four years of energy payback, depending on the technology. As to cost per se, payback ranges from four to 10 years, depending on local rebates, tax credits, and other subsidies. When China succeeds in cost reduction (and the other big suppliers are forced to price compete), the payback will be two to four years – without applying the price increases that we know are coming in petroleum. The lifetime of most modules is generally rated at about 20 years, but experience with actual installations is showing that this is an underestimate. Do we get the picture?

And these are just the standard, silicon-based solar cells. Interestingly, there are a large number of new developments here in the U.S., too, despite virtually no federal support for research or development. Some of the new approaches are cosmetic to some degree, such as integration with roofing material, window glass, or coatings; but, when you consider that roofs, windows, and outside walls make up a lot of single-purpose surface area, why not expand their functionality?

Much of the improvement is driven by the goal of increasing conversion efficiency. Materials such as gallium arsenide tolerate higher temperatures, which permits the use of relatively cheap light-concentration methods and materials. Some others, such as nitrides of gallium, indium, and copper make use of a wider spectrum of sunlight than the standard silicon material.

Much of the R&D has been done in the U.S. over the last 30-plus years in support of the space program. All of a sudden, however, the rest of the world has apparently all realized at once how they can escape the giant thumb. I don’t know if they whispered this to one another at UN cocktail parties or how this movement arose. I’m guessing, however, that the Japanese figured it out first.

Meantime, the Russians re-federalized their oil and gas industry to finance their re-engagement with science and industry; and the Chinese put together an overall strategy to exploit the U.S. market to raise capital, make nice with the hydrocarbon suppliers for the short-term, and develop renewable energy resources for the long-term.

I know that it’s Pollyanna-ish, but I’m still optimistic. I think that imperialism is finally being seen for the anchor that it is in sectors that tried to play along in the past. And I think that a broad segment of the world is doing something about it. The petro-sector of the U.S. ruling class appears to have overplayed its hand with its hired-hand federal government. One outcome is that the world’s oil producers figured out in a hurry that they could sell to someone else besides U.S. energy companies – even if on credit – while the U.S. was pummelling the southwest Asian tar-baby.

One practically revolutionary strategy for fundamental political change (i.e., diminishing the influence of the petroleum industry) in this country is to push for rapid alternative energy development at every level. Almost nobody will disagree with the purpose of this movement. Before long it must be allied with public power to prevent the usual co-optation, but in the short run it’s radical in its own right.

Paul Spencer

What’s cheap? It’s relative. If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, forget Parisian holidays. Under those circumstances, spending a month on vacation almost anywhere is unlikely and Europe is a bourgeoise indulgence beyond your means. Even on the relative cheap, we expect to spend more than $7,000 for two for a month in Paris, all inclusive. It can be done cheaper, but that is cheap. A young guy with a quality pack and sleeping bag was sacked out in the Place la Republique this morning when we passed by. Back in my army days, I spent a flea-bitten night in the vestibule of the Gare de Austerlitz after having missed the last train back to my base in Orleans. Sleeping in the street is not uncommon and is tolerated, but we are a bit long in the teeth to employ such approaches. If you stayed in the countryside, bike-toured from one campsite to another, bought all your food in grocery stores and cooked over your butane camp stove, that would save a lot. But is that why you came to Europe? Much depends on how hard you want to push the economy plan and whether it’s ultimately worth it in terms of your enjoyment. But the simplest key to budget travel in Europe is to avoid, as much as possible, hotels and restaurants.

A major factor is what time of year to go. We recommend “shoulder season,” either late spring (May 1 through June 15) or early fall (September 1 through October 15). The weather is likely to be good and the dense throngs of tourists either haven’t shown up yet or have already gone back home. The current late spring has been relatively cold in Paris, but I’m enjoying it, knowing the heat that awaits back in Texas. Prices for flights and housing are lower during these periods than in the summer, although not as low as in winter. September is especially nice in the French countryside, with harvesting taking place, particularly of grapes. Provence at this time is the most beautiful harmony of nature with a human contribution I’ve ever seen.

Getting here really cheap requires a little work. I credit Jim Franklin for the following advice, the airline scam, which I have yet to try. Buy a discount ticket from a travel agent as far in advance as possible. These tickets are much cheaper than anything the airlines will offer you, but they can’t be changed without paying a hefty penalty. Book it for a time that will be particularly busy for the airlines, maybe a Friday afternoon departure. You want to be on a flight that will be overbooked. Just before departure, an agent for the airline will announce that they will offer a several hundred dollar incentive for anyone who volunteers to give up their seat until the following day, and they’ll give you hotel and food vouchers to cover the wait. Jump on it. It will cost you an extra day of travel, but you may get a round-trip ticket to Europe for les than $500. Actually, if you do it a few days in a row, you might get here free.

