Soul Snatcher, Productions ™ Democracy Wall

Walla Walla Symphony • November 1, 2011
A stunningly professional and magnificent performance of this composition.

Autumn Fanfare 1/4

Autumn Fanfare 2/4

Autumn Fanfare 3/4

Autumn Fanfare 4/4

From St. John the Divine, NYC

Bill Randolph, assistant organist at the cathedral, shows off this amazing instrument’s big reed stops. including the world-famous State Trumpet.
The recording was made in the cathedral choir — 600 feet from the StateTrumpets — so you get some of the sense of the vast space in this, the world’s largest cathedral.

This version of Copland’s fanfare was arranged by former cathedral organist Dorothy Papadakos.

New York’s summer heat & humidity have obviously not treated the organ’s tuning very well, & those big reeds are fiendishly difficult to keep in tune in the best of circumstances. An awe-inspiring sound, nevertheless.

At least 32 American troops were killed in Iraq this month, circa 2006. Approximately 300 were wounded. The “battle for Baghdad” was going nowhere. A Marine friend just back from Ramadi said, “It didn’t get any better while I was there, and it’s not going to get better.” Virtually everyone in Washington, except the people in the White House, knew that was true for all of Iraq.

Actually, the White House knew it too. Why then did it insist on “staying the course” at a casualty rate of more than one thousand Americans per month? The answer is breathtaking in its cynicism: so the retreat from Iraq happened on the next President’s watch. That is why we still fought.

Yep, it was all about George. Never mind the deliberate fiction alleging weapons of mass destruction to panic Congress and the public into approving a war of aggression. Anyone who thinks that is too low, too mean, too despicable even for this bunch does not understand the meaning of the adjective “Rovian.” Would they have let thousands more young Americans get killed or wounded just so George W. did not have to face the consequences of his own folly? In a heartbeat.

Not that it was going to help. When history finally lifts it leg on the Bush administration, it will wash all such tricks away, leaving only the hubris and the incompetence, as it has. Jeffrey Hart, who with Russell Kirk gone is probably the top intellectual in the conservative movement, had already written that George W. Bush was the worst President America ever had. Possibly the honor still belongs to the sainted Woodrow, but if Obama attacks Iran, he may earn the prize. That third and final act in the American tragicomedy is waiting in the wings.

A post-election Democratic House, Senate or both should, in theory, say no to another war. But if the Bush administration’s cynicism was boundless, the Democrats’ intellectual vacuity and moral cowardice are equally so. You can’t beat something with nothing, but Democrats have put forward nothing in the way of an alternative to Bush’s defense and foreign policies. On Iran, the question is whether they will be more frightened of the Republicans or of the Israeli lobby. Either way, they will hide under the bed, just as they have hidden under the bed on the war in Iraq.

There is a great deal of material available to the Democrats to offer an alternative, much of it the product of the Military Reform Movement of the 1970s and 80s. Gary Hart can tell them all about it. There was even a somewhat graceful way out of Iraq, if the Dems had asked themselves a favorite foreign policy question, WWBD – What Would Bismarck Do? He would have transferred sufficient Swiss francs to interested parties to have the current government of Iraq ask us to leave. They, not we, now hold the world’s ugliest baby, even though it was America’s indiscretion that gave the bastard birth.

But donkeys will think when pigs fly. A Democratic Congress will be as stupid, cowardly and corrupt as its Republican predecessor; in reality, both parties are one party, the party of successful career politicians. The White House will continue its strategy that lead to a lost war in Iraq, solely to dump the mess on the next President’s lap. America or Israel will attack Iran, pulling what’s left of the temple down on our heads. Congress will do nothing to stop either war.

Was an early Virginian wit correct in his jaundiced vision of a representative democracy as an alternative to monarchy in America during a heated debate among that colony’s political leaders questioning the wisdom of political separation from England. Many wanted to cast aside any legal or economic bonds to the hated tyrant king. “Why,” he asked, “should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?” The specter of a tyranny of the ‘majority’ haunts us still. The US Constitution’s Bill of Rights intended to protect minority inalienable rights has been eroded/perverted over time by tyrannical authoritarian forces that have turned jurisprudence, both nationally and locally, into a cesspool and stain on America’s social fabric.

