SACRIFICING WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND RAPE, By Louise Annarino,October 25,2012

Sacrificing Women,Children and Rape,By Louise Annarino,October 25, 2012

The chart below by Brainwrap ,published today at Daily Kos illustrates how the GOP reframes the violence against women we call rape as simply another method of conception rather than criminal behavior. If rape is discussed as a method of conception rather than criminal violence it allows Republicans, Roman Catholic bishops, and others to exclude its consideration as a reason to allow an abortion exception for rape victims. After all, why should we allow abortion for any mere act of conception? Once we describe the question as one 0f conception only we can forget

about the need to protect women and to keep them safe. Thus, we are free to  criminalize abortion, even in the case of rape. Consequently, the  only person in need of our protection is the fetus; not the mother.

This is not new; nor is it necessarily partisan politics. Too often and for too long, we have allowed men to define rape as a sexual act, rather than a violent criminal act. Susan Brownmiller wrote of this   dismissive rhetorical formula in her book AGAINST OUR WILL: Men, Women And Rape, 1975 ,she wrote “Rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” I would add that rape is also used against children. Wrongly defining it affects children as well as women.

Rape is not a sexual act. Rape is not a method of conception. Rape is an act of violence meant to intimidate, control, and weaken women and chldren. It is an act of domination and control by violent attack. It is often, though not always, perpetrated against women. Men can also be raped. Rape is a crime committed by an individual, or by a group of individuals (gang rape) which is not uncommon, nor rare.

Recently, we have learned that children are often victims of rape by priests, clergy, Scout leaders etc. Unfortunately, those who knew of these rapes perceived and reacted as if the incidents were sexual acts rather than violent criminal acts which should have been immediately reported to the police for criminal prosecution. Instead the rapist priest or troop leaders were re-assigned as if the behavior could be stopped by removing the rapist from the temptations of his sexual partners. Rape is never a sexual act. It is an abuse of power meant to dominate and control another human being. It destroys human beings. It is violent. It is terrifying.It is soul destroying. I live with its memory every day, and dream it every night.

The position of the Republican party is that a woman who is the victim of a criminal rape should be forced to give birth.Vice President Paul Ryan and at least 12 of 28 Republican Senate nominees, including Republican Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel running against Democratic Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown take this position. Paul Ryan redefines rape and dismisses it is an act of criminal violence when he articulates this position,”I’ve always adopted the idea, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” But defining rape by criminalizing abortion this way vaccinates the horror of rape and re-injures its victims by denying the reality of their experience. It demeans  the victim and dismisses the crime. Ignoring the victim of a crime, re-victimizes the woman or child who has been raped.

During the past weeks as I heard the comments listed in the above chart, I found it difficult to sleep,eat,laugh and feel safe. I felt re-injured. I felt terror lurking beneath my skin, ready to bring me down. By calling rape “another method of conception” my experience with violent sexual assault was transformed into an innocuous,even harmless, sexual encounter. In effect, we are being told, “We see no reason why you should ask to be protected or kept safe from a mere method of conception. Asking us to do so, asking us to ALLOW you any CONTROL over your own safety, security or life itself will soon be a criminal offense, because we intend to make abortions,even in the case of rape, illegal. Women who are victims of the violent crime of rape are being told that we are the real criminals.

Why do Republicans need to define rape this way? To connect rape to contraception via  an act conception. Thus, they can justify access to birth control, allow employers to refuse to offer contraceptives coverage in insurance plans, to justify Catholic hospitals and clinics refusal to allow insurance company policies for their employees to cover contraception. Rape is yet again being used to dominate and control women, to intimidate us and bring us in line by redefining it as a method of conception. We feel re-injured by the Republican positions because we are being re-injured! These men declared their power over women and children in a new way; by refusing to allow us even the right to define our victimization as violent crimes. Any woman or parent of children should think long and hard before voting for ANY candidate who calls rape a method of conception.

The chart above paints a rosy picture of what Republicans intend for women and children. It seems to describe the types of rape. However, it is far worse. more insidious, and far more dangerous to our safety  because it does not merely define the type of rape; it removes the core, elemental use of violence which is at the heart of rape; instead defining it as an act for sexual pleasure or conception, not an act to dominate, threaten and control. Rape cannot be a crime if it just another method of conception, as defined by Paul Ryan, Josh Mandel, and the Republican platform. Women and children will lose their right to be safe, maybe even their lives, to protect a fetus and to insure continued male domination.

President Obama’s comments on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno explain why he deserves our support, “I don’t know how these guys come up with these ideas. Let me make a very simple proposition: rape is rape. It is a crime.This is exactly why you don’t want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women’s healthcare.”

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAVED BY A WALL,By Louise Annarino,October 10, 2012

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAVED BY A WALL, By Louise Annarino, October 10, 2012

Teachable moments are what I live for. At my core I am still Professor Annarino,even though I retired that nomenclature when I retired from Ohio University. The Arab Spring, and the role of President Obama and the United States of America as supporters of rising democratic republics across north Africa and the Mid-east have created a teachable moment. It was a sign of success when world leaders gathered at the United Nations and openly discussed the human right of freedom of expression. President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt and President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi of Yemen affirmed a belief in the right to freedom of expression, they expressed a need to limit hate speech, including speech that insults religion and religious figures. President Asif A. Zadari of Pakistan went further, arguing that such speech should be criminalized. These leaders are struggling with the ramifications of hate speech,as we all do. However, their recommended solution to restrict speech is not the only way to deal with hate speech. The United States has been dealing with this problem since its inception. Hate groups continue to plague us,sometimes engaging in homegrown terrorism.We understand  the issue. Our cultural institutions, med1a, schools and courts address the problems such hate speech create. These new leaders have hard choices ahead; difficult decades of discord before free speech takes hold.

To some calls  to limit speech may seem a disturbing turn of events. But it is not;it is chance to explore free speech more fully. Free speech protection has taken centuries to establish itself in Europe and America beginning with the fall of the “Sun-Kings” and “Holy Roman Emperors” of Europe. We continue the struggle to protect free speech today. The institution which held it back in Europe and The Americas,and continues to assault it today, is the institution whose nature is proscriptive due to its assigned task of “preaching the gospel”, the church. I would argue that one reason freedom of speech has become secured in American culture is the separation of Church and State. In America, no longer can a population be constricted from expressing beliefs contrary to what is preached from the pulpit on Sunday, the synagogue on Saturday, or the mosque on Friday. Witches are no longer being burned in Salem. Women can express themselves as they wish, without wearing Scarlet Letters. The separation of Church and State also stops the government from putting words into the mouths of those who preach, protecting all religions equally. We the People are the WALL which separates the two forces. Thus, it is inherent that we behave responsibly and fairly with one another to keep the wall strong.