The most significant savings can be achieved by staying long enough in one spot to get an apartment instead of a hotel. Since Paris is the number one tourist destination in the world, there are hundreds of short term rental furnished apartments available here. In fact, they are all over Europe and some accept stays of as little as three days. They are all on the Internet. By far the best site we have found for them is Homelidays.com. Last time I looked, it had 13,000 properties offered just in France and more than 21,000 worldwide. When I refined my search to a Paris apartment between 400 and 600 euros a week, I had 700 options. It is not an agency. You deal directly with the property owners. Each listing has very detailed descriptions of the property and all its amenities, usually including several pictures, even the languages the owner speaks. We are paying 1,800 euros (about $2,300 declining dollars) for a one-bedroom apartment in the very center of Paris for a month. The hotel next door is more than 100 euros ($125-plus) a night for less than half as much space with no fully equipped kitchen, no TV/DVD, no stereo, no free telephone service to any landline in the world, no washing machine and no computer, all of which we have and much more, besides the fact our place is cute as hell.

This savings on housing, however, is small compared to the savings on food that can be achieved with an apartment. When in Paris, one must sample French cuisine, but not every meal or even every day. Besides, there are great ingredients available in the local markets and specialty food stores (boulangerie, fromagerie, etc.) and you can make your own French cuisine – especially if you’re married to Sally Hamilton. With an apartment, you can cut your food budget by at least half. Then when you go out to eat, you can go for some really good stuff without cringing.

When you eat out, French food is not your cheapest option. The best deals are probably at a “traitoir asiatique,” little Asian deli/buffet places – fried rice for one euro per 100 grams, curry chicken for two euro per 100 grams, etc. They’re everywhere, but quality varies greatly. Traitoirs with other types of food are also common.

The book “Cheap Eats in Paris” dropped the cheap from it’s title. There are about 20,000 places to eat in Paris, restaurants; bistros; brasseries, salons de thé, etc. No comprehensive guide to them is possible and those that may try to cover the cheaper places are taking a shot in the dark. It’s best just to go to a neighborhood outside the principal tourist centers and spend 15 minutes walking around making comparisons. All French eating establishments are required by law to display their menu outside. Compare prices, what places are popular and what people are eating. There will almost always be a “menu” or “formule” which offers multiple courses for a price lower than a la carte. Restaurants usually have fixed hours; noon to 2:30 for lunch and 7:00 until 11:00 for dinner. Don’t go to one of these places at 2:15 for lunch and expect their best. A 19.6 percent tax and 15 percent for service are almost invariably included in the stated price on the menu. Tipping beyond that is very minimal and really for something extra. Lunch is always a better deal than dinner. If there are tables outside (au terrasse), things may cost more there, especially if you only want drinks.

Eating French food is an essential part of the France experience. But you better be ready for at least $25 per person without wine for anything memorable. Most restaurants offer “pichet de vins,” half liter pitchers of “vin ordinaire” for much less than the bottle or glass price.

How you access your money is another potential savings. In Guatemala, travelers checks are the best option. The banks there give better rates to change them than to change cash. And that rate is very close to the bank-to-bank currency market exchange rate. But in Guatemala, you never know exactly what currency exchange and transaction fees are going to be added when you use insert your plastic in an ATM machine. Also, some bank accounts in the US offer the benefit of free travelers checks. In Europe, on the other hand, travelers checks are completely passé. The rates to exchange them are a rip-off and many banks here won’t even bother with them, leaving you vulnerable to the not-so-tender mercies of currency exchange storefront operations. The best method here is to get chunks of cash (I get 200 euro at a time) on a debit card at the ATM of a bank that has a corresponding relationship with your US bank. This gives you the best possible exchange rate and the fewest transactions. Then pay your expenses in cash. Using credit cards for each purchase may open you to multiple fees. My experience is that changing currencies anywhere in the US before you leave is done at very poor rates.

Hope this information is helpful and more of you are encouraged to internationalize. A bientot.

David Hamilton

The ultimate test of every parent, I believe, is whether our children grow up strong, confident and as happy as anyone can be in this troubled world of ours. With a daughter like Cassi, how could the world not be a better place? This is what family values are all about.

Doyle Niemann

Some of you may already know that last night I had the honor of presenting my father with the 2006 Maryland Equality Out for Equality Award at their annual gala. It was an awesome night that I want to share with you as I am very proud of my father and the work he has done to establish equal rights in my home state of Maryland. It was kind of exciting to be paraded around by my dad and introduced to all kinds of politicians and activists. Since it’s an election year, the candidates were out in full force (including my dad who is up for reelection this November and has huge stickers on his car). And it was a bit unnerving that everyone seemed to already know who I was and overly delighted to meet me… seems I have become the “other famous gay daughter,” at least in Maryland. Woohoo.

So, we started the evening in the VIP reception where my parents told my brothers and I to get as many free drinks as we could. Of course I was hoarding them, as I was so nervous about my speech. My mom couldn’t stop talking about the pink “Equaltini’s” she was drinking – thankfully she only got two. The director of Equality Maryland told me that they sold over 500 tickets, which made it a third larger than it was the previous year. My family and I sat at a table with some other politicians and on our seats was the program for the evening’s events. Luckily it didn’t say who was presenting the award to my dad (didn’t want to ruin the surprise), but it did have the following insert about him to explain why he was receiving the award.

