This one quote of Cicero continues to haunt my mind each time I read it and use it in a blog. I believe that his words are as vital and vibrant as they were two millennia ago. There is another quote from George Santayana from the early part of this past century that has had the same impact upon me.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905
Both of these quotes bring Martin Niemöller to mind who is credited for writing First They Came for the Jews though there still remains some controversy over its authorship. Yet that doesn't diminish the significance of these words to anyone of any age in the history of mankind.
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (January 14, 1892 - March 6, 1984) was a prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known as the author of the poem First they came....
Although he was a national conservative and initially a supporter of Adolf Hitler, he became one of the founders of the Confessing Church, which opposed the nazification of German Protestant churches. Despite his own anti-Semitic attitudes, he vehemently opposed the Nazis' Aryan Paragraph. For his opposition to the Nazi's state control of the churches, Niemöller was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945. He narrowly escaped execution and survived imprisonment. After his imprisonment, he expressed his deep regret about not having done enough to help the victims of the Nazis. He turned away from his earlier anti-Semitic and nationalistic beliefs and was one of the initiators of the Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt. Since the 1950s, he was a vocal pacifist and anti-war activist, and vice-chair of War Resisters' International from 1966 to 1972. He met with Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War and was a committed campaigner for nuclear disarmament.
1976 Version of the Poem
Original
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
Translation
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
We live in an era where racial, religious, and political profiling is becoming too common place and individual rights and the dignity of humanity seem to have less importance and sanctity every day. We once had a Constitution in this country that guaranteed legal rights to citizens as well as anyone legally residing or traveling in the United States. When people speak of Rendition and Torture, it brings images to my mind of Hitler and National Socialism as well as Stalin and the Gulags of Soviet Communism. The tragic reality is that we are talking about the United States in the first decade of the twenty first century. Let us continue to remind ourselves of the words of Marcus Tullius Cicero and George Santayana.
Originally, the last month of the year, February derives from 'februa" the instruments of purification that were used to propitiate the gods and prepare for Spring, which Varro indicates began on February 5.
NATURA IPSA SAPIENTEM LOCUPLETAT. NATURE HERSELF MAKES THE WISE MAN RICH.
Cicero like Marcus Aurelius after him was a Stoic Philosopher, and he would have believed that the world was governed by law and reason. I suppose the question would be is what does Cicero mean when he says that "Nature herself will make a wise man rich"? Reason and Faith can become confused especially when they are misused in an attempt to keep us misinformed. Is my truth and reality simply a lie and a fantasy to someone else? I would never presume to be so dogmatic by maintaining that my view of the world is an absolute. Yet, when we see such glaring contradictions caused by 'Man' on this mater terra that we have been entrusted to care for. Have we addressed the social divide in this country that Katrina so clearly pointed out to us all?
Lest we forget!
The following appeared in the Washington Post this morning: NATO Confronts Surprisingly Fierce Taliban
In the year and a half since NATO took over southern Afghanistan from U.S. forces, its mission has changed dramatically. Dispatched to the region to maintain newly restored order and help local Afghans reconstruct their shattered communities, Dutch and other troops from the alliance now find themselves on the front lines of a renewed fight with a more cunning and aggressive Taliban.
More foreign soldiers and Afghan civilians died in Taliban-related fighting last year than in any year since U.S. and coalition forces ousted the extremist Islamic militia, which ruled most of the country, in 2001. Military officials here expect the coming year to be just as deadly, if not more so, as the Taliban becomes more adept militarily and more formidable in its deployment of suicide bombers and roadside explosives.
The Taliban's growing strength, which surprised Dutch forces here, helps explain why NATO members are reluctant to send more troops to an increasingly dangerous battlefield and have instead adopted a strategy based less on military force.
In his recent criticism of NATO's refusal to deploy more forces, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates accused the alliance of being ill-prepared for counterinsurgency operations. NATO countries, however, while not opposed to the war effort in Afghanistan, have always viewed the key to success as one that relied on giving Afghans new schools, health clinics and other elements of a sturdy civil society.
We left Afghanistan to fight an ill conceived and unjust war in Iraq with a callous disregard to the victims of 9/11. The Central point and message that is so critical at this juncture can be seen in this last paragraph.
"NATO countries have always viewed the key to success as one that relied on giving Afghans new schools, health clinics and other elements of a sturdy civil society."