Or, as one Founder sagely responded when asked by a news reporter what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had brought us, “A republic…if you can keep it!“

by GABRIELA IONIT, 12-29-11

2011 was a hectic year. 2011 was a year of turmoil, from revolutions in the Middle East and fiery turbulence in London to milder outbursts against Netflix price increases or the Hershey warehouse’s student working conditions. Even Time Magazine selected ‘The protester’ as the Person of the Year. Much agitation and latent discontents which erupted, generating many questions and few answers, many uncertainties and few clarifications. And if I said few answers, I don’t mean to the aggressive responses of law of enforcement against protesters, used from the United States to Russia, and from London to Damascus or even to Beijing.

This year 42 journalists, more or less known, have lost their lives while trying to do their job professionally. Among those who left shockingly and prematurely included the British-American photojournalist Tim Hetherington, renowned photographer and co-director with Sebastian Junger of the documentary Restrepo (2010). Tim Hetherington was killed near town Misrata, during the civil war between opponents of the Gaddafi regime and its supporters.

Year of political and economic crisis

The eurozone’s future hung in the balance, the US saw its credit rating downgraded, Japan’s earthquake rocked financial markets and fiscal failings forced out two prime ministers. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and his Greek counterpart received “read cards”. Also, many political players from Middle East (Syria, Yemen, Jordan), Europe and Russia received “yellow cards” for low efficiency of crisis management and possibly the debt maturity to come in 2012. In spring, with the world looking for firm financial leadership, Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in New York on sexual assault allegations, forcing his resignation as the head of the International Monetary Fund (the charges were subsequently dropped). The episode remains controversial.

In autumn, the tension between the US and China over international trade escalated when Beijing imposed additional duties on cars imported from the United States. One dramatic change, Russia was admitted into the World Trade Organisation on Friday after 18 years of negotiation, finally binding it into the global economy two decades after the Soviet Union collapsed.

EU leaders agreed a “fiscal compact” after David Cameron vetoed a revision of the Lisbon treaty. And the year ends with a happy new year message from the IMF: the world, warns Lagarde, is at serious risk of sliding into a 1930s-style slump.

But I believe this will keep happening, each time it will get worse because there is no answer to this present crisis if we continue with the failed economics of Milton Friedman and the free market gang. Moreover, everything we have seen from 2008 to now was the socialization of financial risk, but emphaticallynot profits! Politicians are shy when it comes to discussion about bankers who support their political adventure/agenda & ambitions.

Some dictatorships breakdown – the global police rise to quell this outbreak of freedom swilling masses

But 2011 was also a year when substantial swaths of humanity escaped some dictatorships. True, questions remain, given the lack of principles and functional hypocrisy of the very same countries that have contributed to the fall of Egypt’s Mubarak and Libya’s Gaddafi regimes, after decades of supporting the two dictators because it suited their interests.

The democratization of these countries started with the left. Initial results proved to be disastrous. We’ll see, in 2012 and beyond, if a democracy will be built with representative government, a free press, and an independent judiciary? Still, Libyan “soap-opera” has provided opportunity to the regime in Damascus to justify unspeakable abuses against Syrian protesters. The incongruity between the repression of a criminal regime, the help received to destabilize Syria, and justification for external intervention boggles the mind. In addition, after the Libyan adventure, more and more shadows hint at collusion in relations between major political actors, the U.S., Russia and China.

At the end of the year, North Korea finally escaped Kim Jong-Il, only to be shackled to his younger son rumored to have a personality much like his father’s, naturally?. The older son has sought and received political refugee status in Beijing. Had there been a power struggle that escaped the notice of Western intelligence? It appears the way of communism in Pyongyang smacks of monarchy, replacing one dictator with his heir apparent child and likeness. The emperor is dead…long live the emperor!

Watching the images of the funeral of Kim Jong-Il, many Western citizens wondered how such a thing possible. The answer has several components: time, fear, limitations on human and citizen rights, ideological indoctrination–Basic tools of any police and dictatorial state.

