Formula 1, Babies 0

A friend of mine gave birth to her second child last month. She would not be pleased with the following story, which I found on Motley Fool:

According to an ABC News report published last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) first postponed, then watered down, a series of TV ads promoting breast-feeding of infants -- at the request of the infant formula industry.

The ads, slated to air six months ago, originally conveyed in stark terms the increased risks of bottle-feeding: respiratory, urinary tract, and ear infections during infancy; asthma and diabetes during childhood; high blood pressure and obesity in adulthood. Most notably, the ads reported that infants who were not breast-fed were more prone to leukemia than breast-fed babies.

To make a long story short, executives in the $8 billion dollar industry of infant formula manufacturing became alarmed. They sent their reps to lobby Washington, where Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson gave them a private audience. Halliburton, anyone?

Breast-feeding advocates - you know, people like mothers and doctors - sought to meet with Thompson, but they were turned down. You can read more at the full ABC News article, which also provides a link to the "thank you" letter written by Clayton Yuetter, formula lobbyist and former GOP chair. "Dear Tommy", the letter begins. Rather curdling, I think.

At least several of the public service ads aired, at the beginning of June. But the watered-down versions may not be enough to counter the millions of dollars spent promoting infant formula in hospitals and doctor's offices, something that formula mankers Abbott Labs and Bristol-Myers Squibb honed into an art form while pushing their pharmacuetical products. Can we educate a new generation of mothers and give newborns a healthy start? We don't know, not until the babies grow up either granted or deprived of the substantial protections that evolution has bestowed on human beings through mother's milk.

Speaking of protections, I think this sad incident exemplifies a weakness of democratic capitalism. First, in cases of public health the benefits are often great but diffuse. Clean air, clean water, breast milk, etc. However, in our economy the man-made sources of damage are often controlled by a few or at least organized very well. So the organized few can act to preserve their flow of profits, at the expense of the diffuse many, who in a democracy should win. Until very large groups can organize around their common interests (parents, immigrants, skateboarders) and transcend internal differences, the many will not prevail over the few.

Second, the people who lack political resources are the vulnerable elements of society, and hence the ones who need it the most. And I cannot think of anyone more vulnerable, or less blameworthy, than an infant. Obviously the infant has an interest in his or her own health, but in most political systems the infant has no voice. Congressional districts count infants. Why not elections, at least in such child-relevant areas as health care and education. Yes, a parent votes, but those issues concern both parent and child. Parents manage their children's money and lives, why not their votes too?

Finally, has anyone noticed that there's no breast milk lobby? Yes, doctors, scientists and parents advocate for it, but nobody will spend big money to do so. That's because there's no money in winning an argument for a product that is, essentially, free. You don't have to be a socialist to acknowledge that the best things in life are free. A socialist might say that good things and services should be free, or at low cost to everyone. But what I mean by free things are gifts of nature, like air and water and seeds that won't Terminate. Rather than adding to things we want, some folks try to take away what we already have and sell it back to us. Wouldn't the latter be detrimental to human health and welfare? And isn't that just the sort of job where a Secretary of Health and Human Services would lead the way? Dear Tommy . . . do your job!

Until we start fighting for those things that are free, we'll keep losing them, and the loss will feel very precious indeed.

Oregon Trails

On Friday, I dusted the cobwebs from my bike and rode along PCH to San Clemente. I hadn't planned to make it there, but I felt like going after reaching Laguna Beach, and then Dana Point. The weather was unusually cool for June, and the cloud cover was helpful. I made a number of short detours, the first at my friend Albert's place in a new development, Oak Creek, near I-405 and Jeffrey Rd. His neighbor Rory spotted me, and when he saw my bike, showed me the three he owned and talked up a storm about local trails and such. He handed me a bunch of maps from his car, mostly Southern California stuff but there was one of Central Oregon.

"Why Oregon?" I asked him, curious. I knew he was a LA native.

"Oh, I went to Mt. Batchelor." For skiing, of course.

I was about to close the map when I saw in the small sectioned-off, right-hand corner, a map of the Mackenzie River Trail - without question, the most beautiful place I've ever biked, in the most beautiful state I've ever been.

Here's one of the last letters I wrote in Oregon, to one who had left recently.

"I am glad to see that you are alive and well! Tanya and I were a bit worried. We were Portland this past weekend and met up with an old friend of mine, Linda. We saw elaborate sand castles in Pioneer Square. Walked around Saturday Market. Drove along the Columbia Gorge, which Linda had never seen. Visited Hood River for the Cherry Festival. It was late-afternoon but the farmer at Alice's, a third-generation Japanese American, took us in his cart for a tour of the pear and cherry farm. Had no idea so many varieties besides Bing and Rainier existed. We sampled extra-large Lapins, and slightly bitter Black Republicans. (Wonder why they call 'em that.) The sky was clear blue, except for the giant clouds massing around Mt. Hood. I'll miss Oregon."

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."

Today I returned to my main job-like activity for the past two plus months: working as a small-claims mediator at Orange County Superior Court. It's nice to be active again, using the Alternate Dispute Resolution skills I learned during law school, and providing a needed service to the community.

I have mediated or co-mediated about 30 cases, reaching a settlement in all but one. Business disputes, landlords and tenants, creditors and debtors, ex-boyfriends and girlfriends - I've handled the whole range. I like the business cases most (contractors, credit unions, etc). That may seem counterintuitive for a "fuzzy" like me, but in fact such disputes only involve money and are the least stressful, for the parties, and hence for me. Those people tend to be nice and are almost always professional. Today a man agreed to repay several hundred dollars mistakenly deposited into his bank account - the second time this mix-up has landed on my lap. Apparently, he spent this money by the time the bank caught its mistake.

Since mediation is voluntary, almost everyone who participates is civil - as they chose to negotiate an agreement with my help, rather than argue their case before a judge (like they had intended). In fact, roughly half of my "successful" resolutions are worked out in principle by the parties in the hallways before they talk to me. That happened today. So my awesome success rate has little to do with my abilities as a mediator, which are just adequate enough not to impede them from helping themselves.

