As soon as a person is identified as a conservative, progressives begin to react negatively as though only people in their political camp have ideas worthy of consideration and implementation.
As a liberal, I'm more open-minded about hearing people out, no matter what their political leanings are. A good idea is a good idea. Liberals or progressives don't have a monopoly on good ideas. The same holds true for people on the right.
Showing posts with label Political Groups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Groups. Show all posts
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Saturday, February 2, 2013
White Activists Fighting For Puerto Rican Independence
Bob Lederer, a gay activist involved in the white anti-imperialist movement, faces imprisonment if he refuses to testify before a federal grand jury investigating, among other things, a series of 1983 bombings of federal buildings by revolutionary groups.
Lederer, who is employed as a legal secretary, is media coordinator of the New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence and Socialism, a group of white North American supporters of Puerto Rican national liberation.
On March 27, 1985, four men whom Lederer assumed to be FBI agents served him with a subpoena at his place of work. "The one who handed the subpoena," says Lederer, "whipped out his FBI badge. He didn't introduce the other three. They might been FBI, they might have been NYPD [working with the FBI as part of the Joint Terrorist Task Force].
The subpoena ordered Lederer to come to Washington, D.C. May 2 [1985] to tell what he knows about the anti-imperialist movement in the U.S. The grand jury is investigating the November 1983 bombing of the Capitol building, shortly after the invasion of [the Caribbean island of] Grenada , as well as earlier bombings that year that involved military targets, among them a computer center. Two groups, the Red Guerilla Resistance and the Armed Resistance Unit, claimed responsibility for those attacks.
Four activists, current and former members of the John Brown Anti-Klan Committee (Steven Burke, Julie Nalibov, Christine Rico, and Sandra Roland), are already serving time for being grand jury resisters in this matter. They have voiced support for the bombings but deny any knowledge of the groups behind them. In a joint statement, they announced that they "send our love to Terry Bisson [an Anti-Klan member also subpoenaed March 27] and Bob Lederer who are continuing the struggle as grand jury resistors.[sic]."
Lederer whose work in the Puerto Rican movement has made him a target for government surveillance, plans to refuse to testify. He says: "Grand juries are a tool that's completely under the control of the prosecutor. There's no right to have a lawyer there. When it's a political grand jury investigating a political movement, I believe it's an absolutely essential thing for any person who has any kind of awareness of what this country does, what it stands for, how the FBI has been used over the years, can never give any information no matter how innocuous they think it is, no matter how much they quote unquote don't know anything. Because in political case, when the FBI says its investigating an activity by an underground movement, anything they can get from you, even if it's saying you don't know, that you know certain people but not other people, that helps them to complete a very sophisticated computer profile that they've been building about every person in the movement."
The 30-year-old activist vows that he will "never cooperate with the FBI. They don't have the legal power to subpoena people so they use this rubber stamp relationship between prosecutors and grand juries, to virtually get subpoena power without legally [having] it."
His refusal will lead to either of two consequences: civil contempt or criminal contempt. Lederer explains the terms: "The theory behind [civil contempt] is that you are being held not as punishment but as a coercive measure with the hope that the time that you are in jail they will put so much pressure on you from how unpleasant it is that you'll change your mind and agree to testify. And then you're immediately released if you agree to answer all of the questions. If you then balk and say 'I'll answer some but not others,' then you'll be right back in jail. Criminal contempt is an acknowledgment by the government that this person has made it clear from their political stance that they will never, ever testify. You can put them in jail for 10 years and they wouldn't testify. So instead of the idea of 'We're trying to put pressure on them,' it's openly saying 'We're punishing them for not testifying.' You get charged with a felony called criminal contempt. You have a trial which is a farce because the only issue in the trial is: Did you or did you not follow the judge;s order to testify?"
A civil contempt charge would mean that a resister would remain in jail for the duration of the grand jury's term of 18 months. It is conceivable, says Lederer, for another grand jury to be called and, if the resister still refuses to talk, stay in jail an additional 18 months. A jail term for criminal contempt, on the other hand, would be indefinite, which would include a possible life sentence, if the judge wanted it that way, explains Lederer.
