Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Garrison Keillor on a Great Nation Immobilized


He, as he often does, says it best…
by Charlie Leck

Here is about as much of Garrison Keillor’s latest column that I can get away with quoting, but I want to tease you into reading it all. You can find it here. Whatever you do, read on to the final paragraph, that begins: “If man is pushing the planet toward extinction,…”

“We are self-centered, short-sighted people, intent on comfort, averse to sacrifice. We know this. Knowing it does not empower us to change. The new guys at MMS [Minnerals Management Service] will attempt to exercise oversight, Congress will hold more hearings, but in reality we have given over the Gulf to British Petroleum. Only the oil men can plug the hole. The value of moral huarrumping is rather minimal, and though, as an ex-fundamentalist, I can sermonize with the best of them, I will spare you my tiny outburst of dudgeon.

“We are a great nation immobilized at the moment by navel-gazers and poseurs and flackmeisters, and when you visit Washington, you see this clearly. Here are all the little marble palaces of the AFL-CIO, and NEA and NRA and AARP and AMA and PhRMA and the trial lawyers and Realtors and plumbers and the chemical industry and the nursing home operators – everybody but bank robbers and newspaper columnists has a mouthpiece in Washington – and it’s high-price schmoosing and yipping and yakking by thousands of overeducated schtoonks pumping out hogwash and hokum that is easily ignored by the bureaucrats and elected officials who do the actual work.”

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Rwanda Aide


Free Erlinder Now!
by Charlie Leck

Peter Erlinder is a Minnesotan. He teaches in the William Mitchell College of Law in Saint Paul. He’s 62 years old and not in the greatest of health. He’s been thrown in a Rwanda prison on the silliest and emptiest of charges. This is a genuinely good man who went to Rwanda to defend people who he believed had the right to a good defense.

Where is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on this? Where is President Barack Obama? It’s time for them both to move on this issue. Get Peter Erlinder out of jail.

Rwanda receives over 170 million dollars of official U.S. aide in 2010. They have a strong market in the United States for goods they sell here. This gives us enough leverage to demand they release Erlinder from their prisons.

Free Peter Erlinder Now!

The following was added to this blog 1 hour after it was posted....

BREAKING NEWS
Demonstration scheduled in support of Erlinder!

Demonstration to Demand the Release of Peter Erlinder

Tuesday, June 8, 5:00 p.m. Federal Building, 300 South 4th Street, Minneapolis.

Peter Erlinder is a William Mitchell law professor and international human rights attorney. He traveled to Rwanda to join the legal team defending opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. He was arrested on May 28, 2010 by Rwandan police on false charges. He is being held in a Rwandan prison and has been hospitalized twice after interrogation sessions. He is in grave danger.

In the run up to the national election, the administration of Rwandan president Paul Kagame has engaged in increasing repressive tactics including shutting down independent media and jailing opposition candidates and their supporters under a vague charge of “genocide ideology”—the same charge Professor Erlinder is now accused of. The “Genocide Ideology Law” is vaguely worded, requires no link to any genocidal act, and can be used to criminalize a wide range of legitimate forms of expression. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and even the U.S. State Department have denounced it as a tool of political repression. The Kagame administration has used it widely to target political opponents.

The Obama administration has done little to address Professor Erlinder’s situation. The state department and U.S. embassy have referred to this incident as “a local matter.” This is because the U.S. backs the Kagame regime.

Professor Erlinder has a long history of providing legal assistance, often pro bono, in cases involving the death penalty, civil rights, claims of government and police misconduct, and criminal defense of political activists. He is a long-time supporter of political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal. He was president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) from 1993-1997 and is a current board member of the NLG Foundation. He has been a defense attorney at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda since 2003.

We must stand with courageous lawyers! Vigorous legal defense is not a crime! Free Peter Erlinder Now!

Sponsored by: Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB). Endorsed by: WAMM. FFI: Call 612-874-STOP or email www.cuapb.org


From Andy Driscoll
The following material was added to this blog at 9:45 A.M. on 8 June 2010... It is a comment by Andy Driscoll, host of the radio show,
Truth to Tell


First of all, thanks to Ted Dooley, who's apparently wired into the proper network on Peter's behalf. This report (below my commentary) is something of a relief, given the charges that Paul Kagame could have leveled under Rwandan law.