Even though I've chosen the path of law, I believe that the law often interferes with justice and fairness - not only in its "objective" meaning, but also in its shared "subjective" meaning. The former is easy to understand. By the latter, I mean that the law may take a dispute out of the hands of the two parties. Mostly for the good of society, which wants to discourage a plaintiff or victim from resorting to "self-help" (i.e., me and a few buddies). And if the original act was criminal...

However, in some cases, two people or organizations might want to resolve their dispute without going through civil litigation. Neighbors, family members, parents sharing custody of children, people with long-term business relationships benefit from sitting down and resolving their argument without the time, cost, and emotional strife that lengthy litigation or even small-claims court, can bring. Even a small formal step such as being served by a stranger is off-putting to many people. And personally, I enjoy being the neutral, the third-party who brings people together, helps them realize what their shared interests are, and leaves them on friendly terms with each other, sometimes even a hug between former friends.

Mediation holds natural incentives for both plaintiff and defendant (if you're wondering why they'd show up). For the defendant, it's a way to resolve their situation without a court judgment. They may not owe the whole amount, but most of the time they owe something - and if a judge enters that "something" against them, it will damage their credit rating for years to come. For the plaintiff, payment is more likely if the defendant helped fashion the payment plan himself, as the court does not assist plaintiff in collecting judgment.

For myself, I need to purge from my system the emotional traces from the more complicated cases. Sometimes I don't realize how a certain defendant or plaintiff or broken relationship has stayed in my mind. And I could do better to find ways to find release - other than reading, which if it involves the news does the opposite! Even something simple like treating myself to ice cream, or catching an afternoon matinee alone - I can't recall the last time I did either. Sounds fairly pitiful, no? Striking a steady balance between extremes: if I can help others do it, surely I can help myself.

Weenie Roast notes

My homeboy Will Farrell (Class of '86) made a surprise appearance at the KROQ Weenie Roast and spoke to the nubile masses last night:

"I'm Will Farrell. (Loud cheers.) I'm...one of you. I grew up in Irvine, beautiful Irvine, California. (Scattered cheers.) I remember all the times I used to sneak in here... I have some bad news. Our next guest couldn't make it tonight. That's right, I'm sorry to say you won't be able to see Crazytown. Come, my lady. Come come, my lady. You're my butterfly, sugar, baby..."

Then he introduced the scheduled performers, the Beastie Boys.

Weenie Roast is an ten band, 11-hour affair... So I will not try to sum up.

The afternoon kicked off on the side stage with Story of the Year, a young and spirited five-member band. Oh, how young they were!
They were followed by Yellowcard, New Found Glory, and Hoobastank.

Then it moved to the main stage, which was nice as it allowed you to hear all the bands, with The Killers, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Modest Mouse, Cypress Hill, The Hives, Velvet Revolver, Bad Religion, Beastie Boys, The Strokes.

I'd write more, but I must return to life as a (relatively) responsible adult now and turn in early.

Devil's advocate?

I interviewed with the Orange County Public Defender's office on Wednesday afternoon. They asked me the same eight questions they posed to every other applicant, which seems fitting for an employer concerned with procedural fairness and substantive justice. Believe me, that structure is highly unusual for interviews in the rest of the legal world. Which, in its own way, makes sense too. The last question the two senior deputy public defenders asked me: how do you justify defending people who often do not have the law or facts on their side (who, in effect, probably committed the crime with which they are charged)? Why, that's a very good question I said.

I also said a few other things. A public defender is someone that our system provides to represent the accused's interests, just as we have prosecutors in the District Attorney's office to represent the interests of society at large. Yes, many people accused of a crime are in fact guilty of some wrongdoing, and most of the time it's pretty obvious. But the PD's job is also to see the defendant fairly treated in his sentence, as well. Because someone has committed a crime doesn't mean he gives up his rights, or that society can throw the book at him. The prosecutor isn't looking out for the defendant, that's not his job. That's the public defender's job. If the PD couldn't do that, the DA's role would be incredibly unfair. Instead, in our adversary system, the prosecutor pushes with all the resources of the state. And the defender is ethically bound to push back.

For two years I taught and tutored students in Oakland public high schools. I wanted to work there because those were the kids who lacked the money, education, and family background to do well in math. Hence, they were the kids who needed my able services the most. I would say the same with public defense. Individuals who need public defenders can't afford to choose their own lawyer. They often come from the same socioeconomic groups as my students, and deserve the same degree of help we believe those students ought to have. Mind you, my students weren't all angels - sure you've got poor neighborhoods and mediocre teachers and lack of family help but many kids are just lazy or unfocused - as at any other school. Let's not hold their poverty and background against them too.

The public defender defends not just the person but also the rights of the accused, and those rights belong to us all. And when those rights are threatened, so are we all. In fact, since indigent criminal defendants are the most vulnerable elements in society (without friends or wealth), indigent defense is the most likely area where the state will cut corners to a "just result" and in the process short-circuit our system of rights. Democracy is a cloth that frays around the edges, and affects those who live on the edges of society first and most often. We see examples of fraying today not only in murder and rape cases, but also in the area of terrorism and war crimes.

And so I ask you... Would you ever work for the public defender? Why or why not? If so, would you ever draw the line at representing someone? A murderer? Rapist? Child molester? What do you think?

Houston City Limits

In the summer of 2001, I chose to take an internship in Houston, Texas, rather than travel to China with my friends.

Looking back at that summer, I realize it was the last time I could really choose where I wanted to be. Shanghai or Houston? The comparative merits of each city aside, I didn't realize the key word wasn't either. It was the word in the middle. Or. I had to choose one or the other. Instead I chose one, thinking I could have Houston now, and save Shanghai for later. Well, later is now. And now my horizons seem to be the four walls of my room, and soon the four carpeted panels of my cubicle. What a thing to have hoped for!

But while in public I express regret at my choice, in my heart there's no other place in the world I'd rather explore than my own frontiers, this land made for you and me. And so I drove from the Redwood forests to the Gulfstream waters, because Texas is a big part of America, and in the courts, clubs, and strip malls of Houston I would learn a little bit about how things worked, or why they didn't.

What did I learn that summer?

I learned that muffalettas are the best-kept, tastiest secret in American sandwiches. I learned that bourbon and coke is a great drink. And then there's Mexican food and barbeque and country fried steaks... Houston, you have a weight problem!

I learned it IS the humidity - oh, the humidity! I learned to fear mosquitoes. I learned to love the Gulf of Mexico, which is warm and teeming with fish.