The product of what he describes as "a comfortable white middle class \" family, Lederer, who grew up in Wheaton, Maryland, became politically active during his students days at the University of Maryland. "My college experiences s opened my eyes beyond this attitude that America is great because they welcomed part of my family as Jews into the mainstream which is true, they did." But, he continues, "When I began meeting [African-American] people and African people" that was when "I understood that things are not so nice and comfortable for the majority of people in the world, thanks to the role of the United States in [their] exploitation."
This is an excerpt from an article that was published in the New York Native in 1985.
Lederer, who is employed as a legal secretary, is media coordinator of the New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence and Socialism, a group of white North American supporters of Puerto Rican national liberation.
On March 27, 1985, four men whom Lederer assumed to be FBI agents served him with a subpoena at his place of work. "The one who handed the subpoena," says Lederer, "whipped out his FBI badge. He didn't introduce the other three. They might been FBI, they might have been NYPD [working with the FBI as part of the Joint Terrorist Task Force].
The subpoena ordered Lederer to come to Washington, D.C. May 2 [1985] to tell what he knows about the anti-imperialist movement in the U.S. The grand jury is investigating the November 1983 bombing of the Capitol building, shortly after the invasion of [the Caribbean island of] Grenada , as well as earlier bombings that year that involved military targets, among them a computer center. Two groups, the Red Guerilla Resistance and the Armed Resistance Unit, claimed responsibility for those attacks.
Four activists, current and former members of the John Brown Anti-Klan Committee (Steven Burke, Julie Nalibov, Christine Rico, and Sandra Roland), are already serving time for being grand jury resisters in this matter. They have voiced support for the bombings but deny any knowledge of the groups behind them. In a joint statement, they announced that they "send our love to Terry Bisson [an Anti-Klan member also subpoenaed March 27] and Bob Lederer who are continuing the struggle as grand jury resistors.[sic]."
Lederer whose work in the Puerto Rican movement has made him a target for government surveillance, plans to refuse to testify. He says: "Grand juries are a tool that's completely under the control of the prosecutor. There's no right to have a lawyer there. When it's a political grand jury investigating a political movement, I believe it's an absolutely essential thing for any person who has any kind of awareness of what this country does, what it stands for, how the FBI has been used over the years, can never give any information no matter how innocuous they think it is, no matter how much they quote unquote don't know anything. Because in political case, when the FBI says its investigating an activity by an underground movement, anything they can get from you, even if it's saying you don't know, that you know certain people but not other people, that helps them to complete a very sophisticated computer profile that they've been building about every person in the movement."
The 30-year-old activist vows that he will "never cooperate with the FBI. They don't have the legal power to subpoena people so they use this rubber stamp relationship between prosecutors and grand juries, to virtually get subpoena power without legally [having] it."
His refusal will lead to either of two consequences: civil contempt or criminal contempt. Lederer explains the terms: "The theory behind [civil contempt] is that you are being held not as punishment but as a coercive measure with the hope that the time that you are in jail they will put so much pressure on you from how unpleasant it is that you'll change your mind and agree to testify. And then you're immediately released if you agree to answer all of the questions. If you then balk and say 'I'll answer some but not others,' then you'll be right back in jail. Criminal contempt is an acknowledgment by the government that this person has made it clear from their political stance that they will never, ever testify. You can put them in jail for 10 years and they wouldn't testify. So instead of the idea of 'We're trying to put pressure on them,' it's openly saying 'We're punishing them for not testifying.' You get charged with a felony called criminal contempt. You have a trial which is a farce because the only issue in the trial is: Did you or did you not follow the judge;s order to testify?"
