---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine
Date: Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:54 AM
Subject: re: Thoughts for the Horrified
To: "letters@nytimes.com"
To the Editor:
Professor Krugman now opines that there will be "no immediate comeuppance" as the world reacts to Trumponomics. Perhaps as a public intellectual, he feels he has to project calm, lest he fuel a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. Those of us without his exalted pulpit are freer to speak truth. The U.S. stock and bond markets float on billions of dollars from foreigners who have perceived the U.S. as a safe haven in a turbulent world. With Trump's inauguration, that is over. The unpredictability in which Trump exults will chase those $billions off-shore. Donald Trump may find ways to profit personally from his high office. But Americans will lose bigly, and America's century of world influence is over.
The Manhattan hotel where Donald Trump held his election-night party.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
So what do we do now? By “we” I mean all those left, center and even right who saw Donald Trump as the worst man ever to run for president and assumed that a strong majority of our fellow citizens would agree.
I’m not talking about rethinking political strategy. There will be a time for that — God knows it’s clear that almost everyone on the center-left, myself included, was clueless about what actually works in persuading voters. For now, however, I’m talking about personal attitude and behavior in the face of this terrible shock.
First of all, remember that elections determine who gets the power, not who offers the truth. The Trump campaign was unprecedented in its dishonesty; the fact that the lies didn’t exact a political price, that they even resonated with a large bloc of voters, doesn’t make them any less false. No, our inner cities aren’t war zones with record crime. No, we aren’t the highest-taxed nation in the world. No, climate change isn’t a hoax promoted by the Chinese.
So if you’re tempted to concede that the alt-right’s vision of the world might have some truth to it, don’t. Lies are lies, no matter how much power backs them up.
And once we’re talking about intellectual honesty, everyone needs to face up to the unpleasant reality that a Trump administration will do immense damage to America and the world. Of course I could be wrong; maybe the man in office will be completely different from the man we’ve seen so far. But it’s unlikely.
Unfortunately, we’re not just talking about four bad years. Tuesday’s fallout will last for decades, maybe generations.
I particularly worry about climate change. We were at a crucial point, having just reached a global agreement on emissions and having a clear policy path toward moving America to a much greater reliance on renewable energy. Now it will probably fall apart, and the damage may well be irreversible.
The political damage will extend far into the future, too. The odds are that some terrible people will become Supreme Court justices. States will feel empowered to engage in even more voter suppression than they did this year. At worst, we could see a slightly covert form of Jim Crow become the norm all across America.
And you have to wonder about civil liberties, too. The White House will soon be occupied by a man with obvious authoritarian instincts, and Congress controlled by a party that has shown no inclination to stand up against him. How bad will it get? Nobody knows.
What about the short term? My own first instinct was to say that Trumponomics would quickly provoke an immediate economic crisis, but after a few hours’ reflection I decided that this was probably wrong. I’ll write more about this in the coming weeks, but a best guess is that there will be no immediate comeuppance.
Trumpist policies won’t help the people who voted for Donald Trump — in fact, his supporters will end up much worse off. But this story will probably unfold gradually. Political opponents of the new regime certainly shouldn’t count on any near-term moment of obvious vindication.
So where does this leave us? What, as concerned and horrified citizens, should we do?
One natural response would be quietism, turning one’s back on politics. It’s definitely tempting to conclude that the world is going to hell, but that there’s nothing you can do about it, so why not just make your own garden grow? I myself spent a large part of the Day After avoiding the news, doing personal things, basically taking a vacation in my own head.
But that is, in the end, no way for citizens of a democracy — which we still are, one hopes — to live. I’m not saying that we should all volunteer to die on the barricades; I don’t think it’s going to come to that, although I wish I was sure. But I don’t see how you can hang on to your own self-respect unless you’re willing to stand up for the truth and fundamental American values.
Will that stand eventually succeed? No guarantees. Americans, no matter how secular, tend to think of themselves as citizens of a nation with a special divine providence, one that may take wrong turns but always finds its way back, one in which justice always prevails in the end.
Yet it doesn’t have to be true. Maybe the historic channels of reform — speech and writing that changes minds, political activism that eventually changes who has power — are no longer effective. Maybe America isn’t special, it’s just another republic that had its day, but is in the process of devolving into a corrupt nation ruled by strongmen.
But I’m not ready to accept that this is inevitable — because accepting it as inevitable would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The road back to what America should be is going to be longer and harder than any of us expected, and we might not make it. But we have to try.