What disturbs me no end right now is that the mainstream media is beginning to sound like the press corps for Kagame's administration - and I include my friend, Brian Lambert, of MinnPost.com, who co-writes The Daily Glean. Lambert's quick-to-judge rhetoric regarding Peter's record of criminal defense, not to mention his assumption (and that of others) that Hutu opposition candidate to Tutsi Kagame, Victoire Ingabire represents the only guilty party in the Rwandan genocide, and his implication that Peter Erlinder's arrest for "denial of genocide" is justified. Lambert's first paragraph:

The Peter Erlinder story — the one about the Billy Mitchell professor who has made a career out of defending the lowest of the low (cop killers, sex offenders) — is the sort of stuff that sets your eyes rolling. There are, to be sure, nuances to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, but Erlinder's arrest for returning there to defend a Hutu politician who is trying to rewrite the most well-accepted narrative creates some interesting dilemmas for liberal politicians suddenly charged with pulling his bacon out of the fire. The Strib story, by Kevin Diaz, Randy Furst and newcomer Jeremy Herb, notes that, "In Rwanda, where some 800,000 people lost their lives in ethnic conflict between Hutu and Tutsi, Erlinder has been trying to rewrite the history of good and bad in a conflict that the international community has largely blamed on the Hutu. 'As I understand it, I don't think he's really denying that there was a genocide,' said William Mitchell professor emeritus Kenneth Kirwin, who has known Erlinder for decades. 'I think he is more concerned with who was more at fault, or more responsible.' " I'm thinking this is a story with no straight lines. (emphasis Lambert's)

Lambert's incredible opening line that suggests that the accused deserve no defense is a slap in the face of the very Constitution Lambert would scream bloody murder were it vaunted press freedoms in jeopardy (and many are). This sets the stage, obviously, for his utterly biased, and ignorant report on Erlinder's role in the Rwandan conflict. The bold-face print is editorial comment of the first water, unseemly in a place where judgment should be entirely absent: a news story. Oh, yes, blogs can take more liberty, and The Glean is nothing if not a blog; but, readers have come to rely on this column as a digest of news they can use to skirt the papers and the multiple online sources needed to stay on top of happenings hereabouts. Thus do I charge Brian and MinnPost with journalistic irresponsibility and prejudgment in the face of released Kagame propaganda.

Fortunately, at least a dozen readers have taken Lambert to task in the Comments section, and they're not the crazies you find following almost any Strib story (MinnPost monitors its Comments section).

Let it be known here and now that Erlinder is first an international criminal defense attorney (and president of the association of such attorneys) and that he does not deny genocide, but simply questions the claim that the genocide was one-sided. He calls into question a trial by one half the genocidal forces by the other, equally guilty, side which happens to be in power. No one denies Peter's progressive perspective. That doesn't make him the criminal many would love to make him. Dissenters may be treated like criminals in this country these days, but it's still not a crime to be one.

The entire issue cries out for a reconciliation commission to acknowledge everyone's role in Rwandan genocide and to keep the peace by establishing and maintaining true democratically elected governance with no threats to opposition candidates of either side.

Go Again to Trout & Caviar


There are hundreds of food blogs and web sites to look at, but Trout & Caviar stands out as special!
by Charlie Leck

I know I’ve covered this subject before, so I’ll be incredibly brief and get right to the point. Trout & Caviar is simply one of the best food blogs you will ever find – and if you find it you’ll be stuck on it.

I'll just one to point to a recent example, illustrating both how good and how useful it is: Tasty Food in Little White Pots (Part II): Fromage Fort. If you’ve ever wondered what to do with the bits of left over cheese in your refrigerator, here’s the answer. A wonderful idea and a tasty bit of information.

I’m rather committed to following this blog and I’ve also hooked lots of my friends on it.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Love that Lasts


I spent a quiet Monday morning with the Sunday N.Y. Times!
by Charlie Leck

My first attack on the Sunday N.Y. Times amounts to a separation of it into sections. I make a small pile of the sections to which I intend to give attention. The Week in Review section goes on the top of that small pile and under it are heaped things like (1) Arts & Leisure, (2) Sunday Business, (3) Book Review, (4) The New York Times Magazine, and, of course, (5) the main News Section. I usually send sections like (1) Sports, (2) Travel and certainly (3) Sunday Styles right into the recycling bin.

However, something caught my eye this morning on the front page of the Styles section. At the top of the page was a strikingly beautiful woman – the 58 year old, former model, named Iman. I’d never heard of her, though I learned she was famous the world over in her day. Wow! I read the story about her. There was a lot of fluff and junk I don’t care about, but my eyes kept going back to the photos of her in youth and now. Wow!

She appears to be happily married to David Bowie (someone famous about whom I’ll need to ask the kids) and the article intimates that it’s been a good marriage that has lasted now for 18 years. Good!

Just below that lead story in the Styles section was a photo of Al and Tipper Gore in year 2000. It was an illustration for the story’s theme: What makes some marriages remain romantic for years and years and love last through all the stages of age? Now this is a subject that interests me, so I turned willingly and enthusiastically to it.

No one has ever been able to explain romantic love to my liking or satisfaction. It appears to be an impossible term, or concept, to define. Give, for instance, Dictionary.com a try and see how they define the term. I was tempted to play around here with entry number 13: “Chiefly Tennis: a score of zero; nothing!”