A civil contempt charge would mean that a resister would remain in jail for the duration of the grand jury's term of 18 months. It is conceivable, says Lederer, for another grand jury to be called and, if the resister still refuses to talk, stay in jail an additional 18 months. A jail term for criminal contempt, on the other hand, would be indefinite, which would include a possible life sentence, if the judge wanted it that way, explains Lederer.
The product of what he describes as "a comfortable white middle class \" family, Lederer, who grew up in Wheaton, Maryland, became politically active during his students days at the University of Maryland. "My college experiences s opened my eyes beyond this attitude that America is great because they welcomed part of my family as Jews into the mainstream which is true, they did." But, he continues, "When I began meeting [African-American] people and African people" that was when "I understood that things are not so nice and comfortable for the majority of people in the world, thanks to the role of the United States in [their] exploitation."
This is an excerpt from an article that was published in the New York Native in 1985.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
"Growing Up, Out, And Powerful": An Excuse To Rant
Alternating between militancy and humor, Growing Up, Out and Powerful is a semi-improvisational, autobiographical theatre piece. "[Its intent is] to detail and dramatize the process of becoming a sane, healthy, lesbian/gay, progressive person of color in a world that tends to be otherwise," said John Patterson, the director.
Through poetry, songs, monologues, and discussion, the five performers (Patterson, Colin Robinson, Pam Lewis, Nestor Millan, and Lourdes Perez) attempt to fulfill that promise.
It runs through June 27 [1987] at the Castillo Cultural Center, 7 East 20th Street, in Manhattan, in six evening performances. Each of those shows spotlights different guest poets, and is part of an overall celebration of Gay Pride Month.
Of the five, Patterson was the only experienced actor, which was obvious--he was the one who gave an unstilted, self-confident, and joyful performance.
Surrounded by the audience on three sides, Patterson and company occupied a sparsely furnished set that represented, said the press release, a living room in a railroad flat. Frankly, I couldn't tell where it was supposed to be.
Initially, the dialogue was lively and humorous as they exchanged reminiscences about being black or Latino homosexual adolescents. After about the first 20 minutes, the show began to go downhill. With the exception of Patterson, the autobiographies began to ramble; nothing significant was said. Other problems I found annoying were Nestor Millan's heavily accented English which made it hard to understand him and Pam Lewis's soapbox histrionics. In addition, the show ran close to three hours, with no intermission. It should have been cut to 90 minutes, have as its main focus the lives of three people, not five, and have a more cohesive structure.
As for the special guests--poets Cheryl Clarke and Jewelle Gomez, on the night that I attended--they should not have been isolated in a separate segment but integrated among the regular cast members in a five-minute cameo appearance. In so doing, they would have been given the chance to share a few lines of poetry as well as some thoughts in a manner that would not have destroyed the theatre piece's continuity.
It became apparent to me that Growing Up, Out, and Powerful was an excuse to put forth political ideas endorsed by the New Alliance Party, the left-leaning group that runs the Castillo Cultural Center. But then again, that fact should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with NAP and their tactics.
This article was submitted to the New York Amsterdam News on June 19, 1987. It was not published.
Through poetry, songs, monologues, and discussion, the five performers (Patterson, Colin Robinson, Pam Lewis, Nestor Millan, and Lourdes Perez) attempt to fulfill that promise.
It runs through June 27 [1987] at the Castillo Cultural Center, 7 East 20th Street, in Manhattan, in six evening performances. Each of those shows spotlights different guest poets, and is part of an overall celebration of Gay Pride Month.
Of the five, Patterson was the only experienced actor, which was obvious--he was the one who gave an unstilted, self-confident, and joyful performance.
Surrounded by the audience on three sides, Patterson and company occupied a sparsely furnished set that represented, said the press release, a living room in a railroad flat. Frankly, I couldn't tell where it was supposed to be.
Initially, the dialogue was lively and humorous as they exchanged reminiscences about being black or Latino homosexual adolescents. After about the first 20 minutes, the show began to go downhill. With the exception of Patterson, the autobiographies began to ramble; nothing significant was said. Other problems I found annoying were Nestor Millan's heavily accented English which made it hard to understand him and Pam Lewis's soapbox histrionics. In addition, the show ran close to three hours, with no intermission. It should have been cut to 90 minutes, have as its main focus the lives of three people, not five, and have a more cohesive structure.