If you thought this could happen only in Korea or Iran, I say to you, think again. Let′s speak a little about police states, the first step of any authoritarian regime. In fact, Syria is a leading exponent of the police state. The very same type of reaction (though to a lesser egregious extent) can be seen in all countries where the authorities are faced with the discontent of the population. Even Rome’s Caesars feared the unemployed mobs, financing the spectacle of bread & circus to distract them.

Take a good look at the authorities in your country! When there are no solutions, they hide their incompetence under various pretexts – predictably generating fear and insecurity: the fall of the euro, the nuclear threat, terrorists, national security (or the $ecurity of their own pockets), unemployment, austerity. Check out Team Obama’s press briefing about the ongoing saga of the Nigerian underwear bomber. Obama is clearly trying to cultivate a fear of Al-Qaeda in order to build blind trust in his government. After the President’s remarks, his Homeland Security Secretary and Deputy National Security Advisor took the stage to unveil a series of proposals to ‘improve security’. The bogeyman of a terrorist behind every bus stop is manipulated to panic Americans into accepting the elimination of civil liberties and fundamental rights to Due Process.

After the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (a lost battle, despite official propaganda), President Obama needs a new enemy on which to focus the attention of his Americans, to rally voters for the upcoming election season. Iran, Al-Qaeda, et ux, can all be used to the same end. What’s important is to cultivate fear and deflect attention from the disaster produced by Wall Street’s fat cats.

According to The Moscow Times, the top three individual words used by Russian mass-media in 2011 are полиция (police), рокировка (castling, job swap at the top) and льфа-самец (alpha male). Russia has fashioned a popular villain meant to scare voters and justify the cost of weapons: America’s anti-missile shield. Examples could continue but for the limits of time and attention spans.

2012 will be a year when many countries will have parliamentary and/or presidential elections.  It’s good to seriously consider who you will support with your vote. It is a time to remind politicians we want to live in a world of moral, healthy principles and values​​. According FT’s political column, “2012 will be driven by tactics and electoral timing. The great revolt will come later. Next year, tactically adept incumbents may survive by offering stability in a time of chaos. Their chances are particularly high if they can identify with the pain of their citizens more effectively than weak challengers”. (I feel your pain.) I believe this represents a chance for citizens is to think. It does not cost–Not yet!

By ROGER-POL DROIT– August 5, 1975

Following are excerpts from an interview with Michel Foucault, French philosopher, psychiatrist and historian, and author of “The Order of Things” and “Madness and Civilization.” It first appeared in the Paris newspaper Le Monde, preceded by a commentary by the interviewer Roger-Pol Droit. This was translated by Leonard Mayhew.

Corporal punishment used to be carried out in a businesslike fashion. Bodies were branded, amputated, wrenched apart. From the stake to the scaffold, from the pillory to the gibbet, physical suffering was produced with elaborate theatricality as an example to all. Care was taken that no one should be unaware of it. All that came to a sudden end in the second half of the 18th century.

The monotonous tumbling of locks and the shadow of the cell block have replaced the grand ceremonial of flesh and blood. The condemned culprit’s body is concealed rather than being placed on exhibition. We no longer want to cause the criminal pain; we want to train him; we want to reeducate his “spirit.”

The change took place throughout Western civilization in less than a century. The Middle Ages had its prisons and jails but it was unfamiliar with anything resembling the rigid system of regimented, fastidious detention that developed between 1780 and 1820 as Europe and the New World became covered with penitentiaries.

It is not enough to say, with the 18th-century “reformers,” that “humanization” and “progress” explained and justified this radical change in the penal system.

The shock of corporal punishment and the silence of reclusion are not simply two isolated and opposed phenomena; nor are their differences only on the surface. They stand for a change from one kind of justice to another, a profound change in the organization of authority.

Under absolute monarchy, the criminal defied the authority of the king, and the authority crushed him and dramatically reminded everybody of its unlimited power. For the theoreticians of the Enlightenment, someone who committed a crime broke the contract that bound him to his fellows. Society put him aside and reformed him by carefully regulating his every action and every moment of his life in prison.

Prison means a rigorous regulation of space, because the guard can and must see everything. It is also the rigid regulation of the use of time hour by hour. Finally, it involves regulation of the slightest bodily movements or change of position.