If we would have had the wisdom to do exactly this when Soviet troops were driven out of Afghanistan, there very well may never have been a 9/11. Like Charlie Wilson said, "We know how to start the game, but just don't seem to be able to finish it".
Charlie Wilson and Changing the World
I have no answers but it would be nice to think that it is possible.
Senex Magister
It is past time to bring this war to an end and live as brothers in a world based on fairness for all of us.
Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism. ~Thomas Jefferson~
It is Super Bowl Sunday which has become almost a National Holiday or at least Day of Celebration. It is a day that has become much more than just the culmination of the National Football League's hugely profitable season. Team owners whether they are winners or losers continue to profit from America's obsession with the NFL. I will also admit that I fall victim to the same obsession every year. Many of us will gather today in our homes with family or friends to enjoy pre-game activities and then the ever anticipated (?) 'What was I going to say here'? Is it the game or the ever growing cost of Super Bowl Commercial time for whatever product? I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing, but it is an example and reminder of 'American Greed'.
There is another example and reminder of the same kind of greed and that is the profitability that many American Companies have found in Iraq. I have remained very curious about the meetings that the Vice President had with our critically important 'Energy Corporations' in the early moments of the Bush Administration. Yet, they were deemed so sensitive that the Cheney-Bush Administration classified the discussions of those meetings. I think each of us should be asking ourselves 'why' especially within the context of the growing profits of these companies and then the invasion of oil rich Iraq. We can be given many reasons why we went to war and allowed ourselves to become a debtor nation, but there is only one answer that comes close to a sufficiently honest answer and that again is 'American Greed'.
We have important primaries on Tuesday but then candidates of both parties have not given me a clear enough answer about 'WHEN WILL THEY BRING ALL OUR MEN AND WOMEN HOME'. The Republican simply want to continue the failed policies of George W. Bush while the Democrats talk about ending the war but they are very fuzzy about exactly when.
RON PAUL - JUST BRING THEM HOME
I am not a supporter of Ron Paul's political philosophy of no government, but this is a good clip. It not only shows the futility of this struggle but those who are bearing the emotional and physical cost of this war. If the War in Iraq were truly a National Struggle where the children and grandchildren of CEO's of American Corporations as well as members of Congress were being placed in Harm's Way, do you believe this war would continue or would we 'Bring Them Home'?
Barack Obama wins South Carolina primary: Portrait of Obama
This is a clip of Barack Obama addressing Veterans as well as issues of people who simply have no voice. It is not just a tragedy but an unconscionable disgrace that we have Homeless Veterans in 2008.
Iraq War Support Our Troops Stop All War Profiteering
HILLARY CLINTON @ DNC: "I'll End This War"
Hilary Clinton like many others voted to give George W. Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in 2002. If we are going to be fair to the senator, we must remember that she was deceived by faulty intelligence like so many others did. It was a mistake but it was one that was based on a lie.
The Democratic Party is putting forth two excellent candidates that will bring a change and a new direction to government in Washington. One of the most important changes that either one will do for this nation is 'Bring Them Home'. The decision will be difficult but whomever you choose it must be for a candidate who will 'Bring Them Home'.
Senex Magister
It is past time to bring this war to an end and live as brothers in a world based on fairness for all of us.
~Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism. ~Thomas Jefferson~
I was speaking this morning with a friend of forty five plus years and our conversation, as it quite often does, led to politics and the current presidential campaigns. Neither of us really disagrees with one another about the importance of change in the White House and electing a President who will lead this country away from the failed policies of George W. Bush. This is why we both agree in how important a Democratic Victory in November is so essential for this critical change to occur in Washington. This led into a discussion over the recent controversy between Obama and Clinton on race and gender but especially concerning race. The media or what we used to refer to as the Fourth Estate, I believe, has attempted from the onset to created an environment of confrontation and controversy between candidates over apparent personal disagreements having nothing to do with the important political issues of the day. I also think it is very unfair to even intimate that either Bill or Hilary Clinton have a racist bone in their bodies. What far too many of us are doing is allowing the media to turn brother against brother. I was as opposed to the Vietnam War as I am to the Iraq War and in that sense I am much closer to Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq War. I would have no difficulty in supporting either candidate for President except for one serious caveat. I would hope that either an African American or a woman could run and be elected President of the United States in 2008. However, I am sadly fearful that this nation has not yet overcome the sin of racism and bigotry that has plagued us for so many years and still contributes to the social divide that separates us one from another. I am also saddened by the role that the media is playing in perpetuating this divide within the United States.
