October 9, 2001

Greetings, Friends:

A new and dangerous phase of current events is underway. Our unelected President and his British butlers have unleashed the Dogs of War on a suffering world.

They will fail to achieve their stated goals, but unless they are resisted at home they will achieve their unstated goals at our expense. Always, but especially from the morning of September 11, I have tried to be a voice for rationality and compassion – as opposed to joining the chorus of ‘U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A….’ In that spirit, I offer the following thoughts:

The Guilt or Innocence of bin Laden

The videotape released by bin Laden a couple of days ago has convinced millions of Americans that bin Laden is guilty of being the mastermind behind the bombings of September 11, despite the fact that he has denied responsibility and did not take credit for the attack in the tape. Certainly, our designated bad guy celebrated the attacks in NYC and DC and predicted more to come; he called on Muslims to fight America. What did you expect him to do, say he’s sorry and commit suicide on camera?

The US Secretary of State promised the world “convincing evidence” of bin Laden’s guilt three weeks ago. If they had it, we’d see it. They don’t. Prime Minister Blair’s long list of “evidence” comes with an up-front disclaimer that the contents aren’t good enough for court. I’m gravely unimpressed and deeply suspicious.

Suppose I’m a gangster. Suppose I’m sitting in a cave, and somebody, we’ll call him ‘Fred’, comes up to me and asks, “Should I kill Officer Bob?” I reply, “Sure, of course you should! Officer Bob is a pawn of the White Man and his Jewish masters. Go kill him.” Then, Fred goes and shoots Officer Bob. What crime am I guilty of? Answer: none, unless I do something to actively assist Fred, such as taking an active step to help him plan the murder or give him money to buy a gun. So if the State Department wants us to accept proof of bin Laden’s cheer leading as evidence of his guilt, I’m not satisfied.

Now please suppose for a moment that bin Laden is guilty. Let’s say he invited all the hijackers over for tea, and let’s say the get-together was video taped, so now we can see bin Laden standing at an easel pointing at a photo of the WTC with a big red X for where the airplane is supposed to hit. What then? The use of force, both in domestic law enforcement and in war, is carefully regulated. It is these regulations that draw the boundary between lawlessness and the rule of law. We ought to follow the law if we purport to “fight for justice”.

It is precisely at times such as these that we must aspire to our highest standards, as opposed to surrendering to our deepest passions!

A Million Casualties by Christmas

Our medal-encrusted “experts” and their civilian “leaders” are making much of the so-called humanitarian aid – less than 40,000 servings a night, dropped randomly into mine fields and elsewhere. What they don’t tell us is that the air strikes have mandated the evacuation of civilian aid workers who were helping feed several million people. I can already hear Tony Blair and his less-articulate American counterparts: “The million civilian hunger casualties are more blood on the hands of bin Laden and his terror networks. Our resolve will never weaken until the threat of international terror networks is ended…”

We’re hearing of “targeted” bombing. It’s nonsense. That’s why journalists are not allowed to cover the action in person, unlike WW2. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as an “unintended consequence” of dropping bombs – there’s just damage, and none of it is “collateral”.

What Are We Fighting For?

The stated objective of Bush and Blair is to “Root out and destroy networks of international terror.” This is not a coherent goal in the abstract; it becomes laughable when we notice that the American Administration is full of veterans of the Contra war, folks who waged a number of covert terrorist wars. The administration wants to have more covert actions. What does the covert arm of western intelligence do for a living? It funds and supports ‘unsavory characters’ (terrorists) who are tasked with the mission of murdering opponents – in Vietnam and in Latin America, many of our targeted victims were civilians who were sympathetic to or active in liberal politics. (See Operation Phoenix, etc.) Now, if Bush and Powell and Rumsfeld were serious about “destroying terrorists of international reach” they’d do something about the nut-case Cubans in Miami, wouldn’t they? Oh wait – those Cubans use violence to stop American Presidential Ballots being counted, so they must be lovers of freedom after all.