I learned to say "y'all" and "a little sumpin' sumpin'. I learned to do the electric slide... I learned that some people still fly confederate flags, but even rednecks call those people rednecks. I learned that Houston loves a good bookstore more than Orange County, and young Houstonians like pot every bit as much as their counterparts in Oregon.

I learnedthat a judge is a very nice thing to be. I learned that immigrants still come from France and the Netherlands as well as India and Mexico. I learned you can major in animal science and still become governor of Texas.

I learned to love the songs of Robert Earl Keen and Kelly Joe Phelps. I learned that "King of the Hill" is reality TV. I learned there still exists in spirit, such a thing as the "Republic of Texas".

Elsewhere in the blog world

I read far more than I write online, which isn't saying much. But the blogs I choose to read do say a great deal worth reading. Here are some of this week's sightings:

From 1982-1984, the White House spreads a new infection: the AIDS joke.

Thanks to Insomnia for bringing this callous, irresponsible behavior to my attention. I'm old enough to remember the atmosphere of permissive ignorance about AIDS and HIV, but too young to have recalled these comments firsthand. The 1980s seem to be a forgotten decade in terms of what really went down. Statements like those by Larry Speakes should wake Gen Y types to our recent history. We often take the tolerance and pluralism of the 1990s for granted.


Josh Marshall follows up on his observations about Republican attempts to denigrate the non-white vote. I discussed examples of this sorry behavior yesterday. Today, Marshall responds to the WSJ "Best of the Web's" attempt to pooh-pooh the significance of the racial voting gap. Marshall correctly notes that the WSJ site ignores the real question, "Why do blacks vote so disproportionately for Democrats?" It's not as if Republicans could win over half of the black vote. If they did, it would be the result of changing policies and attitudes, which might alienate a huge chunk of the Southern white vote (on which the modern Republican Party depends for its margins. Anyways, Josh Marshall says it better so read him!


Finally, a shout-out to Haggai's Place: Mr. Elitzur keeps tabs on both American and Israeli politics with similar detail and insight. I came across the blog of my fellow quiz-bowl alum last fall, in trying to find an old New Yorker piece on Wesley Clark.

One down, more to go...

For those who haven't heard: Stephanie Herseth was elected to Congress in South Dakota. Herseth, a Democrat, defeated Republican Larry Dietrich by 3,000 votes in this statewide race. (South Dakota has only one seat in the House.) I'm impressed by her performance, considering that: 1) South Dakota went for Bush 60%-38% in 2000, 2)the Republican Party and Dietrich spent $2 million to win about 125,000 votes, or roughly $16 per vote, and 3) Herseth is just 33 years old.

Herseth's victory in South Dakota follows Democrat Ben Chandler's February election to Congress in Kentucky. Since both were special elections, they'll have to run again in November, albeit with the power of incumbency. South Dakota? Kentucky? It seems Democrats are showing some clout in these alleged "red states". Both Herseth and Chandler are familiar family names in their home states (like the Browns in California or Udalls in the Southwest), so their triumphs might be anomalous. On the other hand, it does show much politics is local. Gain trust and affection locally, and you can counter national party affiliation. At the same time, some folks will turn out largely due to disgust at Bush's policies. Call it a form of negative coattails.

Josh Marshall notes the Republican Party is full of excuses for their losses, suggesting that minority voters who provide the margin of victory aren't quite real Americans. Consider this statement by Congressman Davis, following the Republican defeat in South Dakota:

“If you take out the Indian reservation, we would have won,” said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), former chairman of the NRCC.

I'm not sure what his point is, or even what he thinks it is. Yeah, if you take out Arkansas, Gore would have won. But my example makes little sense, because Arkansas counts as much as any other state's six electoral votes. Are Republicans implying that folks on the rez shouldn't count as much as white voters? Maybe three-fifths, perhaps?

Herseth won the special election to the seat vacated by Bill Janklow, who resigned following his conviction for second-degree manslaughter. Janklow served 100 days in jail and was released in May.

On the side of angels: Reginald Zelnik

Reggie Zelnik, professor of Russian history at Berkeley, died last month. He was 68. I found out a week ago, through the alumni grapevine. I knew he was respected and liked by colleagues and students. What I didn't expect is how widely he was recognized, not only for his scholarship, but also for his advocacy on behalf of the political and academic freedom of students. Both his historical work and his role in the Free Speech Movement is remembered, not just in Berkeley, but also in dailies from The New York Times to The Scotsman.

I was never his student, but I heard him give public speechs on two occasions. The second time was at my history graduation in 1997. As chair of the history department that year, he persuaded Martin Cruz Smith, author of Gorky Park and Bay Area resident, to give the commencement speech. Smith was one of Zelnik's favorite novelists, and a sign that his love of Russian culture was deep and abiding.

The first time was in 1996, when he delivered a eulogy for Mario Savio. I don't remember much about his I remember he quoted from the "little known" (his words) Russian political theorist, George Plekhanov. I forgot his words, but from time to time I would try to recall what they were, because they had made an impression on me eight years ago. Well, today is as good as any to actually look them up:

"A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time."

I think the idea embodied here is a wonderful antidote to the culture, and cult, of celebrity. And from reading the obituary, it seems like Plekhanov's words describe Zelnik himself, much as it did his friend.

Professor Zelnik could have mined a narrow, comfortable path in academic life. But he recognized one could not divorce the life of the mind, from life in our world. And our world, our nation, began to experience painful yet necessary changes during the 1960s on many fronts. The most important front was the battle for racial equality.

During the summer of 1964, many students from Northern campuses went to Mississippi to register African-Americans to vote, open schools and community centers for its poorer citizens, and organize alternative to the white racist Mississippi Democratic Party. It was known as Freedom Summer.

Many students were beaten by local thugs and local police. Three Northern volunteers - Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman - were killed. Three local blacks were lynched. Thousands of people were allowed to vote for the first time in their lives. Students returned to school that fall, filled with a sharpened sense of racial injustice and a passionate commitment to protecting civil rights.

When students returned to Berkeley to organize, the administration attempted to prohibit them from advocating political causes. All summer they had organized for civil rights in Mississippi and encountered harsh resistance - and now they discovered resistance and denial of their own political rights on the Berkeley campus!