Sometimes speech should be restricted. For example, to protect human life when speech threatens to kill. Verbal assault is a crime, if it places the recipient in fear of his life AND causes actual physical harm. But, we also believe “sticks and stones may break our bones but names will never harm us.” Nor are we free to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre; the outcome of panic in a confined space certain to injure or kill. We even allow reasonable restrictions on where speech can be voiced so as not to unreasonably interfere with the ordinary course of business. Nevertheless, reasonable accomodations must be made for the speech-giver.

The fact that the door is open to such discussion among world leaders is a good thing. Of course, these leaders face the same challenge early American leaders faced  taking on their ingrained cultural institutions, including their religious institutions, in order to implement and secure the unbridled right of freedom of expression. Their task is much harder than that of early American leaders, however. They do not have a thick wall separating church and state. Until they do, free speech for their people may be elusive. Imams preaching attacks on Christians, Jews and Infidels may cause fear in those groups since it may,and occasionally does, incite adherents to commit physical assaults. Also, a protester standing in Tahrir Square with a bullhorn shouting to attack the police,military or government may incite others to violence. In Somalia, opposition efforts to overthrow Siad Barre’s oppressive communist government declined to clan warfare, resulting in unspeakable violence and a Failed State. Freedom of speech can be a double-edged sword. Dealing with these issues is always difficult;but when there is no separation of Church and State, resolving them is nigh impossible. When church leaders insist governments deny freedom of expression by anyone who does not follow their religious teachings, including poets,artists, cartoonists and authors both institutions are compromised;and, no one is free. Those who give up free speech soon lose personal freedom.

Is this the cultural difference to which new leaders ask us to be sensitive? Do they want our walls between church and state removed? Most certainly they do. We cannot agree to break down our wall between church and state. Doing so means we lose the protections ingrained in our Bill of Rights.We would no longer be a free people. We must refuse to do so; not for other nations, nor for Christian fundamentalists in our own country.

However, we can be sensitive to this issue for it is one we continually fight. We have our own version of groups who dislike the Wall and insist America is a Christian nation, when in fact it is a secular nation with a majority of Christian citizens, and many non-Christians, and non-theists. The nation belongs equally to each person, and its laws are written for all, not simply for Christians. Some Christians constantly chip away at the Wall. They insist on prayer in public schools, tax-funded vouchers for religious schools, nativity sets on the public square, and faith-based “science” teaching.

We area free people with a Bill of Rights and separation of Church and State. We hold these rights sacred and believe they are human rights. We cannot, we must not abridge freedom of speech for any religion. Is this the real reason leaders of these countries justify violence against our embassies and citizens? Is it their Church or their State making such a demand upon us? Either way it is an impossible one. As Americans we define ourselves by our freedoms.

As we head into the final days of the 2012 election, consider which candidate has the sensitivity, experience, demeanor and resolute commitment to human rights, fairness, diversity and peaceful dispute resolution. Which one has the ability to pull together diverse supporters: Black-White-Latino-Native American, immigrant and DAR, Catholic-Jew-Muslim-atheist, artists-musician-scientist-environmentalist-Big Bird, Warren Buffet big businessmen-Elizabeth Lessner small businesswoman- unions, women, LGBT community, active military-veterans-Code pink-peace activists ? Which one is open to any idea so long as it is a good one, capable of solving a problem despite who brings it forward? Which embodies our American value of free speech by the diversity of his supporters? Which candidate can lead us forward in a diverse world, with new leaders, in new countries, seeking a new way to move forward? That candidate is President Barack Obama.

WE NEED LAWYERS TO MODERATE DEBATES,By Louise Annarino, October 8,2012

WE NEED LAWYERS TO MODERATE DEBATES, By Louise Annarino,October 8,2012

 

Yesterday, I discussed the need to identify and challenge bullying behavior in the workplace,at school, and on debate stages. While it may be impossible for human beings to refrain from aggression and dominance, such behavior can be restrained and redirected in positive ways. This is called the process of civilization. While some Americans made treaties and sought peaceful sharing of mother earth with Native Americans as they moved across new frontiers and ancient tribal grounds, others on both sides bullied their way, breaking treaties and attacking each other. When rules are allowed to be easily broken, when little is done to enforce them, when rule-breakers win without censure, nations and civilizations are destroyed.

 

The core restraints against bullies are rules. Rules must be established and enforced to restrain aggression and dominance. Every mother knows this. Every mother tames her children with rules, redirects their innate desire to dominate their world with rules. As a child matures into civility, she hopes empathy will take over her role as matron of rules. A mother can relax a bit once her child has learned good manners; but only if the child also has developed empathy. Some are incapable of empathy; some so privileged they do not believe rules apply to them. These persons must be compelled to follow rules even more closely in order not to abuse their innate drive to dominate and overpower others. Such persons abuse such power if their aggression is not contained within the rules, nor redirected by their own empathy.

 

When I was 18 I developed and directed a playground in small town inner-city neighborhood. The neighborhood’s poverty level was similar to my own. While it was predominately African-American, my own was predominately new immigrant. Neither viewed positively by the larger populace of the town. Each difficult to escape. Immigrants could eventually escape with education and very hard work; African-Americans could not escape even with education and very hard work due to red-lining real-estate transactions and discrimination. Each neighborhood had their share of bullies, as I am certain the wealthier white neighborhoods did as well. They must have because I met those bullies in college, in law school, and in the workplace.

 

It was easy to identify the bullies by their easy but tight smiles, chest-leading swagger and rapid fire delivery of directives and demands. When I questioned them they lied for the joy of misleading me. When I challenged them, they accelerated their verbal barrage against me, for the joy of dominating the conversation. When I held them to the rules, they became louder and more animated, for the joy of undermining my authority. And, they never stopped smiling those tight smiles. To diminish my personal or positional power, they demeaned me in front of others, passed false rumors regarding my character, and claimed my accomplishments as their own. I know bullies intimately.

 

To keep the other children and myself safe from the bullies, the neighborhood gang stayed nearby and moved in when the bullies became too aggressive. I did two things to address this situation. First, I organized a neighborhood election (parents and neighbors could also vote) for a Playground Congress to make rules, which selected a Playground Supreme Court to decide when rules had been broken and ordered punishment for rule-breakers, which selected a Playground Chief of Police to enforce the rules and punishment, and who selected his Playground Police Patrol. Congress made rules such as no knives, no guns, no matches, no drugs, no fighting, no cursing, no stealing. The Supreme Court selected the lead bully as Chief of Police. The Chief of police picked his adherents as police officers. The bully was now commissioned to abide by and enforce the rules, with assurance the Court would mete out justice. The aggression and need to  dominate of our bully was contained within rules and his energies redirected. He was incapable of empathy, but we had a means of civilizing his need to dominate and control others.