Prison is not unique. It is positioned within the disciplined society, the society of generalized surveillance in which we live. “What is so astonishing,” Foucault asks, “about the fact that our prisons resemble our factories, schools, military bases, and hospitals-all of which in turn resemble prisons?”

Q. Prisons, in their contemporary form and functioning, may seem like an isolated invention that appeared suddenly at the end of the eighteenth century. But you show that, on the contrary, their origin should be traced to a much more profound social change.

A. When we read the great historians of the classic era, we can see that to a great degree the administrative monarchy-as centralized and bureaucratized as it could possible be-was, in spite of that, an irregular and discontinuing power structure that allowed individuals and groups a certain latitude to twist the law, to establish customs that suited them, to find a way of slipping around obligations, etc.

The Ancien Regime was loaded down with hundreds of thousands of ordinances, that were never enforced, rights that no one exercised, and regulations that masses of people ignored. For example, not only traditional fiscal fraud but also the most blatant smuggling was part and parcel of the economic life of the kingdom. In short, a perpetual give-and-take between legality and law-breaking was one of the conditions under which authority operated.

In the second half of the 18th century this system of tolerance changed. New economic conditions and the political fear of popular movements, which became chronic in France after the Revolution, demanded a different social arrangement.

The exercise of power had to become more refined, more clear-cut and between the centralized decision-making apparatus and the individual as continuous a connection as possible had to be formed. This occasioned the appearance of the police force, the administrative hierarchy, the bureaucratic pyramid of the Napoleonic state.

Long before 1789, jurists and “reformers” had dreamed of a society in which punishments would be uniform, where chastisements for law-breaking would be unavoidable and equal, with no exception or evasion possible.

Suddenly, corporal punishment, the grand ritual of chastisement designed to arouse fear and act as a deterrent-which, however, many criminals escaped-disappeared before the demand for a universality of punishment concretized in the prison system.

Q. But why prisons rather than some other systems? What is the central role of enclosing, cloistering, the “guilty” party?

A. You ask where prisons come from. My answer is “from practically everywhere.” Something was “invented,” to be sure, but it was an entire technique of surveillance: the control and identification of individuals, the regulation of their movements, activity, and effectiveness.

This took place in the 16th and 17th centuries in the army, colleges, schools, hospitals and work places. It boiled down to a technology that made possible exact, day-by-day power over bodies. Prison is the ultimate embodiment of that age of discipline.

The social role of internment is to be discovered in terms of a person who begins to emerge in the 19th century: the delinquent. This establishment of the criminal world is absolutely correlated with the existence of prisons. Within the masses, a small core of people became, so to speak, the privileged and exclusive licensees of criminal activity.

In the classic age, on the contrary, violence, petty thievery and embezzlement were extremely common and, in the long run, were tolerated by everyone. The malefactor, it seems, was able to melt very easily into society. If he happened to get caught, penal procedures were swift and definitive: death, life in the galleys, banishment.

The criminal world was not so closed in on itself, something that developed essentially out of the existence of prisons, out of the “marinade” of prison society that forms a microsociety in which men find real solidarity that will provide them, on their release, with mutual support.

Prison is a recruitment center for the army of crime. That is what it achieves. For 200 years everybody has been saying, “Prisons are failing; all they do is produce new criminals.” I would say on the other hand, “They are a success, since that is what has been asked of them.”

Q. Nevertheless, over and over we hear that prison, at least ideally, should “cure” or “readapt” the criminal. It is-or should be, we say-more “therapeutic” than punitive.

A. Criminal psychiatry and psychology risk becoming the ultimate alibi behind which the prevailing system will hide in order to remain unchanged. They could not possibly suggest a serious alternative to the prison system for the simple reason that they owe their origins to it.

The prisons established immediately after the penal code presented themselves from the outset as an instrument of psychological correction. Prison was a medico-judicial remedy. Placing every single prisoner under the care of a psychotherapist would in no way change the power system built on generalized surveillance established at the beginning og the 19th century.

Q. There remains the question of what “benefit” the ruling class derives from the establishment of this army of crime of which you speak.

A. Well, to begin with, it makes it possible to break up the continuity of accepted lawbreaking. In effect, it isolates a small group who can be controlled, kept under surveillance, and thoroughly known. They become the object of hostility and distrust of the very classes from which they come. For the poor are the most frequent victims of most everyday crimes.