The rest, they say, is history. You can read the chronology to learn how events unfolded, how five thousand students staged a sit-in, how Savio stood on an abandoned police car and gave his famous speech:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

As a young faculty member, Reggie Zelnik was scarcely older than the students themselves. He understood what they were fighting for in Mississippi, and why they were fighting this battle against the University. He also understood the faculty and administration, and the political pressures upon the university president, Clark Kerr. (Kerr was persecuted by reactionary political forces and eventually fired in 1967 by then-governor Ronald Reagan.) A majority of the faculty eventually sided with the students, whose right to organize and advocate on campus were recognized. Some senior faculty had been persecuted under the Loyalty Oath cases of the early 50s. Due to FSM's victory, neither blanket infringment of academic and political freedom would ever repeat itself at Berkeley.

The consequences of the Free Speech Movement extended beyond college campuses, which one by one conceded to students their inalienable rights. It signified that political discourse had freed itself from straitjacket of the Cold War. The changes wrought by a bunch of ordinary, ideologically diverse professors and students, also helped broaden the scope of history as a discipline. Social historians began to discover peasant movements and worker revolts, and investigate their impact. In 2002, Zelnik himself co-edited The Free Speech Movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s, whose essays examine these perspectives. His own essay is entitled "On the Side of Angels", examines the role of faculty in supporting the students.

Anyone who reads this little essay of mine is probably literate, politically informed, and interested in the world around us. The question is, do we have the qualities which make us capable of serving the great social needs of our time? Do you possess the passion, imagination, and ethical outlook that demands nothing less than service in the interests of good, and refusal in the face of evil? That's a question only we can answer for ourselves.

Go with the angels, Professor Zelnik.

Ronald Reagan, revisited

Ronald Reagan is dead. He became President when I was five, and left office when I was thirteen. During his second term, from 1985-1989, I had my first lessons in the politics of ecology, foreign policy, human rights, and economics. Like Franklin D. Roosevelt, he utterly transformed American politics and the political language we now speak, for better or for worse.

The media blitz has already begun. Personally, I don't mind the amount of coverage. He was our President, and a historic figure on the world stage. I respect him for reversing course and transcending his conservatism on taxes and the Soviet Union. His eloquence and ability to comfort the American people, as during the Challenger tragedy, was real. But I mind the overwrought and often inaccurate manner with which every media outlet is tripping over themselves to out-eulogize Reagan, concluding that "he tore down the Berlin Wall and ended the Cold War."

Um, excuse me? I think the German people had a hand or two in the former, and Gorbachev and Eastern Europe did much to foment the latter. Those pro-peace and anti-nuke activists whom the Republicans love to hate? The ones who practice mass demonstrations and civil disobedience? They helped end the Cold War.

Last February, I wrote a column on this subject, Cold War and Peace, Revisited. I wanted to affirm the relationship between mass democracy and world-historical change, in light of the vast anti-war protests then sprouting around the world. I wasn't thinking about Reagan per se when I wrote the essay, but it's a healthy antidote to propaganda blitz we'll endure over the next week. I hope that he rests in peace, whomever we credit with restoring it, momentarily, to our troubled world.

Memorial Day thoughts on Pat Tillman

Friendly fire killed Pat Tillman. Why did it take over a month for the Army to admit it?

"The results of this investigation in no way diminish the bravery and sacrifice displayed by Cpl. Tillman," said Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., commander of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, who made the surprising announcement in Fort Bragg, N.C.

Vigorous, but irrelevant. I don't think anyone was questioning the bravery of Corporal Tillman, the former NFL starter who gave up celebrity and fortune to become a Ranger. He was brave and idealistic and his sacrifice was irrevocably real.

It's Army's conduct many people should and will question, both in creating a situation were super-skilled Rangers could kill each other with friendly fire, and their delay in revealing the true circumstances of a tragedy. Again. I won't even go into the policy ramifications of diverting priorities (not to mention earmarked millions) from Afghanistan to Iraq. I cringe when I read that line in Sports Illustrated, "Tillman, and the thin detail of Rangers and Afghani fighters in his patrol..."

Over the past five weeks, the U.S. military has received tremendous positive and free publicity, courtesy of the news and entertainment media, as well as the NFL. Don't the actual events leading to Tillman's death demand the opposite - that the military deserves blame? And wouldn't our military have the ethical burden not to benefit from a tragedy it caused, by coming clean as soon as possible?

Or perhaps we should file military ethics under "O", along with military intelligence. Americans, civilian and uniformed alike, deserve better.

An unjust cause and the trigger effect

"Theophrastus, in his comparison of bad acts - such a comparison as one would make in accordance with the common notions of mankind - says, like a true philosopher, that the offenses which are committed through desire are more blamable than those which are committed through anger. For he who is excited by anger seems to turn away from reason with a certain pain and unconscious contraction; but he who offends through desire, being overpowered with pleasure, seems to be in a manner more intemperate in his offences. Rightly then, and in a way worthy of philosophy, he said that the offense which is committed with pleasure is more blamable than that which is committed with pain; and on the whole the one is more like a person who has been first wronged and through pain is compelled to be angry; but the other is moved by his own impulse to do wrong, being carried toward doing something by desire."

- Meditations, Marcus Aurelius

So many words, intelligent and otherwise, are being written about the torture of prisoners in Iraq. Likewise regarding the execution of Nicholas Berg. I have only the following to say: The second evil does not mitigate the first. On the contrary, the second evil must be added to the evil of the first. Keep in mind that:

1) Had we not tortured the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Nick Berg would still be alive.

2) Had we shared peacemaking and governing duties with the United Nations, Nick Berg would still be alive.

3) Executioner Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not Iraqi. He was born in Jordan. The Iraqis are innocent people in both situations. Their conduct is not in question.

But here are some questions.

What kind of people are we, and to what depths will we go to achieve our ends? Are we a nation of laws, or not? Do we resolve disputes like civilized people, or not? These questions are doubly important since the powers that be have framed the Iraq War and "war on terror" in terms the superiority of our ideas and culture. If our ideology is what we say it is (Enlightenment, democracy, pluralism, marketplace of ideas) then neither war nor peace can be won by force. But they can be lost through cruelty.