 

Fights were handled following my suggestion. Those whose arguments became either verbally or physically violent were sentenced to “the ring”. While I laced up miscreants’ boxing gloves, the leader of our local gang who agreed to manage the fight (who better able?) read the Queensbury Rules to the combatants. It was his job to keep the fight within the rules and assure no blows caused harm to either combatant. To say this was a novel approach for him is a gross understatement. However, he handled his role with the strong leadership qualities he displayed as a well-respected gang leader. He, like all good leaders, was not a bully. He was calm, reserved, soft-spoken, and saved his smiles for those surprising moments of utter hilarity which frequently erupt in the presence of young children. Watching these kids try to connect a punch wearing boxing gloves they could barely hold up created such fun that their arguments and need to fight quickly dissipated, while we all laughed together.

 

Looking back, I think I became a lawyer not because I like rules, but because I hate them. I hate the need for them. But I respect what rules,what the RULE OF LAW, can accomplish. It can civilize a nation. It can contain a bully. This is what The 10 Commandments are for Jews, their early rule of law. When Jesus was asked, “Rabbi, what is the greatest commandment?” He answered that there is but ONE commandment, “That you love one another, even as God loves you.” This requires empathy. When empathy fails, when one person just doesn’t “get” the other, only rules can replace empathy and create civility. Maybe we need lawyers to moderate debates.

 

WORDS OF POWER AND CIVILITY: FREE SPEECH ON LIBYA,EGYPT, AND ISRAEL, By Louise Annarino,September 13,2012

Words of Power and Civility: Free Speech on Libya, Egypt and Israel, By Louise Annarino, September 13, 2012

As Associate Director of Legal Affairs at Ohio University in Athens,Ohio, I was asked each autumn to speak to the newly-arrived International students regarding American laws, and what they needed to know to avoid legal problems while studying in the United States. I started ,as is my usual practice,with the U.S. Constitution. I then described our judicial structure, the difference between civil and criminal law, and the role of local police, state highway patrol and the FBI.  There were 2 areas students were most interested in:  traffic laws and 1st Amendment free speech issues.

Freedom of speech was a phenomenally novel concept to many of our students,whose first reaction was to question whether I had misspoken, or they had misunderstood. When I explained we could even burn our flag as show of political protest, several students inevitably leapt to their feet. This seemed beyond the pale to them, as it is for many of us. We discussed how free speech did face limits through reasonable regulations meant to keep the peace;for example,one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. I also explained that it was often a component of active civil disobedience for which dissidents must expect consequences, often a stint in jail. I told them about The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and Ghandi’s peaceful resistance campaign against British occupation of India. I cautioned them to understand that Americans guard free speech, even when the speech is uncomfortable, inane, even hateful. We even have a children’s rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me” as a model for controlling our response to speech with which we disagree, or which is used to “attack” us. Police may intervene only to keep the peace;not to stop speech.

I have been thinking about these afternoons exploring what free speech meant to these students, what impact their new insights into American law and cultural mores would mean once they returned home. This programmed afternoon event led to many on-going friendships with students who would stop by my office to discuss American law and the Bill of Rights in the privacy of my office. We talked about African-Americans knocked off their feet by water hoses, attacked by dogs, clubbed by police as they marched for civil rights and an end to Jim Crow laws. We talked about American anti-war activists. We talked about American terrorists: KKK, Aryan Nation, CCC and other such fanatic fringe groups around the world, and their threat to civilized societies. We developed a common understanding about the dangers such groups posed not simply to life and limb but to free speech,freedom of assembly,freedom of religion, of the press etc.;and, to the very survival of government by the people. For violence breeds contempt for the speech of those who use it to instigate such violence.

I think about these young men today. I wonder what they expect of us;and,what we can expect of them. The theatre we discussed is no longer a crowded building; but, an internet of social media and viral videos. When a hate-monger on one side of the world shouts out hate-speech to arouse and instigate a response, violence on the other side of the world too often erupts. We must be sensitive to the fact that America has been blessed with immigrant influxes,especially along our coasts, which opens American society to cultural differences and reduces tribalism. Countries emerging from tribal structures to begin building democratic republics need our calming influence on such forces;not an aggressive disdain for their struggles. “Chest beating” does nothing to build the good will needed to strengthen the hand of those  fighting off the fanatic fringe. A policy of diplomacy and dignity, tolerance and respect for diversity, guidance and support for democratic reform shows President Obama’s power as a statesman. This is not a sign of weakness; but, of strength. Because he is a strong man who knows how to use the power of his office, and his personal power, he does not need to beat his chest.

“Violence as a response to speech has no place,” in society says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After condemning the attacks and the death of our Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, “Justice will be done,” says President Obama.

“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administrations’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,” said the Romney campaign.

Rence Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party tweeted, “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.”

Today, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and FOX news continued to lie about President Obama’s response in an effort to undermine his national security accomplishments, and undermine his leadership at home and abroad. Is this the action of patriots? When Americans are being attacked and killed, when we have American troops and diplomats in the field, when we should be decrying ignorant and malicious rhetoric we have a candidates for president and vice-president throwing fuel on the fires burning abroad. They blame not only President Obama but those in diplomatic service whose lives are being licked by the flames.

While diplomatic efforts by Obama and Clinton to assure the world the United States is not waging war on Islam, but on terrorism, Romney goes even further to undermine our diplomacy in the middle east, asserting that Obama is no friend of Israel. He even lied that Obama refused to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, the two spoke on the phone since they will be addressing the U.N. on different dates: Netanyahu is scheduled to be in NY on the 27th,Obama on the 25th.There are disagreements between them as to strategy; but, not as to the goal of Israel’s security. Netanyahu and Romney  are double-teaming our president and his foreign policy. This is no time to play such political games. There is room for disagreement . Within Israel there is disagreement. A Netanyahu deputy disagrees on setting Iran “red line”, much as Clinton and Obama have.

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister for intelligence and atomic affairs Dan Meridor, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, agree with President Obama’s approach. When Mr. Romney is president he can set America’s foreign policy, but not before that event occurs. Since when does a private citizen,even one running for president, join with the leader of another nation to undermine American foreign policy?  Definitely not in the midst of rising unrest near our embassies. President Karzai canceled a trip abroad today fearing the unrest will spread within Afghanistan and against our troops. Should not Romney,Ryan,and Priebus be equally concerned about our troops?