The result in the final analysis is gigantic economic and political profit: Economic profit from the fabulous sums derived from prostitution, drug traffic, etc. Political profit in that the more criminals there are the more readily the population will accept police controls.

Not to mention that this system provides a work force for the lowliest political jobs: putting up posters, poll-watching, strike-breaking. Under the Second Empire, the workers were quite aware that the “scabs,” as well as Louis Napoleon’s antiriot forces, were all ex-prisoners.

Q. Then, all the talk and activity about prison “reform” and “humanization” is just subterfuge?

A. It seems to me that whether the prisoners get an extra chocolate bar on Christmas or are let out to make their Easter Duty is not the real political issue. What we have to denounce is not so much the “human” side of life in prison but rather their real social function-that is, to serve as the instrument that creates a criminal milieu that the ruling classes can control.

Q. How do you define this “managing” of lawbreaking? Doesn’t the very phrase presuppose a strange conception of law and society?

A. It would be pure illusion to believe that laws are made to be respected, or that the police and courts are intended to make them respected. Only in disembodied theory could we pretend that we have once and for all subscribed to the laws of the society to which we belong. It is common knowledge that laws are made by certain people for other people to keep.

But we can go further. Lawbreaking is not an accident, a more or less unavoidable imperfection. Rather, it is a positive element of the functioning of society. Its role is part of a general strategy. Every legislative arrangement sets up privileged and profitable areas where the law can be violated, others where it can be ignored, and others where infractions are sanctioned.

Washington State has a law (RCW 9A.76.180) making it a crime (class B felony) to threaten/intimidate a public official. The law makes reference to and spells out exactly what is meant by ‘threat’–it’s not a subjective ‘feeling’ by the official/government employee. No matter–prosecutors aren’t above ignoring such precise legislative intent. They routinely prosecute citizens for what they and/or their cronies pull out of their ass, substituting their personal biases and prejudices for the law, then persuading lazy judges and ignorant jurors that their spin *IS* the ‘law’!

Jury Nullification (article detailing 78yo citizen’s arrest for pamphleting) is an American tradition of democracy in action in the 3rd branch (judicial) of government. Judges (“The monarchists will hide in the judiciary!” -B. Franklin-) revile Jury nullification, a practice dating back to when colonists refused to convict neighbors on charges trumped up by the British. The British would then transport the acquitted defendant to be re-tried by an English jury more inclined to hand the government the conviction it sought. This egregious abuse gave rise to one of our Constitution’s cornerstones of protection against Double Jeopardy along with the right to a speedy trial. Today, it (Jury Nullification) is the last bulwark against judicial incompetence, corruption, excess, and abuse of process. Perhaps to avoid even this safeguard, Washington  State has no provision for jury trials in important proceedings such as divorce, anti-harassment suits, emancipation, dependency hearings, adoptions, and CHild In Need of Services petitions. Grand Juries, originally intended to provide a measure of protection against prosecutorial excess, have become little more than rubber stamps as have judges who routinely issue ex parte orders where no genuine emergency justifying it exists.

RCW 9A.78.180 makes it a class B felony to threaten/intimidate a public official. But it takes care to define what the legislature intended when using the term ‘threat’ along with the purpose of any such communication. But too many prosecutors and judges care little about such details. They bend the law to whim, prejudice, and personal agendas confident in the knowledge they have ABSOLUTE IMPUGNITY from liability/prosecution when, in fact, what’s sorely needed is a law making it a class B felony for the arrogant SOB’s who are (in theory) working for (and paid by) we, the people (having created these agencies and instruments of government to serve US!) to threaten/intimidate the public/citizens!

Jury Nullification remains a lawful purview of jurors though a judge will never allow the defendant or his attorney to tell them about it. It is up to citizens to spread the word and ensure justice is provided fairly despite government/prosecutorial excess/abuse.

Shelton DSHS staff caught lying, threatening, & trashing civil rights on tape

2011 Christmas Eve by Soul Snatcher Productions (click SD, abate HQ format for audio)

Shelton DSHS staff caught lying, threatening, & trashing civil rights on tape

2011 Christmas Eve by Soul Snatcher Productions
(Please leave a comment as to which above video format/server works better for you.)