A city upon a hill

"...for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us..." - John Winthrop, 1630

On Wednesday, I got to hear George Mitchell discuss "America's Role in the World" at UCI. It's a welcome topic, as the people actually leading America today have so few intelligent, or even intelligible, things to say about it.

Mitchell is a former Senate majority leader and chair of the successful peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. So he's a natural authority on the subject of America's role in the world, the substance of which I have roughly transcribed below. During his lecture, he struck me as a kinder and gentler Winthrop, the Puritan who led the Massachusetts Bay Colony with a visionary but iron hand. Mitchell believes America is the best and greatest, but he also recognizes that being a great nation has nothing to do with being a great power. We are a great power, but power should serve our ideals, always.

If people around the world perceive that our greatness is merely the result of our power, and if our power serves interests counter to our ideals, then we're in trouble and we will lose the world. As well we should. He didn't go so far as to draw that conclusion, but maybe that's the optimist in him. Or the pessimist in me.

Over 100 Americans, and many more Iraqis, have died since I last wrote. That makes me so sad. Perhaps, if enough people keep speaking out...

"America's Role in the World" by George J. Mitchell

Most nations aspire to what we call American values:the primacy of individual liberty, equal justice under law, and opportunity for each member of society. However, our policies are opposed by many: specific actions against others, indifference to their plight, and resentment at our place in the world.

I have visited every country in Europe. I asked every European leader that I met with: now that the Soviet Union doesn’t exist, and Russia has withdrawn to its national borders, what should be America's place in their country? They want American forces on their soil. Why? Most want to be on the side of the strong. Power is perceived to be the exclusive basis of American authority. Power is essential for many reasons. But power must serve our ideals.

The United States was a great nation long before it was a great military and economic power. Its greatness began with the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights - the most eloquent and concise document of individual liberty in the world.

People expect our actions to match our stated ideals. There is a widespread perception that this is not true. Regarding war, peace, and terror, we need friends, allies, and international support. Throughout history, the dominant power has overextended itself. Power is most effective when used sparingly and with restraint, but when used, decisively. No challenge is more daunting than terrorism and the prospect of a wider war in the Middle East.

[Mitchell summarized his work on the Northern Ireland Commission, which he chaired.] Three objectives: ending violence, halt the destruction, and return to meaningful negotiations. Commission offered to continue services. Disappointed when this administration did not show interest. Report incorporated into the “Roadmap”. Disappointment when the current administration did not implement their “Roadmap”. We must keep trying until there is peace.

The Palestinians must end incitement of violence, and prosecute those who commit terrorism. The Israelis must order the return of military to their borders, and freeze settlements. But they harbor a “double fantasy” - some Palestinians and many in the Arab world want the removal of the Israeli state. Some Israelis, including some in cabinet, want the physical removal of Palestinian people -every man, woman, and child. The Israelis have a state, need security. Palestinians want a state, that is viable and geographically contiguous.

Violence. Palestinian violence is reprehensible, unacceptable, and politically counterproductive. Nonviolence. There must be available to Palestinians a nonviolent path to their political goals - a state - which a majority on both sides still support. The culture of peace has been totally destroyed over the past few years. Mutual mistrust is total. A majority of Palestinians support the terrorists. A majority of Israelis support “whatever” force.

From my experience in Northern Ireland: there is no such thing as a conflict that cannot be ended.

Iraq. The borders of Iraq were drawn by the British after World War I. A British civil servant drew the lines on a map that created Iraq and Jordan. They were concerned with their immediate political situation, not the history of the region or the desires of its people. They created a territory that never existed before - with the Kurdish in the north, and Sunnis in the South. This land had been separate regions in the Ottoman Empire for 400 years.

The military plan was well planned and executed. The political phase was not. Failing to act as leader of broad international coalition was “so unwise” and so shortsighted. Bush now recognizes that error, and is practically begging the UN to share political responsibility over Iraq. The total disarmament of the Iraq security forces was also unwise. Transfer of limited power will be important, they (Iraqis) must be able to choose for themselves. That’s what self-determination means.

The war on terror cannot be waged solely by military means. This war also requires effective intelligence, coordinated police work, and checks by financial institutions - all of which require international cooperation. George Bush gave a great speech after September 11. When he announced the first arrests, he named the seven cities where they occurred - Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid, etc - only one was in the U.S.

Is World Peace An Impossible Dream? A college student once asked. If by "world peace" one means a complete absence of conflict between and within nations, then yes. World population from 1 AD to 1800 AD increased by 1 billion. Since then has increased by 5 billion. Consequently, more struggle for land, water, natural resources, power. Technology of killing has increased brutality of war. And war drives technology more than anything else. Today's technology allows fewer people, with less skill and resources, to kill more people than ever.

Yet, more freedom, more knowledge, more prosperity, can be the world's future. For example, the Constitution: its authors were constrained by their society and time. They allowed the vote only to adult white men who owned property. Compare to this moment. To expand the definition of what freedom means (i.e., to whom it applies). A dominant power can use its authority to end war, famine, injustice. That is our destiny.

A final anecdote: as a federal judge, my favorite task was to preside over the naturalization ceremony for immigrants, and making them American. My mother was an immigrant, she didn't speak English when she came. My father was the orphan son of immigrants. They were poor, but here they were able to give their children the education they never had. My family's experience reflects the openness of American society. After the ceremony, I would talk with the new citizens, asked them what they thought. Favorite quote, from one Asian man, who said in halting English: here in America, everybody has a chance.

Notes on a Spanish tragedy

200 people have died in the attack on commuter trains in Madrid last Thursday. Over 1400 were wounded. Before we delve into politics, let's think about what those numbers mean.

Spain has a population of 40 million. The United States is home to over 290 million, or over seven Americans for every Spaniard.

To appreciate the impact of these attacks, on the people who lost loved ones, or know others who did, multiply the dead and wouned by seven or eight... This tragedy for Spain approaches what 9/11 meant for us. Let's respect that. And however you feel, let's respect the decisions the Spanish people have made, just as we asked the world in our time of grief and outrage.

Now, back to the news. This update is about a day and a half late. Job hunting and resume sending tends to interfere with this enterprise. It was on Monday afternoon, while I sat in the car near a downtown Santa Ana law office, that I heard the election results on NPR:

Reiterating a campaign promise, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the leader of Spain's Socialist Party and new prime minister-elect, pledges to pull his country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq if the United Nations does not take control by June 30.