Senex Magister
BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Clinton, Obama, King and Johnson | PBS
I Have A Dream
Civil Rights Act of 1964
In an 11 June 1963 speech broadcast live on national television and radio, President John F. Kennedy unveiled plans to pursue a comprehensive civil rights bill in Congress, stating, ‘‘this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free’’ (‘‘President Kennedy’s Radio-TV Address,’’ 970). King congratulated Kennedy on his speech, calling it ‘‘one of the most eloquent, profound and unequivocal pleas for justice and the freedom of all men ever made by any president’’ (King, 12 June 1963).
The earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first law addressing the legal rights of African Americans passed by Congress since Reconstruction, had established the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to investigate claims of racial discrimination. Before the 1957 bill was passed Congress had, however, removed a provision that would have empowered the Justice Department to enforce the Brown v. Board of Education decision. A. Philip Randolph and other civil rights leaders continued to press the major political parties and presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to enact such legislation and to outlaw segregation. The civil rights legislation that Kennedy introduced to Congress on 19 June 1963 addressed these issues, and King advocated for its passage.
In an article published after the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom that posed the question, ‘‘what next?’’ King wrote, ‘‘the hundreds of thousands who marched in Washington marched to level barriers. They summed up everything in a word—NOW. What is the content of NOW? Everything, not some things, in the President’s civil rights bill is part of NOW’’ (King, ‘‘In a Word—Now’’).
Following Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963, King continued to press for the bill as did newly inaugurated President Lyndon B. Johnson. In his 4 January 1964 column in the New York Amsterdam News, King maintained that the legislation was ‘‘the order of the day at the great March on Washington last summer. The Negro and his compatriots for self-respect and human dignity will not be denied’’ (King, ‘‘A Look to 1964’’).
The bill passed the House of Representatives in mid-February 1964, but became mired in the Senate due to a filibuster by southern senators that lasted 75 days. When the bill finally passed the Senate, King hailed it as one that would ‘‘bring practical relief to the Negro in the South, and will give the Negro in the North a psychological boost that he sorely needs’’ (King, 19 June 1964). On 2 July 1964, Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law with King and other civil rights leaders present. The law’s provisions created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to address race and sex discrimination in employment and a Community Relations Service to help local communities solve racial disputes; authorized federal intervention to ensure the desegregation of schools, parks, swimming pools, and other public facilities; and restricted the use of literacy tests as a requirement for voter registration.
President Johnson’s five years in office brought about critical civil rights legislation and innovative anti-poverty programs through his Great Society initiative, though his presidency was marred by mishandling of the war in Vietnam. Though Martin Luther King, Jr., called Johnson’s 1964 election “one of America’s finest hours,” and believed that Johnson had an “amazing understanding of the depth and dimension of the problem of racial injustice,” King’s outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War damaged his relationship with Johnson and brought an end to an alliance that had enabled major civil rights reforms in America (King, 4 November 1964; King, 6 March 1965).
Johnson was born in rural Texas on 27 August 1908. He graduated from Southwest Texas State Teachers College in 1930 and briefly taught in Texas public schools before becoming secretary to a Texas congressman in Washington, D.C. In 1937, Johnson was elected to serve out the term of a Texas representative who had died in office. In 1948, he was elected a senator, becoming Democratic whip, then minority leader. In 1954, Johnson became the second youngest man ever to be named Senate majority leader. From this position of power, Johnson used his political leverage to engineer passage of the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.
When John F. Kennedy secured the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 1960, he surprisingly chose Johnson as his running mate, hoping the Texas senator would appeal to southern voters. Shortly after winning the election, Kennedy named Johnson chairman of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. With Johnson’s encouragement, on 11 June 1963, Kennedy framed civil rights in moral terms for the first time during a national address.