As for the special guests--poets Cheryl Clarke and Jewelle Gomez, on the night that I attended--they should not have been isolated in a separate segment but integrated among the regular cast members in a five-minute cameo appearance. In so doing, they would have been given the chance to share a few lines of poetry as well as some thoughts in a manner that would not have destroyed the theatre piece's continuity.
It became apparent to me that Growing Up, Out, and Powerful was an excuse to put forth political ideas endorsed by the New Alliance Party, the left-leaning group that runs the Castillo Cultural Center. But then again, that fact should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with NAP and their tactics.
This article was submitted to the New York Amsterdam News on June 19, 1987. It was not published.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Something In The Milk Ain't Clean
To The Editor [of the New York Native]:
In Vera Hill's letter published in Issue 102 of the Native [ regarding "Celebrating Ourselves,"* a black gay supplement I guest edited in 1984] she states that this newspaper is guilty of changing everything she wrote in her article for the black gay and lesbian supplement without obtaining her consent. As the editor of the supplement, I want to set the record straight. Anyone who carefully reads the edited manuscript against the published piece will clearly see that about 90 percent of what Hill wrote remained intact. And that whatever changes or omissions were made were done for clarity and conciseness. Any mention of Dennis Serrette [African American] and Nancy Ross [white] as running mates in the presidential election was omitted because I felt that Hill was trying to propagate the [radical left-wing] New Alliance Party's endorsement of that ticket.
The supplement's reason for being was to deal with as many different aspects of black gay and lesbian life , from as many different voices as we had space for. Although I did not object to political views being expressed, I did not want anyone using the limited amount of space we had as a political campaign tool. I would have been derelict in my duties as the editor if I were to allow that to happen in this section. In the National Alliance, NAP's newspaper, it was reported (by Jackie Salit, the paper's executive editor) that I told Hill that Patrick Merla, the Native's editor, had ordered the cuts. I never made any such statement.
I should point out that during the whole editing process, I never dealt with Hill directly but through a NAP go-between, Tammy Weinstein. So it is an example of false reporting on the part of the National Alliance to say that Hill accepted some revisions I offered. I never really knew what she thought because Weinstein was the one who kept calling me. When I asked where Hill was so I could get direct feedback, Weinstein would say that Hill was too busy organizing in the street to review the manuscript over the phone. Hill's piece was the only one I edited without the direct input of the writer.
In any future supplement, I will insist on working with the one who is the writer of a piece, not a stand-in. This rule will be applied without exception.
Hill, in her letter, tells Native readers that Serrette and Ross are "progressive, pro-gay candidates," and that Serrette was the only presidential candidate to take part in the gay pride march this year. To them I say, Bravo! But to say, as Hill does that the omission of Serrette's name from her copy is an attack on Serrette and "all Blacks and gays--who are on the front lines targeted for extermination by the right wing" is not only hyperbole but also paranoia. Whatever Dennis Serrette is, he is certainly not the straight black Messiah of black gay men and lesbians. And Hill and her ilk should stop trying to present him in that role.
Hill in our half hour telephone conversation called the Native a newspaper that was "fascist" and "right-wing." If that's the case, why bother to submit the article to such a paper, and, more importantly, why accept the enemy's money? Don't Hill and her colleagues at NAP worry that a "fascist right-wing" paper's money will contaminate their "politically correct" organization?
I certainly have no argument with them about wanting campaign coverage of Serrette, but why, if I may be so bold to ask, did NAP not kick up a storm long before now?And why are they describing an editorial disagreement as "a fight that is currently underway in the gay community"? A "fight" that most of the gay community may not even want to participate in. Who are the combatants supposed to be anyway? And another thing, why is NAP so "eager"--that's their word--in their open letter to other gay papers to bring this "fight" to their attention? To quote Hill from her Native article, "Something in the milk ain't clean."