Fact-checkers were busy today assessing Libya/Obama statements of Romney/Ryan/Priebus as untrue. Meanwhile the Neo-cons advising Romney seem eager to push them to continue to lie and create such unrest abroad it could justify their desire to increase military defense spending. Ryan and Romney insist military spending must be increased 20% to keep America safe. They are talking about increasing contracts to corporate arms producers and defense contractors with financial interest in companies such as Mr. Cheney’s Halliburton Corp. They are not talking about veteran’s benefits, which the Ryan/Romney budget cuts. They are not talking about the safety of our troops.

The sad truth is that free speech allows liars to tell untruths about political figures and celebrities because of an exception to defamation charges for public figures. One cannot sue a congressperson by a defamation claim for comments made on the floor of the House or Senate, either. Public and political figures have to defend themselves against lies all the time. We have a notion that “the truth will out”. This might have been true when newspapers,television stations and radio openly and transparently competed with one another;now, one person (or his corporation,think Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes) can own multiple media outlets, even all,within any geographical area. CITIZENS UNITED did away with any transparency requirements which would at least alert us to the names of purveyors of lies. Truth will out is a fantasy. Our town is now the entire world. And media moguls with financial,nee political,agendas rule the town.

Those who have no sacred history of free speech wonder why the U.S. does not simply arrest those hate-mongers and liars who keep throwing fuel on the fires of fanatics. They expect and ask us to arrest, and punish, such persons. While I would love to see them punished, it is not easily done when they can defend their speech as free speech. But, they must face consequences.They must be held accountable…and they will be…if we can discover who they are. Any company supporting such messages of hate, bigotry, and deception should be boycotted, its employees unionized, and its directors removed by shareholder actions. Politicians who join in the game must be denied out votes. We can use speech, our free speech, to see justice done and consequences suffered. We cannot give up our sacred freedoms but we can use them, teach them and spread them throughout this country and the world community.

Words have power, and we must use them wisely, compassionately and forcefully as have our President and Secretary of State. Thank you Mr. President and Secretary Clinton. Thank you citizens of the world, who seek freedom, including free speech for your people. As you build your new democracies,guard it well.

UPDATE/ JUST REPORTED ON RACHEL MADDOWS/9:13 PM:

Attack on Libyan embassy was not a protest but organized attack.4 cars pulled up flying black flags,witnesses say it was response to killing of Libyan AlQuaeda leader by drone attack. As we learn mire we will understand more, and perhaps strengthen our ties with a free Libya and its people.,many of whom were also injured in this attack. It is still imperative that we allow our president and secretary of state to address foreign policy and security issues abroad,and strengthen our ties to emerging democracies and persons of good will. We must hold accountable all those who would weaken and undermine our efforts to seek peace with the nations of the world,despite the difficulties we face.

 

WHO DO YOU TRUST?, By Louise Annarino,September 9,2012

WHO DO YOU TRUST?,BY Louise Annarino,September 9,2012

Johnny Carson,whom some of you will recall with a wide smile as the best-ever late-night talk-show host, started his television career as host of late-afternoon show called WHO DO YOU TRUST? It came to my attention when my 5th grade teacher chided him for using “WHO” rather than the correct “WHOM” in the title.  Obviously, the nuns were watching this show when they returned to the convent after classes. That was enough for me. I had to check this guy out. So, I switched over from American Bandstand one day and I was hooked! He and his side-kick Ed McMahon,kept me in stitches as they ran the game show. Later, Johnny took over for the 11:30 p.m. time-slot on NBC. Johnny kept me laughing for many years;just the memory of his skits and famous poses still make me laugh. “always keep ‘em laughin’ ” is the mantra of all forms of entertainment.

The political conventions,where politics becomes entertainment, are now over. Article after article has parsed these events ad nauseatum. Talking heads have even parsed the comments of their fellow commentators. There is only one question left for me: “Who do you trust?”. That is the person for whom you will vote. How do you know whom to trust? The one who makes you laugh or smile.

Laughter is disarming. We only laugh when we are able to relax and let down our defenses. We only let down our defenses when we trust s person. We literally get “weak with laughter”; and, some like me actually can laugh so hard they “fall down laughing”. Doctors in the Netherlands can explain why. I am more interested in WHEN we allow ourselves to laugh, only when we feel safe enough to get weak or fall down. There was a lot of this behavior at the Democratic convention; not so much at the Republican convention. Democrats are not funnier than Republicans. Nor do they have a better sense of humor. Both events had their fair share of people in funny hats and outrageous costumes. Only one had a guy talking to an empty chair and that was at the Republican convention. I have scoured the internet for photos which show the Republican delegates enjoying their convention and the mood I see is somber,concerned,annoyed,and solemnly patient; with a few smiles interspersed,a balloon launch,and cowboy hat toss. In searching photos of the Democratic delegates I see laughter to the point of tears and weakness, relaxation,pleasure, joy and hope. I also see such trust in the candidate that the delegates were relaxed enough to let down their defenses and enjoy their convention.

This reminds me of a trip a brother and I took to Hawaii sitting in the non-smoking section of the plane. Our section of the plane was quiet except for the recurrent flip of a magazine page. From the smoking section shrieks of laughter poured forth. They sounded like they were having a lot more fun than we were having.I could not laugh while my white knuckles gripped the armrest, knowing sharks were circling below readying for lunch when our plane crashed into the Pacific Ocean. Smoking and drinking allowed for a relaxation I could not imitate while flying. Fear had its grip on me. Nothing was funny. I trusted the laws of aerodynamics, but not possible human error.

There will alway be human error. We are not gods. We do not expect our leaders to be gods, nor are they God’s representative on earth, despite what some politicians imply. There is no moment when God chooses our next candidate no matter what Teapublicans  insist. We choose our candidates. Republicans chose Romney-Ryan. Democrats chose Obama-Biden.  Who makes you smile? Who makes you weak in the knees with laughter? Who trusts you? Who do you trust?

IT MUST NOT BE RAPE IF A WOMAN GETS PREGNANT,By Louise Annarino,August 20,2012

It Must Not Be Rape If A Woman Gets Pregnant,By Louise Annarino,August 2o,2012

As I write this I am listening to Tchaikowsky’s Sleeping Beauty Suite via Spotify, thanks to a helpful young nephew who downloaded it to my computer.Little girls love the story of Sleeping Beauty. Even those of us who are feminists to the core dream the most beautiful dream of all, finding our prince.  A few of us are lucky enough to have found him. Then there is rape, the stuff of nightmares.

Students moved into residence halls at The Ohio State University this week-end. Some of them will be raped; 1out of 4 is a commonly cited statistic. Another is that 90% knew their rapist; and yet another that 60% of male college students “indicated some likelihood of raping or using force in certain circumstances”(see more at http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/college_campuses_and_rape.htm).