A client filing for divorce reported an offensively threatening sign on public display in the Shelton DSHS office lobby. Upon arriving to investigate the threatening tone and hostile attitude, government workers initially denied any such sign existed. After discovering the heavy handed posting in the DSHS lobby, photographs of it were taken with difficulty because the staff tried to cover/block it from the camera’s view. Next they attempted to invent nonexistent authority for prohibiting photography in this public area. When that fiction was rejected, they threatened to call the police, claiming photographing the lobby was somehow ‘disruptive’.

The staff woman trying to intimidate the photojournalist sneered at the argument she was violating his civil rights and asked who he might sue. When the possibilities were spelled out, she feigned in a stage whisper she was being ‘threatened’ with a lawsuit.

It’s all here in the audio for those who need to be reminded that government agents routinely lie under such circumstances. For this reason, witnesses and a recording device when dealing with government stooges are fundamental necessities of self defense today. The most commonly committed felony today is perjured testimony under oath by government agents. It isn’t the exception, it’s the rule. Yes, it’s a hassle to take precautions to protect yourself, but would you walk alone down a dark alley in a dangerous neighborhood? Think about it! And, BTW, the very buildings and public spaces these drones try to claim as their own are heavily monitored with surveillance cameras watching YOU! What’s sauce for the government goose is good for the gander. Don’t think simply because you’re not looking for trouble your innocence will protect you. These minions are paid to wreak havoc on individuals’ civil liberties and the American family. Anyone who attempts to remonstrate with them over their bullying will meet stiff resistance and the brute police power of the state. It’s best to be prepared for that eventuality for given long enough, most citizens will be labeled as ‘convicted felons’ in the not too distant future.

What’s needed today is the most fundamental but sweeping reform possible–a law (and sign?) proclaiming government agents who threaten/intimidate the public may be arrested and charged with a class B felony!

My dear sister Janet,
Flanders Christmas Ballad

It is 2:00 in the morning and most of our men are asleep in their
dugouts — yet I could not sleep myself before writing to you of the
wonderful events of Christmas Eve. In truth, what happened seems
almost like a fairy tale, and if I hadn’t been through it myself, I
would scarce believe it. Just imagine: While you and the family sang
carols before the fire there in London, I did the same with enemy
soldiers here on the battlefields of France!

As I wrote before, there has been little serious fighting of late. The
first battles of the war left so many dead that both sides have held
back until replacements could come from home. So we have mostly stayed
in our trenches and waited.

But what a terrible waiting it has been! Knowing that any moment an
artillery shell might land and explode beside us in the trench,
killing or maiming several men. And in daylight not daring to lift our
heads above ground, for fear of a sniper’s bullet.

And the rain — it has fallen almost daily. Of course, it collects
right in our trenches, where we must bail it out with pots and pans.
And with the rain has come mud — a good foot or more deep. It
splatters and cakes everything, and constantly sucks at our boots. One
new recruit got his feet stuck in it, and then his hands too when he
tried to get out — just like in that American story of the tar baby!

Through all this, we couldn’t help feeling curious about the German
soldiers across the way. After all, they faced the same dangers we
did, and slogged about in the same muck. What’s more, their first
trench was only 50 yards from ours. Between us lay No Man’s Land,
bordered on both sides by barbed wire — yet they were close enough we
sometimes heard their voices.

Of course, we hated them when they killed our friends. But other
times, we joked about them and almost felt we had something in common.
And now it seems they felt the same.

Just yesterday morning — Christmas Eve Day — we had our first good
freeze. Cold as we were, we welcomed it, because at least the mud
froze solid. Everything was tinged white with frost, while a bright
sun shone over all. Perfect Christmas weather.

During the day, there was little shelling or rifle fire from either
side. And as darkness fell on our Christmas Eve, the shooting stopped
entirely. Our first complete silence in months! We hoped it might
promise a peaceful holiday, but we didn’t count on it. We’d been told
the Germans might attack and try to catch us off guard.

I went to the dugout to rest, and lying on my cot, I must have drifted
asleep. All at once my friend John was shaking me awake, saying, “Come
and see! See what the Germans are doing!” I grabbed my rifle, stumbled
out into the trench, and stuck my head cautiously above the sandbags.