The true goals of the Administration are quite apparent: they want to further militarize American society and further protect the financial interests of the corporations and the richest 5% of Americans. Upon his “election”, the President called for a big tax cut for the rich because the economy was doing well. When the economy tanked, the tax cut became necessary because we weren’t doing well. Now the President is trying, cynically, to get another tax cut whilst spending emergency dollars on war. The result is as predictable as gravity: we’ll have deficits again, with higher unemployment and an accelerated transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, all in the name of Security. That’s the True Agenda of the Bush administration. They want to enrich themselves and entrench their power, and they want to do it at our expense. If they were opposed to terrorism they wouldn’t have spent their careers practicing it!

Martin Luther King and John Lennon

You don’t hear too much about these guys during times like these. That’s why Clear Channel, the corporation that owns about a quarter of US radio stations (thanks to the Clinton Telecommunications Act) “advised” its stations not to play “Imagine” after the bombings.

Now we see why those men are so beloved: they had the courage and vision to speak, boldly, of peace and compassion at a time of war. Hindsight shows that they were visionaries, as well as flawed human beings. It is not easy to keep one’s head and face an angry and frightened society with words of compassion and reason. We oppose war and corporate power because it is necessary, not because it is easy.

“I hope one day you’ll join us, and the world will live as one.” He was singing to you. Get busy.

Hope

The most potent drug is hope. It’s more powerful than any legal or illegal intoxicant; it fills one with energy and an awesome sense of the possible. Sure, I argue that American democracy has largely been thwarted by laws like the National Security Act of 1950 and the power of organized money. But during that same period we saw the Civil Rights movement come off the streets to lead the “leaders” – so even Ronald Reagan had to read scripts that spoke reverently of the memory of Dr. King and used phrases like “give peace a chance.” American society still is segregated and racist – but it’s a hell of a lot more integrated now than it was in 1950. Social activism ended Jim Crow, it ended our criminal war in Vietnam and it ended Apartheid.

Many of the causes that came to prominence in the 1960′s and 1970′s have moved from the fringe to the heart of today’s politics, and they are as vibrant and important today as they were ‘back in the day.’ Environmentalism, the liberation of women, the support of ‘liberation struggles’ of oppressed peoples such as the blacks in South Africa, the recognition of kinship in non-traditional family arrangements – these causes have done enormous good and offer a way out of our present troubles.

Since the Second World War, a lot has been done to try to codify – to put into writing – exactly what rights one ought to have as a birth right of being human. These are best expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document I have circulated in the past. These values ought to be at the heart of all international treaties, particularly those dealing with international trade and investment. Presently, these treaties are designed to protect corporate profits and investors. It’s not hard to fix the problem – all that is needed is the insight and political will.

Suppose I’m wrong about the administration not having good proof of bin Laden’s involvement with the bombings. Suppose I’m also wrong about judging them as being violent hypocrites. Let’s assume for a moment that they’re sincere human beings trying to do their best at a time of crisis, against a vague but deadly enemy. Okay, what should they do? They lead the richest and most powerful nation in history. It seems to me that the military buildup and the hugely expensive use of force is not likely to damage the terrorists nearly as much as it will damage our political and diplomatic standing in the world. I just don’t see how a million or two civilian casualties is going to advance the cause of freedom or hurt terrorism. Certainly it won’t be a very satisfying vengeance for the 6,000 dead in America. Even when viewed most sympathetically, our leaders’ actions fall far short of what is needed to protect us and to advance the cause of freedom at home and around the world. They need our help.

So, my friends, it’s up to us. This is our country, and even the least well off among us has been blessed with great wealth and freedom compared with most of the world’s population. To me, patriotism means standing up as an American and insisting that our nation live up to its highest ideals – because it is right and because it is in our best interest!

Peace, love and strawberries,

Scott

Share on Facebook

To Vote YES on Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010!

Here is a series of one-minute videos in support of Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative that will go before the voters on November 2. Way back in 1972, the California Marijuana Initiative shared office space with McGovern headquarters. I was starting 9th grade at LeConte Junior High School in Hollywood, CA, about half a dozen short blocks away. Election Day was a couple of weeks before my 14th birthday.