Delegate Doyle Niemann (D-Prince George’s County)
2006 Out for Equality Award

“I am casting this vote because I believe in family values. I am casting this vote for my daughter who I love dearly who is 25 and is in a committed relationship with another woman and has been for the last year.” When these words were spoken by Delegate Doyle L. Niemann (D-Prince George‘s County) to his colleagues during a debate in the House of Delegates on the Medical Decision Making Act, every legislator took notice. Days later, he told the Washington Post that he invoked his daughter’s name when speaking because “only when homosexuality becomes an abstraction do people seem to lose their sense of tolerance.”

Del. Niemann has emerged as a true leader for LGBT rights in Annapolis. He talks privately with colleagues about the folly of supporting a constitutional amendment; serves as an advisor to Equality Maryland’s legislative committee; and has emerged as a high profile advocate for marriage equality. Whether he is penning an Op-Ed in the Gazette about his interpretation of God’s will with regard to marriage, speaking at a Lobby Day rally before hundreds, walking out of session to protest the shenanigans of Del. Don Dwyer, or offering an impassioned speech on the floor, Del. Niemann has put the strong and proud face of a father who loves his daughter on an issue that needs more people just like him – people who are willing to stand up and be counted.

We tried to keep it a secret that I was presenting the award to my dad so when the comedian (not Suzanne Westenhofer as I had hoped – she was sick – but this guy was funny) introduced me, my father turned to me with this surprised look and I knew he never found out the real reason why I was home this weekend. So, I walked up to the stage in my fancy J-Crew suit, thanks to Shelly, and luckily didn’t trip. I was incredibly nervous – as I usually am when I have to speak in front of a crowd – but there was a podium and no one could see me shaking like crazy. The following is what I said:

Good evening. My name is Cassi Niemann and I’m proud to be here tonight to present the 2006 Out for Equality Award to my dad, Delegate Doyle Niemann.

You know, it didn’t really come as a surprise that my father would stand up for gay rights on the house floor or even that he would use my life experiences to help support his vote. My parents have always been politically active as well as supportive of my lifestyle. But after he called to tell me about it, I realized how lucky I was to have that support and respect from my family… to know that my father believes in who I am.

But once I saw our names in print on the front page of the Washington Post, which let me say was a bit of a shock – I had to call my grandma – I realized that my father wasn’t like so many other fathers. He didn’t just love me in that “you’re my child and I’ll love you no matter what,” way. He’s PROUD of who I am. And he’s willing to put his own reputation on the line to tell people that. It was this act that has me talking to you today. What my dad did made the front page of the newspaper because not enough parents are doing the same thing, even parents with a little more influence than my father. They simply stand up and applaud when their president is stomping on their own daughter’s rights.

When I was a kid I would get embarrassed when my parents would brag about me to their friends. I suppose what my dad did on the house floor and all the advocacy he’s done since really isn’t all that different. But these days, I love my parents, and my entire family, because they don’t mind being role models for other families to show that it doesn’t have to be so hard to truly love others for who they are. And it doesn’t have to take place behind closed doors.

My dad has shown me that if you want to see a change in the world, you have to start it yourself. I’ve had to accept just how political my life experience may be, but I know now the difference I can make by being proud of it.

So, I’m not only awarding my father for his outstanding work in supporting gay rights but also for his courageous acts as a father. He has given me the strength and the desire to try and make a difference in this world and that truly deserves an award. So, thank you Papa and I love you.

When I was finished, the crowd stood and applauded. A standing ovation. Of course, all the honorees got one throughout the evening, but my dad was the first honoree so you can imagine my smile when I assumed we were getting a standing ovation! I think the best part of my speech was when I was poking at Dick Cheney because the audience starting whooping and applauding and I just remember having this really embarrassed smile on my face and saying “thank you” while having to wait for them to stop cheering to start talking again. But it was AWESOME, I felt witty and powerful in my own way. Maybe I’ll get power hungry, drop architecture and become a politician. Ok, maybe not.

Anyways… after the dinner and ceremony was over, I met many more people who congratulated me on the speech and commended my dad’s work. They said I looked very comfortable and apparently didn’t look nervous at all! Who would have thought!? I met the couples that are suing the state for marriage rights and politicians who are out and proud and then even more activists who are fighting for our rights. It was so encouraging, to be surrounded by like-minded people, who want equal rights and are really doing something about it (people like my parents). I was reminded how lucky I am to be loved and respected by my family and friends. But we have a lot of work to do, so get out there, encourage your friends and family to vote and learn about your candidates. Gay or straight, we must understand that it is not simply a fight for GLBT people, it’s a social justice movement and we need to continue our fight until there are equal rights for all human beings.

Cassi Niemann