I never hope to see a stranger and more lovely sight. Clusters of tiny
lights were shining all along the German line, left and right as far
as the eye could see.

“What is it?” I asked in bewilderment, and John answered, “Christmas
trees!”

And so it was. The Germans had placed Christmas trees in front of
their trenches, lit by candle or lantern like beacons of good will.

And then we heard their voices raised in song.

“Stille nacht, heilige nacht….”

This carol may not yet be familiar to us in Britain, but John knew it
and translated: “Silent night, holy night.” I’ve never heard one
lovelier — or more meaningful, in that quiet, clear night, its dark
softened by a first-quarter moon.

When the song finished, the men in our trenches applauded. Yes,
British soldiers applauding Germans! Then one of our own men started
singing, and we all joined in.

“The first Nowell, the angel did say….”

In truth, we sounded not nearly as good as the Germans, with their
fine harmonies. But they responded with enthusiastic applause of their
own and then began another.

“O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum….”

Then we replied.

“O come all ye faithful….”

But this time they joined in, singing the same words in Latin.

“Adeste fideles….”

British and German harmonizing across No Man’s Land! I would have
thought nothing could be more amazing — but what came next was more
so.

“English, come over!” we heard one of them shout. “You no shoot, we no
shoot.”

There in the trenches, we looked at each other in bewilderment. Then
one of us shouted jokingly, “You come over here.”

To our astonishment, we saw two figures rise from the trench, climb
over their barbed wire, and advance unprotected across No Man’s Land.
One of them called, “Send officer to talk.”

I saw one of our men lift his rifle to the ready, and no doubt others
did the same — but our captain called out, “Hold your fire.” Then he
climbed out and went to meet the Germans halfway. We heard them
talking, and a few minutes later, the captain came back with a German
cigar in his mouth!

“We’ve agreed there will be no shooting before midnight tomorrow,” he
announced. “But sentries are to remain on duty, and the rest of you,
stay alert.”

Across the way, we could make out groups of two or three men starting
out of trenches and coming toward us. Then some of us were climbing
out too, and in minutes more, there we were in No Man’s Land, over a
hundred soldiers and officers of each side, shaking hands with men
we’d been trying to kill just hours earlier!

Before long a bonfire was built, and around it we mingled — British
khaki and German grey. I must say, the Germans were the better
dressed, with fresh uniforms for the holiday.

Only a couple of our men knew German, but more of the Germans knew
English. I asked one of them why that was.

“Because many have worked in England!” he said. “Before all this, I
was a waiter at the Hotel Cecil. Perhaps I waited on your table!”

“Perhaps you did!” I said, laughing.

He told me he had a girlfriend in London and that the war had
interrupted their plans for marriage. I told him, “Don’t worry. We’ll
have you beat by Easter, then you can come back and marry the girl.”

He laughed at that. Then he asked if I’d send her a postcard he’d give
me later, and I promised I would.

Another German had been a porter at Victoria Station. He showed me a
picture of his family back in Munich. His eldest sister was so lovely,
I said I should like to meet her someday. He beamed and said he would
like that very much and gave me his family’s address.

Even those who could not converse could still exchange gifts — our
cigarettes for their cigars, our tea for their coffee, our corned beef
for their sausage. Badges and buttons from uniforms changed owners,
and one of our lads walked off with the infamous spiked helmet! I
myself traded a jackknife for a leather equipment belt — a fine
souvenir to show when I get home.

Newspapers too changed hands, and the Germans howled with laughter at
ours. They assured us that France was finished and Russia nearly
beaten too. We told them that was nonsense, and one of them said,
“Well, you believe your newspapers and we’ll believe ours.”

Clearly they are lied to — yet after meeting these men, I wonder how
truthful our own newspapers have been. These are not the “savage
barbarians” we’ve read so much about. They are men with homes and
families, hopes and fears, principles and, yes, love of country. In
other words, men like ourselves. Why are we led to believe otherwise?

As it grew late, a few more songs were traded around the fire, and
then all joined in for — I am not lying to you — “Auld Lang Syne.”
Then we parted with promises to meet again tomorrow, and even some
talk of a football match.