As a 19 year old student and Resident Advisor or RA at OSU I spent many nights in the University Hospital emergency room comforting such young women; and, sometimes comforting those who were hemorrhaging from a back-alley abortion. Abortions were then illegal. Sleeping Beauties, these young women, who sought to make a dream come true, woke up in a nightmare. Every 21 hours a woman is raped on a college campus.

It is not only college women, those uppity females who believe they are as smart and as competent as men, and able to compete with them who face sexual assault. Rape crosses all economic and sexual barriers. In a department of Justice Study 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men experienced rape or attempted rape. Yet, a 1992 report from the National Victim Center ( see more at http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics )called rape the most underreported violent crime in America; with one in six victims reporting the rape. The 2000 FBI Uniform Crime Report states that a rape occurs in the United States once every 5 minutes.

The young are more likely to be sexually assaulted than adults. In the 1992 study the National Victim Center reported the following breakdown by age of victims:

29.3% were less than 11 years old
32.3% were between 11 and 17
22.2% were between 18 and 24
7.1% were between 25 and 29
6.1% were older than 29
3.0% age was not available

Getting lost in statistics? Each one is a human being just like you,your wife,daughter, mother,sister,niece. Rapists live among us as family, friends, neighbors. Rape is a violent crime not because of the nature of penetration, the level of force used, nor the behavior of a woman prior to the rape. It is because sex is used as a weapon to injure,maim,even kill a woman; body, heart and soul. Rape is meant to denigrate and defile a woman. To show her how worthless she really is. It is not a sexual act but a violent act using sex as the weapon.

While working on a graduate level project at a maximum security men’s prison in Ohio I discovered that most rapes are planned; inmates often described to me how they selected their victims. The reason most women report knowing their rapist is because he sets up potential victims by making innocent and deceptively friendly contact with her hours,days,weeks in advance; often, by simply asking for the time or directions and making conversation. Those women who respond favorably and kindly are selected. Those who ignore or showed distaste for the man’s advances are bypassed as likely to be a “problem”. I was told (women in the helping professions) teachers,nurses and social workers are particularly sought out. Since then, I am most unfriendly to any man I do not know and give a glaring look if asked for directions etc. Not very ladylike; I have no illusions about, nor dreams of being a princess.

I understood rape,finally, despite the hours I had spent with women who had experienced it, when I was nearly gang-raped while walking across the OSU campus in daylight, walking with two female roommates. I had taken several self-defense courses and like many women mistakenly believed I could take-down or escape a rapist, never imagining the possibility of pair or gang-rapes. 85% of rape survivors report they tried unsuccessfully to reason with the man who raped her. 55% of campus gang-rapes are committed by fraternities,40% by sports teams,and 5% by others.(http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php) In my case it was the intervention by the OSU football squad which saved me. GO BUCKS!

Which brings me to the Teapublican fraternity of men in the House and Senate who show their disdain for women by submitting bills to control them, deprive them of needed health care, and pay them less than men doing the same job. Recently, Representatives Todd Akin (R-MO) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) co-sponsored H.R. 3“No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which initially included language which changed the definition of rape to forcible rape. Later,public pressure forced the bill’s supporters to remove that unacceptable and narrow definition. Perhaps Mr. Akin meant to say forcible instead of legitimate while defending his extreme anti-choice view because he believes some rapes are legitimate, and/or not all rapes are forcible. Either way the idea of rape held by Mr. Akin, Mr. Ryan and other Teapublicans is misguided. They discuss rape as if it were a sexual act, as if some sex is legitimate and some not; as if some sex is forced and some not. Rape does not illustrate a woman’s willingness or unwillingness to exert her sexuality. It can never be legitimate. It is inherently a use of force meant to denigrate and harm a woman. Rape is a weapon against women.It is a criminal act; and they don’t get it.

His very words over during a recent interview illustrate the Teapublican Akin’s failure to understand the problems women face: “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Why is he talking with doctors about rape? Why is he not talking with criminal experts? Why is he talking about pregnancy resulting from rape? Why is he not talking about the injuries sustained by women resulting from rape? Why? Because he is not interested in rape. He dos not respect a woman’s right to be free of criminal attack when sex is the weapon.He is interested in stopping ALL abortions, even those resulting from rape. Abortion is his raison d’etre. SInce a woman who gets pregnant could not have been raped, there is no need to add an exemption for rape victims in legislation denying funding for abortion. This was no slip of the tongue;this is Teapublican policy espoused by candidates running on the Republican Party tickets across the country.

How would Akin and Ryan decide which rapes are legitimate or forcible, and which are not? If Akin’s scientific analysis is correct, any rape resulting in pregnancy would NOT be a legitimate rape since a legitimate rape “would shut that whole thing down”. If “that whole thing” did not shut down, then the rape must not be legitimate rape. The woman should not be protected nor her abortion/health care needs funded.

I resent having my female reproductive health system described as “that whole thing”. Akin and Ryan talk about God and religion so much one would expect a little more sanctity and appreciation for God’s design of women’s bodies. One would expect them to respectfully learn the truth about sexuality and reproduction. One would expect them to respect women and protect them from criminal violence;not parse such violence against women for political gain.

The Akin-Ryan denigration of women from the floor of congress and their campaign trails is painful and frightening to all women, but especially to those of us who have had to learn to overcome the hatred and disdain of the men who attacked us. Now,  presidential candidate Romney selects Rep. Paul Ryan to run as Vice-President. Mr. Akin, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney wound us anew. Of course they frighten us. They are the stuff of nightmares which have never gone away.

 

 

The Pro-Choice Ethic of a Faithful Roman Catholic: A Reflection by Kate Mroz

The Pro-Choice Ethic of a Faithful Roman Catholic: A Reflection by Kate Mroz.

“If you’re hoping to speak with theological authority, you don’t get to just pronounce”: A Reflection by Sarah Morice-Brubaker

“If you’re hoping to speak with theological authority, you don’t get to just pronounce”: A Reflection by Sarah Morice-Brubaker.

DON’T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL by Louise Annarino

DON’T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL

Louise Annarino

June 25, 2012

Democratic republics in the West did not emerge in full blossom overnight; nor will they in the East. The seeds of power within people must be planted in good soil and be kept moist despite periods of drought. Those who feed the country’s growth are ever in danger of being choked by weeds. Egypt’s journey, and that of other nations seeking some form of democratic republic, is our own.