Sincerely yours,
Charles Michael Smith
The New York Native published this letter in 1984.
*The essay contributors included Joseph Beam, Craig Harris, and David Frechette. The poetry centerfold included Melvin Dixon, Essex Hemphill, and Salih Michael Fisher.
I give credit to Melvin Dixon for suggesting that I call the supplement "Celebrating Ourselves."
In Vera Hill's letter published in Issue 102 of the Native [ regarding "Celebrating Ourselves,"* a black gay supplement I guest edited in 1984] she states that this newspaper is guilty of changing everything she wrote in her article for the black gay and lesbian supplement without obtaining her consent. As the editor of the supplement, I want to set the record straight. Anyone who carefully reads the edited manuscript against the published piece will clearly see that about 90 percent of what Hill wrote remained intact. And that whatever changes or omissions were made were done for clarity and conciseness. Any mention of Dennis Serrette [African American] and Nancy Ross [white] as running mates in the presidential election was omitted because I felt that Hill was trying to propagate the [radical left-wing] New Alliance Party's endorsement of that ticket.
The supplement's reason for being was to deal with as many different aspects of black gay and lesbian life , from as many different voices as we had space for. Although I did not object to political views being expressed, I did not want anyone using the limited amount of space we had as a political campaign tool. I would have been derelict in my duties as the editor if I were to allow that to happen in this section. In the National Alliance, NAP's newspaper, it was reported (by Jackie Salit, the paper's executive editor) that I told Hill that Patrick Merla, the Native's editor, had ordered the cuts. I never made any such statement.
I should point out that during the whole editing process, I never dealt with Hill directly but through a NAP go-between, Tammy Weinstein. So it is an example of false reporting on the part of the National Alliance to say that Hill accepted some revisions I offered. I never really knew what she thought because Weinstein was the one who kept calling me. When I asked where Hill was so I could get direct feedback, Weinstein would say that Hill was too busy organizing in the street to review the manuscript over the phone. Hill's piece was the only one I edited without the direct input of the writer.
In any future supplement, I will insist on working with the one who is the writer of a piece, not a stand-in. This rule will be applied without exception.
Hill, in her letter, tells Native readers that Serrette and Ross are "progressive, pro-gay candidates," and that Serrette was the only presidential candidate to take part in the gay pride march this year. To them I say, Bravo! But to say, as Hill does that the omission of Serrette's name from her copy is an attack on Serrette and "all Blacks and gays--who are on the front lines targeted for extermination by the right wing" is not only hyperbole but also paranoia. Whatever Dennis Serrette is, he is certainly not the straight black Messiah of black gay men and lesbians. And Hill and her ilk should stop trying to present him in that role.
Hill in our half hour telephone conversation called the Native a newspaper that was "fascist" and "right-wing." If that's the case, why bother to submit the article to such a paper, and, more importantly, why accept the enemy's money? Don't Hill and her colleagues at NAP worry that a "fascist right-wing" paper's money will contaminate their "politically correct" organization?
I certainly have no argument with them about wanting campaign coverage of Serrette, but why, if I may be so bold to ask, did NAP not kick up a storm long before now?And why are they describing an editorial disagreement as "a fight that is currently underway in the gay community"? A "fight" that most of the gay community may not even want to participate in. Who are the combatants supposed to be anyway? And another thing, why is NAP so "eager"--that's their word--in their open letter to other gay papers to bring this "fight" to their attention? To quote Hill from her Native article, "Something in the milk ain't clean."
Sincerely yours,
Charles Michael Smith
The New York Native published this letter in 1984.
*The essay contributors included Joseph Beam, Craig Harris, and David Frechette. The poetry centerfold included Melvin Dixon, Essex Hemphill, and Salih Michael Fisher.
I give credit to Melvin Dixon for suggesting that I call the supplement "Celebrating Ourselves."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