Zapatero's Socialists won an upset victory in Spain's general elections Sunday. Turning out in unexpectedly high numbers, Spaniards voted to remove Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's ruling party from power. Analysts say the results reflect anger over last week's deadly terrorist attacks in Madrid, which many blame on Aznar's support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The voter backlash was also fueled by the widespread perception that Aznar's government had tried to exploit the attacks for political gain by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA. On the eve of the vote, a groundswell of anger and demands for full disclosure forced Aznar's government to reveal the arrests of three Moroccans and two Indians.

Earlier, the NY Times reported that President Bush called to congraulate the new prime minister, and "reiterated our solidarity with the Spanish people."

Reiterate? How do you reiterate something that you didn't, um, iterate?? 80 to 90 percent of Spain OPPOSED sending their troops to Iraq. Bush NEVER expressed solidarity with the Spanish people. I guess unilateralism means never having to say you're in solidarity...

With Spain's strong economy, Aznar and his party seemed headed to victory a week ago, despite widespread dislike for his arrogant, authoritarian manner. His arrogance led him to drag Spain into Bush's War - the war on Iraq, not the war on terror. That drew his country into the terrorist line of fire. Aznar could have shown the courage of the soldiers he sent and simply faced the music. He should have said: yes, it was al-Qaeda, they're targeting us now, but let's stand together. Instead, Aznar chose to exploit a national tragedy for political gain by blaming Basque separatists, a tactic which outraged most of the independent voters. His government cried "ETA!", while they CONCEALED the fact that they were arresting members of al-Qaeda! It even ordered the state-owned TV station to avoid covering the widespread protests against the ruling party, and aired a documentary on ETA instead. The party founded and led by Franco supporters was now raising his spectre. So the voters punished them, and now Spain is finally heeding the will of its people. This election was not a blow to democracy. It was a blow to authoritarianism.

Hmm. Arrogance. Lying. Exploiting a national tragedy to punish domestic enemies. Does Aznar remind you of anyone? Anyone?

Blair had his "sexed-up" dossier, Bush had Niger and the missing WMDs, and now Aznar has had his comeuppance. A few months ago, a very smart friend of mine asked me: What was wrong in deposing a bad man like Hussein? The answer, I think, lies in the corruption of our own character. The more dangerous we make our enemies to be, the more desperate we become, and the more willing we are to bend the rules and violate our principles. And those who rise to power in times of paranoia are the least scrupulous kind of people. Democracies may or may not be able to force change in other regimes. And reasonable people may disagree on whether we ought to do so. But we should always adhere to our professed values, because the legimitmacy of all our actions, at home and abroad, depend on it.

What makes this turn of events absurd is, after anthrax and Saddam, the chickenhawks finally can tie something evil to al-Qaeda and not have to lie about it...and they lie about it! Maybe the title to Al Franken's book wasn't overkill after all.

Finally, let's be clear on one thing. There was no cowering, no retreating from al-Qaeda here. While Spain's involvement in Iraq may have led to the attacks, the attacks themselves did not drive voters into the arms of the Socialists. Anyone who conscientiously followed the news from day to day saw that the government's response - which avoided taking on the real terrorists - angered the public which saw it, correctly or otherwise, as duplicitous and appallingly cynical. Just read the NPR report, or better yet, listen to the audio, especially the comments by the Christian Science Monitor journalist. While writing tonight, I haven't heard any other analysis. But I am now looking up what Josh Marshall has been saying - basically, the same thing. Only he does it all in a few sentences.

Of course, I am hardly clairvoyant and often, not even timely. I know a few things about contemporary Spain, but I certainly am not an expert. What lent me a modicum of insight was my experience as an American over the past two and a half years, as a witness to our government's willingness - nay, eagerness - to demonize anti-war protestors, critics of globalization, environmental groups, skeptical nations, even the teacher's union, with words like "terrorist" or "traitor". Such loose talk can trivialize the real demons, the unequivocal terrorism that truly threatens the free world. And it makes those in any potential coalition a little less willing to follow where America wants to lead.

So many words unspoken

When she quietly entered through the curtain last night, after two bands and almost two hours, almost no one in the crowd noticed. My sister asked, "Is that her?" Low slung jeans, bright ski cap, a cherubic face in the shadows. It was Mary Lou Lord, alright.

Seven years had gone by since my college girlfriend introduced me to her music. Ironically, we had broken up by then. But the chemistry of our musical tastes continued. Back in college, I was into "classic" rock, and then folk. During 1995 & 1996 I was listening to a lot of Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Zeppelin, Neil Young, as well as newer folks like Pete Droge and Sarah McLachlan. Rachel was into "indie" rock, 10,000 Maniacs, Guided by Voices, Helium, the Cranes, Mazzy Star, Lemonheads, and later Belle and Sebastian and Sleater-Kinney. Our musical worlds were not far apart, and in effect doubled through playing each other CDs and later, sending mix tapes.

So along comes this Boston-based singer who hung out in Seattle with Kurt Cobain, a folkie girl on Kill Rock Stars with a punk ethic. Which is pretty much the folk ethic - authentic, anti-materialist, do it yourself, independent, keep it simple stupid. Her first song I ever heard was "Some Jingle Jangle Morning":

"Song about a sunbeam, song about a girl
Her voice still rings and echoes in my mind
So many words unspoken, so many worlds apart
Your memory is all you left behind..."

I saw her twice in 1998, in San Francisco. The first time, she opened for Whiskeytown. The other time, the Raging Teens and Slim Dunlap from the Replacements opened for her. She covered Dylan, she covered Pete Droge, I never heard someone of such impeccable musical taste. For a singer, she was also 100% fan, and a huge fan and friend of Elliott Smith. That was the night of the Academy Awards, and Elliott performed "Miss Misery" from Good Will Hunting in front of half of America. That was 1998.

And now it's 2004. Elliott Smith is dead. Whiskeytown frontman Ryan Adams is the biggest and most brilliant thing in alt-country, big enough to spawn a backlash. One of the girls in opening act Sister South (think acoustic and pretty Dixie Chicks) wore a T-shirt that said, "Ryan Adams Sucks". I later found out that Ryan Adams himself puts out the shirts. Talk about beyond irony.