I’m in my second marriage. It’s lasted now for well over 30 years and I believe, and hope to goodness, it is solid and will last throughout my life. I love this woman, my wife, as much as when I first realized I was in love with her – even more. As I once said to her in a poem I presented to her as a gift: “I love you more today than then, when I did not think I could love you more!”

It didn’t take Al and Tipper’s break-up to demonstrate to me that you cannot tell, from the outside, what is going on on the inside of a marriage. We’ve seen marriages around us, which we thought were idyllic, romantic and solid, decompose and break apart on life’s gentlest breezes. Others that I thought were tenuous and ill-composed have lasted through many of life’s most raging storms.

Here’s what I know about my own marriage!
If I need to turn to someone for advice, upon almost any matter, it would be to my wife. (Forget, of course, questions about baseball, football, golf, sports in general, or gambling!) I still adore the sound of her voice and the soundness of her thinking. I like her kindness, generosity and gentleness. I’ve seen her genuinely angry at and distrustful of another person only a couple of times in all these years. There is no one with whom I’d rather spend time. I still relish her touch and am excited by it. I enjoy sleeping next to her and listening to the soft sound of her breathing as she sleeps. I wish age was not robbing me of some of my physical abilities because she has retained all of her vigor and strength. She is a deeply patient and loyal person. To her, a commitment to someone, in friendship or love, is a matter of the highest priority in life. I don’t ever let a day go by without thanking those lucky stars that brought me to her and gave me the chance to know her.

Tipper and Al?
Who knows! One of the psychologists interviewed for the story, and who looked at hundreds of successful marriages, seems to think that one of the keys is to “stay active in each other’s lives” and to “pay attention to the marriage itself” and that “you’re never done working on it.”

“It’s not that you have to be constantly scared about your relationship, but you do have to renew it,” said Stephanie Coontz, a marriage historian at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. “I think the warning we should take from this (Al and Tipper) is that you can’t skate indefinitely and be doing different things and not really be paying attention to the marriage itself.”

I’m skeptical about some of the studies around the nation – studies about what makes a marriage last and remain romantic in nature. My dubiety comes because I (we) don’t fit most of the profiles about what we should be doing.

Is your marriage in a rut?
That’s one of the questions a New York study suggests we should be asking. If one or both of you think it is, then your marriage is likely at risk. But what, I wonder, if you like the rut you’re in? What if you both like the comfort and pleasantness of that rut? I suppose, not even one of us can tell – can truly know – that the other is happy in their current circumstance. For instance, I worry often about how hard my wife constantly works and about how much she has to do every, single day; but I let her know how worried I am about it and how I wish she didn’t have so much to do. I think she appreciates my worries and she gathers some strength from those worries.

I’m convinced that the rut you’re in gets easier to enjoy the older one gets. I don’t get excited about the Stony Brook University study that suggests we probably need to test ourselves out with challenging experiences like new video adventure games. No, I find myself enjoying it when she tells me about a new book she’s read or about an article from her favorite magazines (Scientific American or the Christian Science Monitor Magazine) or even from her Sheep Magazine.

Who knows what brought Tipper and Al Gore down? We’ll likely never know the exact answer to that question and I don’t particularly care. Instead, I wish great happiness for both of them in the new adventures they’ll have.

As for me, I don’t want any new adventures. I want to enjoy this partner of mine each and every moment of my remaining life and to let her know as often as I can just how much I love her. I want to spend as many years with her as I possibly can.

Note: Another interesting story, or essay, by Connie May Fowler appears in that Style section of the Sunday Times, called Affirmation, Etched in Vinyl. It’s Ms. Fowler’s story of a father she lost when she was only 6 years old. I may have to glance through the Style section more often.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

If You Want To Write


What is the most important book you’ve ever read?
by Charlie Leck

It is Sunday morning, the sun is still low and breaking through the shades and shadows of the green tree-tops, a mug of hot coffee is at hand and the computer keyboard draws me to it because I want to write – and I don’t give a damn if anyone thinks I shouldn’t.

I awoke during the night thinking of Brenda Ueland.

“It was Brenda Ueland!”

I’d sat up in bed, startled, and I shouted it out. Fortunately my wife was off in Toronto for the weekend and wasn’t there to be frightened by me. Only the dog, sprawled in his bed across the room from me, lifted his head in curiousness and then lowered it again in disinterest.

Someone had asked me, during the afternoon on Saturday, to declare to him the most important book I had ever read. I have often been asked that question by friends and associates. I don’t know why people find it such a fascinating topic of conversation.

“I would like to think about that,” I said to this fellow at the Farmers Market yesterday.