I was just starting back to the trenches when an older German clutched
my arm. “My God,” he said, “why cannot we have peace and all go home?”

I told him gently, “That you must ask your emperor.”

He looked at me then, searchingly. “Perhaps, my friend. But also we
must ask our hearts.”

And so, dear sister, tell me, has there ever been such a Christmas Eve
in all history? And what does it all mean, this impossible befriending
of enemies?

For the fighting here, of course, it means regrettably little. Decent
fellows those soldiers may be, but they follow orders and we do the
same. Besides, we are here to stop their army and send it home, and
never could we shirk that duty.

Still, one cannot help imagine what would happen if the spirit shown
here were caught by the nations of the world. Of course, disputes must
always arise. But what if our leaders were to offer well wishes in
place of warnings? Songs in place of slurs? Presents in place of
reprisals? Would not all war end at once?

All nations say they want peace. Yet on this Christmas morning, I
wonder if we want it quite enough.

Your loving brother,

Tom
John McCutcheon’s Carol

All Republican candidates for the US Presidency at a recent press sponsored debate came out in favor of bringing back torture (e.g. waterboarding) but one, Ron Paul. But even Ron Paul and Mitt Romney favor Gingrich’s proposal to short circuit the independence of the US Supreme Court to interpret the federal Constitution.

Newt’s Poison Pill Prescription for US Supreme Court by Eric Posner

And he’s not the only one who thinks there is a huge problem with giving the Supreme Court final say on the Constitution. But make no mistake about it–should Mr. Gingrich’s plan succeed, it would place the remnant of our foundation for government as envisioned by the founders of this nation on the fast track slippery slope to fascism.

Supreme Court Executioner and Dilettante

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

All three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) were intended to be co-equal and independent from the others. This full faith and credit among those branches has essentially worked. Our justices give every respect to legislatively enacted laws UNLESS they’re clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. While nothing straight was ever carved from the crooked timbre of humanity, failing a benign theocracy, our man made laws and judge made rulings have reasonably consistently worked as the framers intended. Our courts have struggled to maintain not only the separation of powers, but the separation of Church and State…as was intended.

Our federal judges are not elected but SELECTED. The President proposes and the Senate disposes by advise & consent to those judicial nominations. The judges receive lifetime appointments precisely because they take their seats in the ONLY branch of our government without the corrupting influence of campaign contributions, corporate influence, graft, corruption, and high powered lobbyists.

Our judges are not supposed to be buffeted by popular sentiment or political winds. If our Constitution is difficult to amend, that’s as was intended. Those rights embodied in its text were  placed there to protect minority interests as the majority (in theory) in a democracy does not need such safeguards. Those principles held to be self evident were not intended to wax and wane with political intemperance. It’s for this very reason our US Senators have 6-year terms instead of the 2-year terms of House Representatives.

Were current popular political sentiment the only material warp and weave of our national fabric of government, there’d hardly be a need for a Constitution at all. That we have one which stands like a rock in the midst of chaotic political change serves to bind this nation, to provide continuity and an appropriate degree of certainty to individual liberty. commerce, and officials alike.

Gingrich, much like Donald Trump, is a political huckster seeking to anoint a simplistic rationale with the rhetoric of reasoned debate over issues long settled since at least 1803 when one of the early Supreme Court Justices ruled it was the Court’s sole purview to provide the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution–the document which acts as the glue to bind our nation of laws.  i.e. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Our rugged Constitution has served us well for these past centuries. It would be foolhardy to trade the empty rhetoric and overly simplistic vision of this demagogue for the tried and true cornerstone that has served as the foundation of our hard won democracy and system of government. What Gingrich proposes is no less than an invitation to a Constitutional crisis.

Covering the Olympia Heritage Park encampment Monday evening (12-12-11) as well as Thursday evening, night, and Friday (12-15-11 through 12-16-11) revealed it was not safe. Threatened by a homeless man named ‘Brian’ who had recently done a stint of 10 years down South for murder who was talked out of the encampment a day or two later by a camp resident named ‘Sly’ for assaulting another resident with a large knife, it was evident photojournalists and visitors were at considerable risk Nor were these incidents (story still developing) isolated, but they should be of interest to the public.