Subject: re: Bundy Brothers Acquitted in Takeover of Oregon Wildlife Refuge
To: "letters@nytimes.com"
To the Editor:
In principle, the Bundy jury represents us, the sovereign people of the U.S. In practice of course, these are twelve individuals with twelve lives, lived in rural Oregon.
The acquittal of the Bundys is a failure of the prosecutor. The evidence that the Bundys conspired to obstruct a federal employee in performance of his duties is overwhelming and uncontested. A Federal court (albeit in the 2nd circuit) has ruled (U.S. v. Thomas '97) that potential jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. It was that prosecutor's duty as an officer of our Executive to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
That is not, however, the duty of the jurors. The law (consider e.g. 'Dred Scot') is not perfect and is not always just. This jury has spoken, and there is no higher authority that can over-turn their verdict. But such an acquittal establishes no precedent; another prosecutor in another trial may find differently.
Clockwise from top left, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Jeff Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, David Lee Fry and Neil Wampler.CreditMultnomah County Sheriff
PORTLAND, Ore. — Armed antigovernment protesters led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy were acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from the takeover of a federally owned wildlife sanctuary in Oregon last winter.
The surprise acquittals of all seven defendants in Federal District Court were a blow to government prosecutors, who had argued that the Bundys and five of their followers used force and threats of violence to occupy the reserve. But the jury appeared swayed by the defendants’ contention that they were protesting government overreach and posed no threat to the public.
In a sign of the tension that ran through the trial, Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Marcus R. Mumford, frustrated that the Bundys were not being released, was restrained by four United States marshals after an outburst.
“I knew that what my husband was doing was right, but I was nervous because the judge was controlling the narrative,” said Ryan Bundy’s wife, Angela Bundy, 39, in a telephone interview from the family ranch in Bunkerville, Nev. “But they saw the truth. I am just so grateful they saw it.”
It was not immediately clear how the not-guilty verdicts would affect the government’s strategy in another case stemming from the Oregon occupation, or a trial in Nevada that the Bundy brothers and their father, Cliven Bundy, face for an armed standoff there.
The Oregon occupation, at a remote and frigid reserve in the southeastern part of the state, was rooted in antigovernment fervor and captured the nation’s attention. It had a Wild West quality, with armed men in cowboy hats taking on federal agents in a tussle over public lands and putting out a call for aid, only to see their insurrection fizzle.
In a monthlong trial here, the defendants never denied that they had occupied and held the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters for nearly six weeks, demanding that the federal government surrender the 188,000-acre property to local control. But their lawyers argued that prosecutors did not prove that the group had engaged in an illegal conspiracy that kept federal workers — employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management — from doing their jobs.
Eleven people had already pleaded guilty. One participant, LaVoy Finicum, was killed by the authorities during the standoff.
Ethan D. Knight, an assistant United States attorney, argued that the case was simple: Ammon Bundy had been selective in deciding which laws applied to him and had led an armed seizure of property that did not belong to him.
Mr. Mumford said acquitting Mr. Bundy would be a victory for all Americans. “They’re deceiving you,” Mr. Mumford said, gesturing to the prosecutors. “It’s the government that picks and chooses the rules it’s going to comply with.”
Ammon Bundy, 41, a business owner, testified for three days in his defense. He argued that the takeover was spontaneous and informed by religious belief. But prosecutors, through witnesses and their final arguments, said the group had used the threat of force and violence, crystallized by Mr. Bundy’s call for followers across the nation to come to the refuge with guns.
U.S.By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS1:21Supporters Rejoice After Bundy Acquittal
Video
Supporters Rejoice After Bundy Acquittal
After a jury unexpectedly acquitted Ammon and Ryan Bundy and a group of antigovernment protesters of federal conspiracy and weapons charges, supporters and defendants gathered outside the courthouse.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish DateOctober 27, 2016. Photo by Beth Nakamura/The Oregonian, via Associated Press... Watch in Times Video »
All seven defendants in the case were charged with conspiracy to impede federal employees from discharging their duties, and they also faced federal weapons charges and could have been given long prison sentences. The unanimous acquittals covered all the charges but one, a theft of government property charge against Ryan Bundy for removing cameras mounted at the refuge, with no verdict rendered on it.
In a statement, Oregon’s governor, Kate Brown, said she was disappointed.
“The occupation of the Malheur Reserve did not reflect the Oregon way of respectfully working together to resolve differences,” the governor said.
After asking each of the defendants to rise, Judge Anna J. Brown read off the string of not-guilty verdicts. “It has been a long road,” she told the jury afterward.