As we watch the Egyptian military generals write and rewrite laws to secure their power base in the face of shared power with a president and parliament not of their choosing, let us recall the first parliaments in England which were made up exclusively of the privileged few, heirs to the original land barons granted fiefs by their king for military service to protect and defend his crown, and more importantly, his crown jewels. The king was loath to part with his landholdings which generated his wealth. The barons agreed to supply a percentage of crops, minerals, forest, game and resources to the king in exchange for permission to act as lord over the serfs who were attached to the land, and to  supply troops whenever called upon to do so by the king. In this way, both the king and his barons grew excessively wealthy. Sound familiar?

In 1215 King John agreed to the Magna Carta, the great charter, which gave legal rights to the Barons and Earls and mandated that the king listen to them and follow their advice. Before the Magna Carta the king called a parliament at his whim with no legal obligation to follow the barons’ advice. The Magna Carta granted no rights to the serfs; but, merely became a tool of the landed gentry (who had personal armies supporting them) to control the king in order to protect their own interests. Sound familiar?

In 1265, following a war between Henry III and Simon De Montfort, De Montfort briefly established a parliament which also included  burgesses, representatives from each county,city and town until Edward I, who killed De Montfort in battle, called is first parliament in 1275 which included churchmen,two knights from each county, and two commoners from each town ( the house of burgesses). Since 1327 parliament set the pattern we know today: House of Lords, House of Commons, Monarch.

It took another hundred years to establish that Parliament’s House of Commons controlled granting money raised through taxation to the king (usually to wage war); and wrote statutes creating the law of the land, replacing the writ to the king for favor system of an earlier day.

Overthrowing the leaders of countries does not necessarily mean more power to the people. It took great Britain several hundred years and a civil war to do so. The United States, copied Great Britain’s lead, replacing the monarch with a president. The House of Lords became our Senate; the House of Commons our House of Representatives. There are those who pressured newly-elected President George Washington to accept the appellation Your Majesty. He insisted on Mister, in a new nation where all men are considered equal. And so we say, Mr. President when addressing him.

The U.S. shortened Great Britain’s time-line: 1776 – Declaration of Independence, 1789 – Constitution and first 10 Amendments ratified, 1789 – Judiciaries Act passed, 1803 – Marbury v. Madison. Hopefully, emerging democracies can shorten the time it takes to become nations of law and not men, and avoid civil war. Building a strong middle class will help.

The industrial revolution which began in the 1500’s with the guild movement solidified in 1760-1850. It is no coincidence that the movement to end serfdom occurred on the same time frame. Prior to industrialization in England, land was the primary source of wealth. “The landed aristocracy held enormous powers [through] the feudal system. However, a new source of great wealth grew from the Industrial Revolution, that which was derived from the ownership of factories and machinery. Those who invested in factories and machinery cannot be identified as belonging to any single class of people (landed aristocracy, industrialists, merchants). Their backgrounds were quite diverse, yet they had one thing in common: the daring to seize the opportunity to invest in new ventures. It was these capitalists who gave the necessary impetus to the speedy growth of the Industrial Revolution.”1

In the United States, the Industrial Revolution made the North economically stronger than the South, which barely maintained a landed gentry system on the backs of slave labor and that of poor white sharecroppers. The bloody rise of labor unions prevented this quasi feudal-serf system from taking root in the North. Despite fighting a Civil War to end slavery, and the efforts of labor unions, we still see vestiges of the old feudal system within our economic institutions, policies and practices both north and south. Since the election of our first African-American president those differences in how we choose to govern ourselves have become more overt. Ohio and Wisconsin, as well as every other state,thanks to ALEC, are fighting to protect unions, not just to protect the unions but to protect all workers from being reduced, once again, to serfdom. 2

In China, Thailand, Guam, Africa and all over the globe multi-national corporations are locking in workers for excessively-long shifts, with little or no pay. Human trafficking in workers, slave or forced labor, is on the rise world-wide in every imaginable  industry including my favorite – chocolate. 3

What is the connection here? It is that human beings seek power over their own lives. Money is power, so they seek money. The reason taxes are a big deal to both Tea Party Republicans and Liberal Progressives, The US Chamber of Commerce and the churches, Wall Street banks and non-profit organizations, Democratic and Republican parties, the upper class-middle class- and poor is because money buys power. Money bought the King. Money bought the Corporations. Money bought the politicians. We all want money because we all value power. Why? Power brings freedom: the freedom from want, the freedom of choice over need, the freedom of association, the freedom to say no just because we want to do so. If we truly believe we are all entitled to be free, then we must also believe we are all entitled to enough money to feel power over our own lives.

When we are without money for too long we feel powerless as a result. It is this feeling of being powerless which brings out our racism, sexism, homophobia etc. Those who feel powerless resent others who seem to be acquiring power. Hidden in our psyche is the racist belief that an African-American has no business being so powerful when white men now feel so powerless. That is the crux of this election. Even Roman Catholic bishops, losing esteem and power over their flocks due to their misogynist attitude toward women and their cover-up of pedophilia within their ranks are fighting for power by attacking President Obama. Even Christian church leaders accustomed to financial power and preaching its attainment as a Gospel truth, which fell apart in the recession, are attacking President Obama. They have no qualms viciously attacking him, trying to knock him off his game. Unfortunately, his game is governing this country we all love.

What can we do? We can stop attacking people who want power, who want money, who want to feel safe; who cannot feel truly free without these things. We all want these things. We all want freedom.

We can stop attacking each other lest we all end up “Humpty Dumpty”. 4  Despite British and American love of freedom, and each country’s Civil Wars to establish equality among all its citizens and clearly unified governance, neither would suggest civil war as a positive step. We can learn from these past divisive periods. History does not have to repeat itself around the globe, nor within our own borders. We can stop being so afraid that we needlessly try to knock one another off the wall. We can recognize that there is enough wealth to share so that all feel powerful and free.

We celebrate freedom in this country without understanding its roots. No banker, no corporate executive, no shareholder, no priest nor bishop, no Tea Bagger, no liberal, no politician, no judge, no citizen will feel free until they feel financially secure. This was the beauty of a strong middle class; it made everyone feel free. It was an imaginable state of being for the poorest citizen aspiring to move higher through education and hard work; and for the richest executive who fell from grace, a safe place to land. Without a middle class, no American feels free.Not the wealthiest, not the poorest, and not the middle class.

To America and to the world a message of freedom: Build and protect the common man’s wealth, the middle class. The BRITISH COMMONWEALTH is a not a fluke. American economic success since the Civil War is not a fluke. Stop seeking to be excessively wealthy; instead, seek to build wealth within the middle class, a commonwealth within and among nations. With commonwealth comes common power. With such a sense of power comes a sense of freedom and peace. The Eurozone is struggling with this concept as I write.

Look at what Britain accomplished. Look at what the U.S. accomplished. Those lessons will serve us well. this is what President Obama has been trying to remind us.  Destroying the middle class destroys our commonwealth, pushes Humpty Dumpty off the wall; and, neither all the king’s horses nor all the king’s men can put us back together again. Life is too fragile for such nonsense.

 

 

1. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/2/81.02.06.x.html

2.http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed 

3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm “Presently, about 700,000 children and women are trafficked around the world annually. The UN says that profits for this trafficking amount to approximately $7 billion a year (Anti-Slavery International).”

4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty  “In 1648 Colchester was a walled town with a castle and several churches and was protected by the city wall. The story given was that a large cannon, which the website claimed was colloquially called Humpty Dumpty, was strategically placed on the wall. A shot from a Parliamentary cannon succeeded in damaging the wall beneath Humpty Dumpty which caused the cannon to tumble to the ground. The Royalists, or Cavaliers, ‘all the King’s men’ attempted to raise Humpty Dumpty on to another part of the wall, but because the cannon was so heavy ‘All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again’. In his 2008 book Pop Goes the Weasel: The Secret Meanings of Nursery Rhymes author Albert Jack claimed that there were two other verses supporting this claim. Elsewhere he claimed to have found them in an “old dusty library, [in] an even older book”,but did not state what the book was or where it was found. It has been pointed out that the two additional verses are not in the style of the seventeenth century, or the existing rhyme, and that they do not fit with the earliest printed version of the rhyme, which do not mention horses and men.”

STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK YOUR BONES, BUT THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sticks and Stones May Break Your Bones, But The Truth Shall Set You Free

Louise Annarino

April 11, 2012

At 5 I was allowed to ride my new Huffy bicycle on the sidewalk in front of our house, back and forth between the alley and the corner; and walk down the alley with my wagon.

At 6 I was allowed to play on the sidewalk in front of our house, crossing the alley, from one corner to the other corner.

At 7 I was allowed to go around the nearest corner, to the farther alley beyond Van’s market, and back to the house.

At 8 I was allowed to go around the corner and across the street to the Hartzler Public School playground, and push my 3 year old brother Michael on the swings. Or so I thought.

On a hot summer day, I took Michael to the playground for a swing. I noticed 6 or 7 slightly older children near the merry-go-round as I picked him up and set him in the swing. They were just hanging out, as kids do. I recognized most of them.

A girl who lived down the block yelled to me, “Get outta here. you don’t go to this school.”  Her comment broke the boredom of a summer day for the other kids.

One of the boys asked,”Where does she go?” as the group headed our way.

Another answered, “She’s one of those Annarinos”.

“Oh, a dirty WOP,” laughed another boy as the entire group of boys guffawed and  punched one another in the arm. The girls giggled. I moved to the front of the swing to block Michael, and gently slowed my pushes while soothing him with soft words.

One freckle-faced girl in pig-tails stopped beside me, her feet spread with her hands on hips, and taunted, “ We don’l let Eyetalians on our playground”; then, spit at my feet.

The group closed in.Their aggressive laughter, taunts and physically intimidating stance had frightened Michael who began to cry. As I turned to lift him from the swing and into my arms, the first volley of rocks hit the back of my head, shoulders, and legs. I tried to block the rocks with my body as I carried Michael away, but we both were being stoned mercilessly. In those days, kids were tougher and played on rocky playgrounds, not on mulch-surfaced play areas. With plenty of ammunition available, they chased us and pelted us to the curb. They screamed at us, “Go away. No fish eaters allowed. If we ever see you again, we’ll kill you! You’re nothing but dirt, you and your WOP brother.”

I did not know what a WOP was. I did not know what a fish-eater was. But I knew the word “dirty”. It was usually followed by “Dago” or “N…..”.  I sensed this was the same kind of biased hate. The words and the rocks hurt. But, they also made me angry because they made my baby brother cry, and I could not protect him.

The group did not follow us across the street. I carried Michael home to my mother, Angela. I explained what had happened as I placed Michael in her arms. She examined our scratches, and the lump growing over my eye from a particularly large rock. Cleaning up, icing bruises and lumps, and bandaging cuts meant nothing. My anger meant everything. How could these children be so mean to Michael, who was so helpless? I knew kids could be mean, but to a baby?  Why did they care that we were using the public school playground? What did the words WOP and fish-eater mean? How did such words make it okay for them to attack us? How could I have protected Michael? By the time Dad got to the playground after Mom called him home from his restaurant, it was empty.

I listened to Mom’s explanation of Wop and fish-eater, and the accepted dislike for Italians and other racial or ethnic groups. “That’s the way the American people are,” she explained. “That’s the way the American people are” was a constant explanation for incomprehensible behavior as I was growing up. I found white Americans very confusing, until Mom explained their thought processes, biases, prejudices and racism to me. Every discussion ended with “That’s the way the American people are.” This time she added, “Always remember this: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never harm me. Never listen to the names people call you. You are the only one who can hurt you.” I stopped listening after shouting at my own wise mother, “Words do hurt! They do harm!” It took many more years to understand the message she intended to impart with her words.

The front doorway into our elementary school was massive; the double-wide doors encased in blocks of limestone. Messages had been carved in each side of the limestone lintel overhead. On the left side were the words “Knowledge Is Power”; and on the right, “Ye Shall Know The Truth and The Truth Shall Set You Free.” Our class lined up two-by-two behind the convent every morning and again after lunch, then Sister led us into the school. Each day, during the pause while two of the boys opened the doors wide so our class could enter, I read those comments carved in stone. They became my motivation to understand what my mother and father, and the nuns and priests tried to teach me. I wanted to understand what words really meant,how knowing words would set me free and give me the power to change “the way the American people are.”

In high school, swastikas and “fish-eaters” routinely graced the outside walls of our high-school gymnasium. I learned about water hoses, Jim-Crow words like “colored fountain”,  …and much worse. I read the DIARY OF ANNE FRANK and learned about yellow stars of David, words like “crystallnacht” …and much worse. Anne Frank taught me that every word had two meanings, the inner meaning and the outer meaning.

In college I learned how this duality of meaning could be used to obfuscate and confuse. MAO’S RED BOOK and 1984 taught me how words’ many meanings are used to create propaganda. It is not only mean and nasty words that damage and destroy; even kind and gentle words can if their outer meaning is code for the inner meaning of how to harm. And a lie becomes truth simply by repeating the words over and over.

I have listened to propaganda and hate speech all my life it seems. I have seen the confusion, misunderstanding, and harm and such words cause. They even cause death:

Irresponsible mortgage holders or responsible homeowners?

Union thugs or organized laborers?

Welfare Queens or struggling single Moms?

Radical revolutionaries or progressive thinkers?

Propaganda or “spin”?

Truth or talking points?

Residents of the prison or inmates?

War Between the States or a Civil War?

Contented slaves or people suffering human bondage?

Wealthy job creators or greedy pirates of industry?

Save social security or privatize and underfund it to an early demise?

Bail out banks and auto-industry or save the world from a severe Depression?

Attack business or reasonably regulate business to avoid another world-wide economic collapse?

Attack religion or enact “The Sermon On The Mount”?

Reverse racism or affirmative action?

Black thug in a hoodie or typical teenager?

Dr. Frank Hale Jr. was a wonderful man, my friend, a distinguished scholar and civil rights leader. Hale Cultural Center at OSU is named in his honor. This past week, someone scrawled “hate speech” on the wall of this center for African-American cultural appreciation and racial understanding when they painted on the words “Long Live George Zimmerman”. George Zimmerman had been using a photograph of this wall on his legal-fund support web-site. It was removed just hours ago. Let me use words clearly: The white man who shot and killed an un-armed African-American teenager used this image, of words whose inner meaning  appealed to racists (making a hero of a white man who killed a Black child) to raise funds for his legal defense fund. Ironically, after many weeks he remains free, possibly armed with the murder weapon, and has not been charged with a crime. This scenario speaks volumes.

This scenario has resurrected the pain over Dr. Hale’s death; as if George Zimmerman had not only desecrated Trayvon Martin’s life, but also the life and honor of Dr. Hale. The pain of words can hurt with the pain of a bullet. Words kill the soul while taking a life. For, what Mom was trying to tell me that day is that George Zimmerman’s words kills his soul as he uses words to justify taking a life. Words cannot harm my soul, nor that of Dr. Hale or Trayvon Martin, though the sticks and stones of the speakers may break our bones. However, they will harm the soul of those who use words to hold others in bondage rather than to set each of us free. They will harm those who lie to enrich and empower themselves rather than seek truth to enrich and empower us all.

We have heard many lies during past political campaigns. But, this is worse. Propaganda is now a spectator sport thanks to 24/7 cable news. And too few children are being taught to  appreciate words such as those I read at my school door. Instead we are teaching them to appreciate the best “spin”, the sexiest image, a talking point that “sticks”. We admire pundits who can “hit” the other side “hard”. Despite the many hours we devote to political discussion, very few truth seekers can hold  our short attention spans, entice advertisers, or keep their jobs. So, our political commentators settle for less than true, kind of true, half-truths, and interesting lies…and call it today’s news. And our politicians tell us our freedom is threatened by President Obama’s Black Panther associations, Muslim faith, fake birth certificate, socialist economic plan, secret agenda, apologist foreign policy etc. No, it is threatened by those politicians unwillingness to “seek the truth”, speak the truth, and accept the power of an African-American president. It is not our president who threatens freedom, but those who unfairly attack him with words that fail the truth test.

I want Dr. Hale to be remembered for his grace; not the dis-graceful words visited upon the Hale cultural Center. Dr. Hale’s truth is stronger than hate and lies. Dr. Frank Hale, Jr. was inducted into the Ohio Civil Rights Hall Of Fame. I wrote the following poem in his honor  to celebrate that occasion. My  Reflection of Dr. Hale at his funeral service follows the poem.

 Dr. Frank Hale

Ball Player Extraordinaire

Louise Annarino

Barefoot

you stepped up to the plate

eager to test your strength;

your aim,

your best effort

to simply hit the ball

and get to first base.

Frank, you did it all.

You can stand tall

and stretch

to see how far

that first ball

flew

when it met your bat.

Every day

ball after ball

you pushed your luck

and learned all you should

about what could

push the ball

off the would into space.

You are a man of grace.

It is written all over

your face,

and in the mind

and heart

of each of us to whom

you gave a start.

You taught us how to play

the game,

then let us rest and foment

while we struggled

to face the next inning.

Pushing and shoving

ball against wind.

All the time hoping

and praying

and trusting the umps

to be fair;

too often, not.

Yet, we kept on playing

off all that you taught.

It was a hard game to play;

though your skills won the day.

We soon understood it

must be won anew every day,

pushing wood against air to get a single hit.

Doubles, triples and home runs

all too rare.

You have been our captain,our coach,

and our spiritual guide

sliding your pride into stolen bases

for all races.

It is only right that your name will remain

in the Ohio Civil Rights

Hall of Fame.

 

REFLECTIONS OF DR. FRANK HALE, JR.

by Louise Annarino

August 7, 2011

It is not Frank Hale, Jr.’s death which brings us together today, but his life. Frank was quite simply…a good man. To many of us Frank was also a hero…a role model…a mentor…and  a kindred spirit.

How did such a kind and gentle man inspire and elevate us to be more and do more than we thought possible?

-By CHALLENGING the status quo

-By CALLING OUT racist ideologues.

-By NAMING racism in its most minute practices, and in its grandest schemes.

-By REDEFINING and RESTRUCTURING racist practices and procedures of institutions of higher education, and within other corporate settings.

-By STANDING FIRM against injustice and oppression of African Americans, and all who suffer oppression.

-By REFUSING TO BEND moral and ethical codes of civil conduct to simply satisfy base emotions.

We each have stories to tell about Frank. But I challenge us to do more than reflect ON the life of Dr. Frank Hale, Jr. I challenge us each to BE his reflection in each of our communities.

Whenever WE challenge authority which enforces institutional racism in our schools, our workplaces, our boardrooms, our banks and investment houses, even in our own homes and  houses of worship –  we are a reflection of Frank.

Whenever WE refuse to laugh at a racist or bigoted joke, and instead use it as a teachable moment  to stop bigotry -we are a reflection of Frank.

Whenever WE refuse to become uncivil despite racist provocation, and instead respectfully command the respect of others to listen to truth and become more just – we are a reflection of Frank.

Whenever WE hold tight to the courage to tell uncomfortable truths at the risk of losing social acceptance amid the mighty and monied – we are a reflection of Frank.

Whenever WE focus our “eyes on the prize” instead of on material gain – we are a reflection of Frank.

Whenever WE lift our voices in an oratory against injustice – we are a reflection of Frank.

Today, I challenge each of us to BE a reflection of Dr. Frank Hale, Jr. We could do no better to honor Frank. Frank’s spirit will always be within us; and, through us, Frank’s spirit will continue to make this a better world.

Thank you, dearest Mignon, for asking me to reflect today upon my loving friend, Dr. Frank Hale, Jr.