I wasn’t old enough to vote in that election, but I was old enough to do a little work for both campaigns. I met Jack Herer when he was young and thin – but no more passionate than he was decades later. I’ve believed in the sanity and justice of this policy for longer than I’ve been licensed to practice law…come to think of it, I’ve been in favor of legalizing marijuana for longer than I’ve been licensed to drive!

Please join me in voting YES on Proposition 19 this November Second!

Share on Facebook

Arizona’s harsh new anti-immigrant law has received a lot of self-righteous comment from all sides. Although I deplore the racism at the heart of Arizona’s law, I believe the angry, confused white people of Arizona deserve the same compassion their undocumented brown counterparts are entitled to.

I’m writing this entry from a rich suburban neighborhood a couple dozen miles north of the US-Mexico border. There is economic and social chaos on both sides of this frontier. In my little way I would like to contribute to inter-racial, cross-border Solidarity. Illegal immigration is caused by “free trade” agreements like NAFTA and GATT, and by the drug war. It will be solved by limiting corporate power and by legalizing drugs.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

To Celebrate America, let’s meditate on the words of James Madison, our fourth President and Father of the US Constitution:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals….

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Share on Facebook

Gerald F. Pearce was one of the two grandfathers I never met. He was in WWI, but not in the European trenches. Instead, Gerald Senior was in the Middle East. 90 years ago today, the Great War ended. My grandfather was in Baghdad, Iraq. Here’s what the main drag looked like on November 11, 1918:

The First World War was supposed to End All Wars. Instead, it ushered in an era of violence without precedent in human history. My grandfather picked up a weapon to “fight for democracy.” I’ve chosen  to devote my life to working for peace.

Share on Facebook

Ours is a society that has chosen to live by the sword. The story isn’t likely to have a happy ending.

Share on Facebook

Here is a five-part presentation about the history of the drug laws. It’s a fascinating story, far more entertaining and bizarre than you might expect.

Share on Facebook

Alexis did not get to watch or listen to the speech live, as I did, so I got to sit in the background while she took it in on-line. Alexis thought the speech was pitch perfect. I think it was brilliant. Sadly, I remain profoundly disappointed with the Democrats for their failure to serve as a true opposition party. I find myself appalled at the power of corporations and frightened by the disintegration of Constitutional law in this country. It seems to me that the Ralph Nader and Ron Paul campaigns have far more intellectual and moral substance than do those of Obama, Clinton and McCain.

At the same time, I recognize the importance of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and I respect the enthusiasm that it has generated among several generations of American women. I have no doubt that this speech will be quoted for many years to come. For those whose work on Senator Clinton’s campaign has been their first taste of political activism, this address by their candidate will serve as a continuing inspiration.

Although I handed out bumper stickers for the Bobby Kennedy campaign when I was nine years old, I didn’t put any real time and effort into a political campaign until the McGovern candidacy of 1972. Sometime between now and election day, I’ll publish the campaign literature that still sits in my files, including the piece put out within weeks of Watergate, entitled “Bug Nixon Before Nixon Bugs You.”

I remember election night,1972. Everybody knew that Nixon was going to win a gigantic landslide victory. I spent that night alone in my room, with a cheap black and white television set and a cassette tape recorder. Even today, I still remember the hot tears on my face as I watched and listened to George McGovern’s concession speech, just days before my 14th birthday. I dreaded the future under a second Nixon administration. Little did I suspect at the time that Richard Nixon would leave a more progressive legacy than would any of his successors.

Have a listen to Senator McGovern’s fine speech from that miserable November evening more than 35 years ago, and imagine the sort of world we would live in if fine people like McGovern had been leading the executive branch of government instead of the ones we ended up with. As I listen to this speech again today, I recognize that McGovern was hardly the perfect candidate – yet his words and and the substance of his career continue to inspire me today.

No doubt Hillary Clinton’s speech will do the same for untold numbers of young women who for the first time have tasted politics, and political disappointment, with Clinton’s campaign of 2008.

Share on Facebook

They had a campaign table on the south side of Hollywood Boulevard, close to my favorite toy store. I knew one of the young women who was working at the table. She gave me a stack of bumper stickers to pass out. Even today, 40 years later, I still remember the expressions on the faces of adults I reached out a bumper sticker to. Some people looked at me with a type of anger that I hadn’t seen before. Others took a bumper sticker and gave me a friendly pat.