“No, no,” he replied to my request for thinking time, “I want to hear it off the top of your head.”

It was like a challenge he’d thrown at me; you know, the big dare or double dare was out there and demanded some response. I shouldn’t have, but I bit!

“Okay,” said I, “then I’ll say it is Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States.”

“What?”

There was a long, silent pause and I felt his consternation and condemnation.

“Never heard of it!”

He’s a bookish, intellectual fellow who likes to come around when I’m at the Market, to chat about his latest read. He’d expected something more of an answer out of me.

“Not Dickens? Or, Tolstoy, Melville, Hugo, Dostoyevsky – or even Bellow?”

It had begun to rain and we were both trying to squeeze under the big umbrella that covered the table from which we marketed our butchered lamb to customers there at the Farmer’s Market. The rain was blowing somewhat sideways and we were both getting wet.

I raised my defense of Zinn, telling the fellow how much “true” history I’d learned about my nation and I explained how carefully the author had sourced all the “new facts” he laid before me.

The rain became too much for him and he deserted me with a disappointed wave of his arm and hand. He moved off to the vendor just to the east of our booth because they had a large tent under which he could find shelter.

I was left alone and wondering. Perhaps my answer should have indeed been Charles Dickens. Even James Joyce or Henry James would have shown me to be more of an intellectual.

I drifted off last night, thinking about it. I could imagine the guy going back to the University and talking about me in one of his lectures, chuckling at my limited imagination and narrowness of interest.

“Homer!” That was my last conscious thought of the evening. That would have been a popular and acceptable answer.

I must have continued to think about the matter as I slept; for it was nearly three o’clock when I awakened and pounced up and called out Brenda Ueland’s name.

I was introduced to the extraordinary woman many, many years ago, when I was a young man. A friend, who told her who I was, explained to her that I enjoyed writing poetry and that, he thought, I was damned good. I remember how excited she got and she shook with happiness and said all kinds of encouraging things to me.

From the public library I got her book, If You Want to Write, shortly after that meeting and happily read it. I managed to find, in a used book store, my own copy and it became my “bible” for quite some time. I often found myself going back to it again and again. It gave me courage – encouraged me – and freed me up to be myself.

Everyone who teaches writing, and all those who just want to write, should read Brenda Ueland’s book and encourage others to read it. It is because of this wonderful woman that I write without fear or inhibition. She gave me an extraordinary gift that has lasted me for so many, many years. Hers must be the most important book I’ve ever read.

“The creative power and imagination is in everyone and so is the need to express it, i.e., to share it with others. But what happens to it?

“It is very tender and sensitive, and it is usually drummed out of people early in life by criticism (so called ‘helpful criticism’ is often the worst kind), by teasing, jeering, rules, prissy teachers, critics and all those unloving people who forget that the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life.” [Brenda Ueland: If You Want to Write]

u

“A Postscript: At a time when I was writing the book, Carl Sandburg, an old friend, was at our house. Sometimes, looking out at Lake Calhoun in the wild November evening, he would begin to thunder in his mighty voice (so much like Isaiah’s, I used to think) about the grey waves, the North wind, the new moon, the gunmetal sky.

“He liked the book. He said: ‘That is the best book ever written about how to write.’” [Brenda Ueland, If You Want to Write, in the preface to the second edition, February, 1983]

It is because of Brenda Ueland that I sit here on this beautiful morning, with the sun splashing in through the windows, writing.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Oleaginous


This blog has to do with various oleaginous matters!
by Charlie Leck

I subscribe to the “word of the day” from Dictionary.Com, which I consider one of theeeee absolutely most important web sites on the entire Internet……

Today’s word was “oleaginous” and I thought I would share it with you because the timing is so VERY appropriate.

Oleaginous \oh-lee-AJ-uh-nuhs\, adjective

  1. Having the nature or qualities of oil
  2. Containing oil
  3. Producing oil
  4. Unctuous, fawning, smarmy

Oleaginous derives from the Latin oleaginous, “of the olives….”

Clearly it’s a relevant word right now! The news is depressing as hell. Now it appears the Gulf of Mexico oil leak, which is spewing thousands and thousands of gallons of oil into the sea every single day, will continue for months and months (August is the predicted “fix” time!).

Today, on public radio, I heard an incredible conversation about the number of “generations” it will take before the damage done to the gulf shores is eradicated – or as the legal guys say: “Is made whole!”

If this were to happen in Minnesota, I know how people would go crazy – they’d fight and claw and scratch and howl until their demands were heard and answered by the SOBs in Washington. Louisiana seems prepared to be stomped on again. I hope not. I hope they arch their collective backs and fight like cornered, wounded tigers (like LSU Tigers).

BP? Let’s just say they are being terribly oleaginous (slick as hell)!

Tuesday, June 1, 2010