And Mary Lou Lord? Rehab, motherhood, still busking on the street... She just keeps on trucking, neither burning out nor fading away.

When she came out, I hoped that six years ago would tessllate into yesterday. Instead, I felt the full weight of six years had passed, a lot of water under the bridge. My interest in music waned and has recovered just recently. Other things took priority: teaching, law school, the real world. I only heard about the concert through Vicky, whom I had introduced to the novelty hit "His Indie World":

"I don't think I fit in to his indie world,
Guided by Voices and Velocity Girl
Eric's Trip and Rocketship, Rancid, Rocket From the Crypt
Bikini Kill and Built to Spill, it's plain to see that I don't fit..."

I remember the weirdly compelling music wafting from the dorms of my fellow frosh: Alice in Chains, Suede, Primus, Jane's Addiction. The same folks later tuned into Matchbox 20 and Asian pop. We like to yak about musicial integrity. What about the listener's musical integrity?

So many words unspoken, so many worlds apart... It's not just her tuneful ear, or her intimate voice, or the life she's chosen - a life dedicated to music - not just her music, but the music of the troubadour giants on whose shoulders she sings.

It's the noisy six-year silence to which I can relate only too well. I like to read more than I like to write. I'm also better at the former. The components that make me a writer (appreciation of language, respect for insight, a love of words) make me a bigger fan. When I read Jonathon Kozol's first-hand account of inner-city schools, Louise Gluck's poem on friendship between a believer and an unbeliever, or Natalia Ginzburg's meditation on real virtues, I want to give a shout out to their vision. But I also lose the desire to share mine with its similar but duller perspective.

One way to clear my inferiority complex would be not to read anything by professional writers. Ignorance is bliss, right? Because poor writing or thinking agitates me as much as its superior counterpart leaves me in thrall. I get depressed when I read Michael Kinsley claim in Time that "Greed is good" for the economy (then why aren't people investing in WorldCom or Martha Stewart Omnimedia?) or NPR's Rob Gifford compare Roh Moo-hyun and Chun Doo-hwan as if they were fellow presidents tainted by similar scandals (Roh violated a parliamentary technicality, while Chun overthrew the government and imprisoned his political opponents). Actually it's the inability to respond with equal measure. People who think their weblogs are doing something are fooling themselves. But if you write or shout or sing out of love, or hate, or a need to purge your soul, then yeah, bring it on.

Mary Lou Lord @ Club Spaceland, March 13, 2004

First impressions: I thought she seemed a bit nervous and/or tipsy. Or maybe just plain tired. (Turns out she and the band Gingersol have been playing every day for nineteen consecutive days! I didn't know.) She told the crowd she has spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological disorder she described as writer's cramp for the voice. She apologized for her condition. So the first few songs - Western Union Desperate, His N.D. World (the Americana version, and a request on her second song), He'd Be A Diamond - she sang the low notes instead of the high ones. Sometime she sprechstimme-d in a sweet growl - think Renee Zellweger. More than once she remarked, "I’m getting too old for this shit..."

And then she shut out her worries, the chatty El Lay barflies, the cheapo guitar, and let her music take over her voice.

It started to happen with a cover of "1952 Vincent Black Lightning", by the great Richard Thompson. Her voice was still clipped but she never faltered in singing of a love between a British gangster, a girl, and the title motorcyle. The intricate melody drew me to notice her proficient guitar-playing too.

After ten or so songs, she brought on the previous band, Gingersol, to back her electric set. She sang "Stars Burn Out" (dedicated no doubt to her friend-muses Kurt, Elliott, et al), 43, and then "Aim Low". Despite the tricky sound system and the drowning power of her band, the indie soul of her last great song (2000) shone brightly. It's like Mount Kilimanjaro, a musical peak standing by itself. Why not more? Maybe it's as the song says: "You can't lose if you don't take part." Sigh.

Despite making the "Real Life Rock Top 10" (with a bullet!) of Greil Marcus, the art critic and fellow alum (class of '63 I think), I can 't find the full lyrics anywhere on the web. I found the line above on a Brazilian's blog, listed as her "Frase do momento" for February 23rd. That day, she was listening to "Aim Low", had just watched "Peixe Grande" ("Fish Great" says the universal translator), and ate Sesame Chicken. Sounds like an American girl to me.

Speaking of American girls, the song reminds me of a few:

"I never asked you if you'd like to go dancing
It saved hearing that you might decline
I never told you that I wanted to be with you
I aimed low when you walked on by."

She followed with "Lights Are Changing", which like the previous three, were written by or co-written with Nick Saloman of the famously obscure Bevis Frond. As an interpreter, she is always confident and loose. The opening chords are familiar, she quipped, and sang "I was born in a small town". Then she repeated it to the tune of "There she goes", before starting the song in earnest. The band was sharp, especially drummer John Florance, whose mighty drum rolls even caused the band once to turn their heads.

The only full-band song she sang of her own was "Some Jingle Jangle Morning". But she has made the others her own, while ironically, her song alludes to Nirvana, Guns and Roses, and Bob Dylan (and their songs that allude to drugs). Nonetheless, the lyrics are intensely personal and defy easy interpretation. For me it conveys a feeling of love and realization of loss - realizing a part of your life is irretrievably gone. It may be an old lover, or the Northwest scene, or the person you were way back when. I can identify with the song now in ways unknown when I first heard it.

Lord went solo acoustic again, and played "Sayonara" which I had never heard before. She followed with "I Figured You Out", "Camden Town Rain" and "Birthday Boy" - probably the three songs of hers I listen to most. Elliott Smith wrote "I Figured You Out", but never recorded it - he once said at a concert that "I thought it sounded like the Eagles and I thought it sucked. So here, check it out, see what you think." As she finished, she added, "And no, it doesn't sound like the Eagles."

By the latter two songs, I noticed she had regained her range, probably during the electric set. Her voice soared without losing a whisper of intimacy. Along with "Some Jingle Jangle Morning, "Camden Town Rain" is among the finest songs she has written. They also place the bulk of her most memorable work in the early 1990s. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that. Right, Pearl Jam?

I wonder if the handful of fans who she recognized had followed her for a decade. They were slightly older than me, so it's possible. She even dedicated "Birthday Boy" to Daniel, by personalizing four familiar lines.

Before we left Club Spaceland, I stopped to say hi. I heard her say to a fan that her new album was "pretty good" with a half-satisfied look on her face. I told her I'd last seen her in SF, at Bottom of the Hill. It was Academy Awards night. Rachel came out to see you. "Oh, Rachel," she said. Yes, she remembered the show. She had somebody tell her when Elliott would be performing on TV.

She is only a troubadour, soul sister of Dylan, before Dylan changed the rules, and she has survived the angst. Look: she has just walked onto the plaform, smiling at the subway riders, strumming a guitar. She's got the heart to back it up.

The square within a square

Yesterday afternoon, I drove my trusty 1984 Honda Accord to Heritage Plaza, about a mile away in North Irvine. One of the better malls around town, Heritage is probably the largest in Irvine. Yet it sports a rather low-key, beige-colored, wood frame appearance. Nothing too kitschy or loud. The look hasn't changed much over the past two decades, though of course stores come and go. On the main "strip" is Ralph's, Savon Drugs, ACE Hardware, and Lamppost Pizza, plus a variety of stationary and jewelry stores, hair salons, and small restaurants. Jutting out at the strip's end is a complex of offices, doctors, chiropractors, and such. North of the main strip is a smaller quad which in the past decade has filled with the ethnic stores. I had lunch at Wendy's, withdrew some cash from BofA, got a haircut from one of the many salons, picked up contact solution at Savon Drugs, bought two inner tubes at Jax Bicycle, and a few grocery items at Super Irvine.

Super Irvine is the Persian market in the "ethnic" square, or maybe I should say Persian square. Five of the stores now bear Arabic script, while Chinese and Korean appear on three others. The largest building houses the Caspian restaurant. In the mid-1980s it held Pavilion, then Irvine's only Chinese restaurant. I remember the waiter brought our rice in individual bowls. How weird, I thought! Anyways, the Chinese businesses have moved on to other squares. But I shop at Super Irvine sometimes, because it's close, they have good pita bread, and I can honor the Southern California grocery workers strike.

The current issue Food and Wine had some neat Mediterranean recipes, and I wanted to make Citrus-Scented Lamb Stew, a Feta, Tomato, and Red Onion Salad, and perhaps some Spinach Pastries. Not only does Super Irvine have lamb but it's also hahal. That means the animal is slaughtered by a believer who recites the Muslim prayer, and the meat is kept free of contamination from "other" products, and the process is certified by a religious authority. Of course, certain meat products are always haram (not halal), like pork or blood - as with kosher laws.

I bought some lamb shoulder, carrots, an onion, ground cinnamon, bread, dried pineapple, and pomegranate juice. I forgot the feta cheese, which I'll pick up this afternoon. Vicky's coming back from LA today, so it's a good day to get back in the spirit of cooking.

The square within a square exudes a welcome atmosphere. Most folks seem quite secular and stylish (in a 80s sort of way). After all, my Persian neighbors were fleeing a theocracy when they came here. And the few headscarves mixed with bottle blondes speaks of cultural pluralism. Like Chinese Americans, they've become part of the natural fabric of far suburbia: engineers and doctors, soccer and science fairs, lawns and nice sedans. Irvine's "live and let live" lifestyle fits natives and immigrants just fine. language schools for the kids, cultural festivals for the families, and sports competitions for the teens.

So I was surprised to read that controversy erupted just a stone's throw from my house, all because of a soccer tournament thrown by the Muslim Football League in Irvine. Some players selected team names like "Mujahedeen" and "Intifadas". Last month's news, but the League continues to organize tournaments.

You wonder if these critics are the same people who laugh when Native American groups complain about the Washington Redskins or Cleveland Indians. Is warrior imagery fine if "we" exploit a racial minority, but not if members of the minority promote their identity?

After the brouhaha, the teams who had chosen politically-charged names changed them, except for the "Intifadas", a word that has a broader meaning than the one most Americans know. That seemed to satisfy the protestors, except for a middle-aged blond woman waving an American flag. I saw her picture in the January 5th Orange County Register. Her name was Shelley Rubin. She was the wife of a terrorist.

Of course, the Register failed to note this little detail. They just described her as the widow of Irv Rubin.
Rubin was arrested two years ago for plotting to bomb a mosque in Culver City, as well as the office of Congressman Darrell Issa. Issa, a Republican best known for launching the recall election, is of Lebanese descent. While awaiting trial on the charges of conspiracy and terrorism, Rubin committed suicide in jail. Last week, his associate Earl Krugel pleaded guilty to the charges.

Make no mistake, Irv Rubin was an American terrorist. For Shelley Rubin to protest the football tournament while waving an American flag is the epitome of chutzpah. But it's her right to wrap herself in the red white and blue, because free expression - especially political expression - is what our country stands for. Too bad Shelley Rubin doesn't understand that free expression is not hers alone.

I woke up today to find that "The future's Orange County". Heralding this prediction was no self-promoting local rag whose name I won't mention, but rather the Guardian UK. Nearly three million people, yet no public hospitals or law schools to serve them. Billions on toll roads, not one cent for affordable housing. Countless gated "neighborhoods", but no downtown. Yes, if privatization, segregation, and alienation figure in our national destiny, then OC is the future.

But fortunately, the Guardian was not talking about OC, but "The OC", a show about which I have many good things to say. Is the drama flamboyant and hyperbolic? Sure. But if only the exaggerations are true, as Adorno once said of psychoanalysis, then much rings true about the OC. Especially the greed, insecurity, insincerity, hypocrisy - well I could go on. And I will.

But there's a lot behind the "Orange Curtain" to incite those sins. Beauty. Wealth. Sunshine. Space. Promise. My family moved here almost 28 years ago, and it's been the landscape for our American Dream. I've seen it change too much not to miss what "progress" and "planning" have destroyed, and not to cherish what is still left, and not to praise what it still could be. For better or worse, Orange County is my community. It does not belong to the John Birch Society, or Donald Bren, or the despotic homeowner's associations, or to the ironically named freedom.com. They don't own it, as long as we tell our experience and share our vision of how things ought to be.

OC belongs to all of us - to strive, to speak, to fight, and to resist.