Here’s a picture of me, taken a couple of weeks before my tiny role in the 1968 California Primary. I did it so my cat Tiger Paws and I could live in a freer, less violent world. The smart money was betting on the opposite outcome.

Share on Facebook

This picture was taken in 1988, twenty years ago, at UC Berkeley, bastion of free speech. Some of America’s smartest and most talented college kids thought this was a practical way to deal with the TV problem.

Alexis and I grew up in Hollywood. Our family has been connected to the entertainment business for more than 60 years. We do not have cable or any other kind of pay television. We do own a 13-inch television set. It picks up a few local stations, but mostly it is a DVD player.

Every year we watch the Oscars and the Super Bowl. Every four years, I watch the World Cup. Last night, we watched an episode of a TV show called “Boston Legal.” Actually, Alexis watched it, and I dropped in for about a quarter of it.

To me, “good TV” is an oxymoron. I’d rather listen to ancient old radio shows instead of watching TV, because the pictures in my imagination are more entertaining to me than anything that might appear on a television set. Plus, I just don’t like sitting around, observing a piece of furniture. That said, “Boston Legal” seemed to be OK. As a lawyer, I can’t say I go for entertainment based on the practice of law. The performers seemed to be having fun in this show. There’s a lot more zooming around and other camera movement than I remember being on TV, back in the day.

Here we are again, back in Berkeley in 1988. As you can see, the Authorities sent several uniformed officers with guns – to protect the televisions! After all, this was Reagan’s last year in office, and those folks knew how important it is to keep the people watching TV and not thinking about politics. But let’s don’t blame Reagan. That guy was reading a teleprompter on TV and he conducted his cabinet meetings off of cue cards written for him by others. He wasn’t in power; like the current stooge in the White House, he was merely the Acting President.

Share on Facebook

Basically, the court says it’s not ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, but on the constitutionality of the ban. In CA, statutory interpretation requires looking at the overall scheme of laws when considering an individual law. Since same-sex partnerships have all the rights of married couples in the eye of the law in CA, since sexual orientation is a protected category under civil rights law, and since there’s a fundamental right to marry, the court said the government had to show that the ban was necessary to serve a compelling state interest. This is the “strict scrutiny” standard of review.

Here’s a three and a half minute video I have produced on the decision for Juris Vodcast.

Share on Facebook

Organized Crime has its own newspaper! Because I have a fancy education and ended up a member of the ‘investor class,’ the Wall Street Journal let me have a year’s subscription to its expensive fish wrap for a mere $99. The year ran out with the May 8 issue, which you see gracing the top of our recycling for the week.

Wow, what an amazingly bad newspaper! Karl Rove is deemed an astute commentator, and Henry Kissinger is considered an elder statesman. No corporate crime goes undefended in this paper, and no regulation goes uncriticized. Insane crackpots are the rule, not the exception. This is the newspaper of war mongers and, even worse, war profiteers.

Rupert Murdoch, an embodiment of evil, took this lousy paper and made it even worse. This is no mean accomplishment. Murdoch has made the Wall Street Journal even more stridently partisan and even less literate.

Now, just where did I put that invitation to try the Financial Times for a year, cheap?

Share on Facebook

“I sold pot in the U.S. A quarter ounce. It cost me 40 years in jail, where I have been raped and beaten. The Supreme Court says this is not cruel and unusual.”

“Hi! I’m a rich, deceased lawyer. My picture is up in room 1 of the USC Law Center. I was convicted of tax fraud, but over the years I donated $160,000 to USC.”

“I’m Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Who says my brains need to be reasonably related ty my job?”

“I’m a haggard USC 1st year law student, the victim of a brutal socialization (brainwashing) process. I feel as if my arms have been tied behind my back.”

“I’m a woman associate at a large law firm. My chances of becoming a partner are cut by my dislike of playing softball and my interest in becoming a mother as well as a 1st rate attorney.”

“I’m a fertilized egg in the womb of a poor woman. I present a threat to the life of the woman I’m inside. The courts say it’s OK for the government to deny the woman a free abortion, despite the direct threat to her life.”

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook