Browsed by
Month: August 2007

mary pipher takes a stand

mary pipher takes a stand

Comments 0 Comment

Dr. Mary Pipher, a prominent psychologist and author, recently returned a Presidential Citation award she had received from the American Psychological Association, in protest over the Association’s endorsement of its members’ participation in CIA interrogations.

Her gesture makes a symbolic and largely personal statement against the increasing tolerance by this nation’s leaders of “enhanced interrogation techniques” — i.e. torture — but it is nevertheless a courageous and honorable act, an act which gains her nothing, but reflects a deep integrity and an unwillingness to look the other way or to wait for somebody else to speak up.

Here is the text of her letter to the APA:

August 21, 2007

American Psychological Association,
750 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20002-4242

President Brehm:

I am writing to inform you that I am returning my Presidential Citation dated 2/02/06 and awarded to me by then President of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Gerald Koocher. I have struggled for many months with this decision, and I make it with pain and sorrow. I was honored to receive this award and proud to be a member of APA. Over the years I have spoken at national conventions many times and had enjoyed an excellent relationship with the APA and its staff. With this letter, I feel as if I am ostracizing a good friend.

I do not want an award from an organization that sanctions its members’ participation in the enhanced interrogations at CIA Black Sites and at Guantanamo. The presence of psychologists has both educated the interrogation teams in more skillful methods of breaking people down and legitimized the process of torture in defiance of the Geneva Conventions.

The behavior of psychologists on these enhanced interrogation teams violates our own Code of Ethics (2002) in which we pledge to respect the dignity and worth of all people, with special responsibility towards the most vulnerable. I consider prisoners in secret CIA-run facilities with no right of habeas corpus or access to attorneys, family or media to be highly vulnerable. I also believe that when any of us are degraded, all of human life is degraded. This letter is as much about us as it is about prisoners.

In our Ethics Code we agree to promote honesty and accuracy. Our involvement in these projects has been secretive and dishonest. Finally, as psychologists we vow to do no harm. Without question, we violate this oath when we allow people in our care to be deprived of sleep or subjected to sensory over-stimulation or deprivation.

I cannot accept the August 19, 2007 Reaffirmation of APA’s Position Against Torture (Substitute Motion Three). Under this motion, psychologists will be allowed to continue working on interrogation teams that are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. This motion places our organization on the side of the CIA and Department of Defense and at odds with the United Nations, The Red Cross, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association. With this reaffirmation we have made a terrible mistake.

I know that the return of my Presidential Citation from Dr. Koocher will be of small import, but it is what I can do to disassociate myself from what I consider to be a heinous policy. All of my life I have tried my best to stand up for those with no voices and no power. The prisoners our government labels as enemy combatants are in this category.

I return my citation as a matter of conscience and in the hopes that the APA will reconsider its current unethical position. We have long been a wonderful organization that respected human rights and promoted tolerance, kindness, and peace. Nothing is more fundamental to our core orientation and professional service to others than our commitment to all people’s inherent dignity, safety and welfare. I hope my letter may be useful in restoring the APA to its long-respected and important stance as a beacon of integrity and kindness for all human beings.

Respectfully,

Dr. Mary Pipher

the lessons of vietnam?

the lessons of vietnam?

Comments 0 Comment

Last week, George Bush compared the consequences of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq with the results of the withdrawal of American troops from Viet Nam:

One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like boat people, re-education camps and killing fields …

The comparison prompted this reply from one of my college classmates, Rob Watson, currently Chair of the Department of English and Associate Vice-Provost for Educational Innovation at UCLA:

After years of scoffing at warnings that Iraq could turn out to be another Vietnam, the Bush administration is now trumpeting the parallels …

… of course Bush is right: this is mostly like Vietnam. But it’s Vietnam in 1967, not 1973. Again our soldiers have been sent off on a phony basis and stuck for four years in the midst of a civil war, and the enemy seems as strong as ever; yet the president says we just need to send more troops — to secure the towns, you see — and all will be well. Susceptible journalists and congressmen are sent on junkets carefully orchestrated by the military so they’ll come back and say now, at last, the counter-insurgency is really going great. The White House then trumpets the news (as they did in each previous year of the war from the beginning) that victory is just around the corner. Remember the Simon and Garfunkel “7 O’Clock News/Silent Night” from 1966, with Nixon condemning the anti-war movement as “the greatest single weapon working against the U.S.”? Those Americans who argue (at great personal risk, especially if they made the mistake of being right early on) that the misguided war is bad for our country are called traitors and cowards; those who make their money and hold their offices by protracting the agony are reflexively depicted as steadfast patriots.

We’re told that if we admit our mistake and withdraw, the world-historical enemy will soon be on our shores murdering our families. We’d been told our soldiers would be greeted as liberators, but on countless streets in countless towns they find ordinary looking citizens willing to die to kill them. We’re told we have to stay because of the soldiers who have already died; therefore many more are dying.

By the start of 1967, we had fewer than ten thousand of our soldiers dead. By the time we stopped believing the annual promises that the enemy was just about to quit, and got out, another fifty thousand had died. And of course many innocent locals died for every one of those deaths. Neither the official treaty nor the practical outcome was any better than what was available had our government been willing to crawl out of the quagmire six years earlier.

May we have the good sense to do the right thing before an even greater price is paid by our sons and daughters and the sons and daughters of Iraq.

“christian hate” should be an oxymoron!

“christian hate” should be an oxymoron!

Comments 0 Comment

I attach below an excerpt from a forwarded e mail I received the other day …

… when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don’t care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don’t care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed “special” food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being “mishandled,” you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don’t care.

And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled “Koran” and other times “Quran.” Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and – you guessed it – I don’t care ! ! ! ! !

… Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM. AMEN!

This was my response:

It is hardly Christian to say that you don’t care at all … about any other human being. What was it Jesus said? “Love your enemies …”

When terrorism teaches us to hate, terrorism wins. When we disparage the value of the life of any other human being, we have turned from Jesus’ way. People who know Jesus, really know Jesus, know better!

crazy horse

crazy horse

Comments 1 comment

Crazy Horse, book coverI finished this book during our summer vacation in Maine … and left it with my mother who wanted to read it too!

It is a classic and faithful retelling by Mari Sandoz of the story of Crazy Horse, the warrior who bested Custer at Little Big Horn. Her account, originally published in 1942, is based on her extensive research including interviews with many of the tale’s principal characters, people who knew Crazy Horse and had experienced the events of his life firsthand.

Her book provides a fascinating insight into the daily lives and joys and struggles and hopes of the Lakotas; a sobering exposure to the violence of the times, among the Native Americans, and between Native Americans and whites; and a depressing revelation of our own (the whites’) record on this continent, a record of greed and inhumanity and broken promises.

For more updated favorites of mine — books and music and movies — go to my Recommendations page.

mia or barry?

mia or barry?

Comments 1 comment

Mia Hamm and the 1999 World Cup Trophy

On our way home to Iowa from our vacation in Maine, we stayed with a friend in Oneonta, New York, and visited the National Soccer Hall of Fame. On August 26, Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy will be honored there as 2007 inductees. Here’s hoping that Barry Bonds, the new “home run king” of baseball, will not merit such an honor in nearby Cooperstown …

Let’s see, Mia or Barry?

One an athlete of character, intensity, passion, compassion, humility, generosity, and unselfishness. The other almost certainly a cheater.

One a player of America’s game, discrediting the game, discounting his teammates, and casting a long shadow over a hallowed record. The other a player of the world’s game, doing more than any other single individual to inspire a new generation of girls (and boys) to a love for that game, for sport itself, and for joy of being team.

One taking the fun out of the game. The other reminding us that fun is what games are supposed to be about!