Following the assassination of President Kennedy on 22 November 1963, Johnson challenged Congress to pass the civil rights legislation that had been deadlocked at the time of Kennedy’s death. King publicly supported Johnson, saying that Johnson had taught him to recognize that there were “new white elements” in the South “whose love of their land was stronger than the grip of old habits and customs,” and expressed optimism that Johnson’s term would benefit African Americans (King, 1964). On 2 July 1964 Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a far reaching bill he hoped would “eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in America” (Kenworthy, “President Signs Civil Rights Bill”). King stood behind Johnson as he signed the bill into law. A month later, they clashed over the recognition of delegates from the integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) at the Democratic National Convention of 1964. MFDP sought recognition as the legitimate Democratic Party delegation from Mississippi instead of the all-white “regular” delegation. However, Johnson feared this change would cost him southern Democratic votes in the upcoming election against Republican Barry Goldwater, and recommended a compromise that King eventually supported.
Later that year, Johnson won a decisive victory in the 1964 election, garnering the widest popular margin in presidential history. King had campaigned actively for Johnson and welcomed the victory saying, “the forces of good will and progress have triumphed” (King, 4 November 1964). In the first months of Johnson’s elected term, King joined a voting rights campaign in Selma, Alabama, where less than two percent of eligible black voters had been able to register to vote. The brutality of white law enforcement during the Selma to Montgomery March stirred Johnson to send a voting rights bill to Congress. When introducing the bill, Johnson reflected publicly on the poverty and racism he had encountered teaching high school to Mexican immigrant children in Texas. King called Johnson’s speech “one of the most eloquent, unequivocal, and passionate pleas for human rights ever made by the President of the United States” (King, 16 March 1965). Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law on 6 August.
During the first four years of Johnson’s tenure as president, he deflected the criticisms of King that were fed to him almost daily by Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover, who nursed personal animosity toward King. Johnson saw King as a natural ally for his civil rights agenda, soliciting King’s advice on civil rights matters, and collaborating on tactics for pushing legislation through Congress. This relationship, coupled with Johnson’s civil rights record, made King initially hesitant to speak out against his administration’s policies in Vietnam. When asked his opinion by journalists in March 1965, King cautiously stated that he was “sympathetic” to Johnson’s predicament, but that he himself did not believe that “violence can solve the problem” (King, 6 March 1965). In late 1966, King’s last phone call to Johnson was to discuss Vietnam.
In the months that followed, Johnson attempted to meet with King on two occasions, but King canceled both engagements. Johnson was bewildered and asked his aides to find out why King was avoiding him. On 4 April 1967, the answer was revealed to Johnson in a speech, “Beyond Vietnam, “that King delivered at New York’s Riverside Church in conjunction with Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. In his speech, King said that he was moved to “break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart” against the war in Vietnam, and in a devastating indictment of Johnson’s policies, King called the United States government “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” (King, “Beyond Vietnam,” 141; 143). Shocked by King’s address and feeling personally betrayed, Johnson caved in to Hoover’s pressure and asked his press secretary to distribute the FBI’s information about King’s ties with alleged communist Stanley Levison to reliable reporters.
Beyond Vietnam
A year later, a press conference for the Poor People’s Campaign, King announced that he would not support Johnson in the 1968 presidential election. “I was a strong supporter,” King recalled. “I voted for President Johnson and saw great hope there, and I’m very sorry and very sad about the course of action that has followed” (King, 26 March 1968). On 31 March 1968, Johnson shocked the nation by declaring that he would not seek reelection, and pledged that he would spend the remainder of his term seeking “an honorable peace” in Vietnam (“Transcript”).
Four days later, on 4 April 1968, King was assassinated. Johnson wrote in his memoir that he had rarely felt a “sense of powerlessness more acutely than the day Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed” (Johnson, 173). Less than a week later, Johnson invoked King’s memory when he signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Among other provisions, the bill barred discrimination in federally funded housing and created new penalties for threatening or injuring persons exercising their civil rights. In his final year as president, Johnson halted bombing in North Vietnam and pressed for peace talks. He would not, however, live to see peace in Vietnam; he died of a heart attack at his Texas ranch on 22 January 1973.
EXTRA LEGAL: What the hooch could that mean. For us who make up the simple citizenry of this great nation it means beyond or outside of the law. What happens to the simple citizens of the US who believe that they can live beyond or out side of the law? They go to jail! However, and I want you to think about this seriously, what happens when it is the President who is EXTRA LEGAL?
Senex Magister
It is past time to bring this war to an end and live as brothers in a world based on fairness for all of us.
Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism. ~Thomas Jefferson~