Ammon Bundy’s lawyer, Mr. Mumford, then requested that the Bundy brothers be immediately released. Judge Brown denied the request and said that because of pending charges in Nevada, the brothers would remain in federal custody.
Mr. Mumford became agitated. “He is going to be released,” he said in a raised voice.
Judge Brown rebuked him. “Mr. Mumford, you really need to not yell at me, now or ever again,” she said.
As Mr. Mumford continued his protest, four court officers surrounded him, and in the ensuing scuffle, documents and other items on the defense table were knocked to the floor and Judge Brown ordered the courtroom cleared.
Shawna Cox, the only woman among the defendants, expressed fury at the treatment of Mr. Mumford. “I am happy to be free,” she added.
Outside the courthouse, 75 to 100 people gathered after the verdict. One woman handed out American flags. Supporters of the protesters chanted: “Praise God. Praise God.”
One of the defendants, Neil Wampler, was congratulated by supporters. “On to the next one,” he said, alluding to the charges still pending against his fellow defendants.
Ammon Bundy, of Emmett, Idaho, and his brother Ryan, 43, of Cedar City, Utah, and their father were the poster images of the anger over federal control of vast stretches of Western lands. And the armed protesters — later co-defendants — who joined the brothers in their occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge all had similar longstanding distrust of the government.
Mr. Wampler, of Los Osos, Calif., described himself as a 68-year-old hippie, and Kenneth Mendehbach, of Crescent, Ore., a woodworker by profession, boasted of spending at least two decades protesting federal power. Jeff Banta of Yerington, Nev., was one of the last holdouts at the refuge. At 27, David Lee Fry left a job at his parents’ dental practice in Blanchester, Ohio, to join the protest. Ms. Cox has a history of protesting federal involvement on Western lands and is a friend of the Bundys.
In closing arguments last week, the defense lawyers in the case and Ryan Bundy, who represented himself, passionately argued that the government had not made its case. They argued that the presence of paid government informants at the refuge during the occupation muddied the waters and created reasonable doubt about how the decisions of the defendants were made.
“The government was not here to find the truth,” Robert L. Salisbury, Mr. Banta’s lawyer, told the jury before deliberations began. “This case is about people wanting to be heard, and they’re just frustrated with our government.”
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: barry levine Date: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM Subject: re: Peace Without Partners To: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Sometime around the end of the first century c.e, Rabbi Tarfon said: "It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task, but neither are you free to absolve yourself from it" His words are as apt today as they were then. For too long, Israeli governments have been content to cling to power by blaming Palestinians for intransigence. The status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable.Those who claim to be political "leaders" must not be content with finger-pointing and whining. Barry Haskell Levine
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: barry levine Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:48 AM Subject: re: Dark Again After Report on C.I.A. Torture To: "letters@nytimes.com"
To the Editor:
It is within president Obama's power to declassify the entire Torture Report, not just the Executive Summary. Indeed, the American People have paid for that report and for the conduct on which it reports. The Summary cannot suffice; if this Congress were to offer such a summary of the U.S. Constitution it might well quote "Congress shall make no Law", redacting away what some of us consider the important bits.
President Obama has an opportunity here. Now that it is revealed that the C.I.A. had deceived him, he could shed his mistaken pledge to "look forward and not backwards" and put that Torture Report (with small redactions to protect ongoing operations and the innocent) up on the White House website this week. But if he prefers to continue the cover-up of these crimes, he will make them his own.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: barry levine Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:02 AM Subject: re: Movement in the Eric Garner Case To: "letters@nytimes.com"
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: barry levine Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:49 PM Subject: re: Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P. To: "letters@nytimes.com"
to the Editor:
Republicans, discovering Trump's crass no longer can excuse him to their wives they'll sleep alone if they support this ass entrusting him with budgets, wars, and lives read "Lyssistrata"! We've been here before united, women might achieve effects but given power, men are prone to war and won't be reined in 'til deprived of sex the credibility that Mike Pence lent to reassure the voters he's okay can't keep the Christian Right in Donald's tent they might stay home in droves, election day the vulgar crap Trumps prone to say and do could paint both legislative houses blue
Mike Pence has long made clear his disdain for theories, especially the Darwinian theory of evolution. Tuesday, he demonstrated his disdain for facts as well, lying unflinchingly about what his running-mate has indeed said and endorsed. We're left to wonder on what basis he does take the positions he does. If he is not guided by theory or by fact, does he rely only on revelation? Is this public revelation? Or would our vice president be acting on voices in his head no one else hears?
