Rockaway Park NY 11694 * January 1 2011 * * in the 39nd year of the Society "For God Republic and Society
BURNING BOOK OF THE MONTH CLUB
The Book Burning Club of the Month was formed to protest practically everything different from conservative behavior in books dimly perceived, rarely read and imperfectly understood by members. Years ago charter members had burned Mein Kampf, Das Kapital and Mao`s little red book. Present members were considering God`s Little Acre and Catcher in the Rye for immolation. Local PTA considered the latter book a salacious account of despicable behavior.
"When`s veterans Day?" Bob asked Chet.
"Same day in November as last year," the latter replied.
"Are we doing anything special for Veterans Day?" Horace inquired.
"What did you have in mind?" Irv responded. "Perhaps, we can address Veterans Day, but first I`d like to discuss the e-mail from Fullosia Press."
"Which one was that?" Bob replied.
"Irv means the one about extending First Amendment protection to burn the Koran" Horace commented.
"Don`t know why the Sue-preem Court`s sweating this," Bob offered. "It`s a no brainer. Militant Islamics burn the Bible and the Torah. What`s good for the goose* * *gander."
"Heck Bob," Horace broke in. "Since they forbid those books in their countries, they have trouble finding ones to burn." This unsolicited opinion earned a smile from the group, although Chet and Irv exchanged nervous glances.
"Bob now think on it," Irv continued. "If the Supreme Court rules that the First Amendment supports the right to burn the Koran, then it follows people could burn the Bible, the Torah or both." Irv`s statement got their attention.
"Aw they couldn`t do that," Horace replied. "Could they?"
"Irv. Let me play the devil`s advocate," Chet offered. "If book burning is formally sanctioned, someone might burn the King James Version of the Bible or the Douay-Reims Version. This would directly pit Protestants against Catholics and vice versa. In turn Christians might burn the Torah and Jews might want to burn both versions of the Bible."
"You could take this even further," Irv asserted. "Suppose you take issue with various books of the Bible and excise these for burning. Pretty soon you`d have a mighty slim version."
"Wouldn`t hurt Bob much," Horace grinned. "He never reads it anyway."
"Horace never made it out of the first round of a spelling bee," Bob replied. "Couldn`t even spell bee correctly. Two e`s Horace not one. The former`s a noun and the other`s a verb."
"Come on guys," Chet interrupted. "This First Amendment interpretation`s very important. Let`s hope those judges get it right."
"It seems to me," Irv interjected, "we should leave people alone to decide what they want to read. Public book burning`s been going on for a long time. The Inquisition. Nazis Germany. And look what good it did them. Caused a lot of trouble with terrible consequences. If you want to burn a book go ahead and do it. Just don`t burn mine."
"Isn`t this kind of hippo-criticall," Bob challenged Irv.
"That`s hypocritical," Horace quickly corrected him. Bob glared at him.
"I mean. How can we justify our Club here?" Bob persisted.
"We`re private and little," Irv responded. "This gives us an opportunity to meet and blow off steam on the issues of the day in a simple, harmless way. None of us is going outside and making asses of ourselves burning holy books or any other books for that matter. No one`s going to get hurt from our modest, symbolic protests."
" Why don`t we forego tonight`s immolation," Chet suggested.
"Before we break up, I`d like to address flag burning," Irv asserted. "With Veterans Day in sight it seems appropriate to visit this practice." The others vigorously supported this suggestion.
" I don`t understand why Americans burn their own flag. Recall during the Viet-Nam War flag burning was a great attention getter for protesters. During the Korean Conflict while serving our country, it always frosted me to see some bozo on TV burning our flag. I`m afraid I would`ve been beaten up or shot preventing flag burnings."
"About 54,000 men and women died in Korea and 58-59,000 in Viet-Nam. Without opening the Pandora`s box of political machinations leading to U. S. foreign interventions, how could anyone greet the men and women fighting today to preserve the tolerance of our constitutional mode of government by burning the flag they`re dying for. If our country is so repellent to flag burners, they should leave it. Go some place else to burn our flag."
"You know Irv, I find flag burners more noxious than book burners," Chet firmly stated. "I have an old friend who`s Dad was reported MIA at Omaha Beach. He always wondered what happened to him. With retirement he had the resources and time to pursue his Dad`s fate. Accompanied by his son and with the help of several service agencies he found his Dad`s final resting place. He knew his Dad was in good company. Later he told me it was the most memorable sight of his life to see row upon row of white crosses. My friend has little tolerance for flag burners."
"Our flag represents a national umbrella protecting the rights of all citizens
Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Moslems * * * If you can easily burn the flag, then unrepentant book burning will quickly follow. I move the Club agrees to leave these loathsome people alone. We don`t want to ennoble them, enable them or advance their negative agenda with an act of violence. As odious as flag burning and public book burning are it becomes a very slippery slope if we forbid protest. The Book Burning Club of the Month unanimously supported this motion.
Michael R. Burch:
Since the United States seems intent on becoming a fascist nation, it can speed up the process considerably by taking a few tips from Weimar Germany:
(1) Greatly desire "acceptability" in the shape of mindless conformity to unspeakably dull, boorish convention. Never consider that the standards being set are determined by low-browed bigots and morons. Forget that true morality increases freedom and happiness, while reducing suffering. Settle instead for an artificial, arbitrary "morality" based on "monkey see, monkey do" mimicry. If you see a bigger male baboon pissing on a female, find some female infant you can safely piss on yourself. And for God`s sake, never, ever think independently!
(2) Listen raptly to rabble rousers who insist that angst-ridden morons (i.e., themselves) are, in fact, the fair-haired Chosen Few, the only acceptable "children of God." This is, of course, merely a matter of fervid belief, but then all good fascists are "true believers."
(3) Elect fear-instilling demagogues, rabble rousers and propagandists to high office, since they have promised to "save" the public from the nonexistent and vastly-inflated threats of their own contrivance. Blissfully ignore the fact that this is how they gain notoriety and acquire money, followings, influence and power. After all, the only good sheep is a blind, unquestioning lamb trotting eagerly down the path to the slaughterhouse, ready to sacrifice its skin for the sake of its Masters and Overseers.
(4) Look for convenient scapegoats to wildly fear and even more wildly abuse. Weimar Germany chose its Jews to fear and abuse. The Tea Party`s scapegoats of choice are Muslims (most of whom are also Semites). Never consider that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding civilians who never hurt a fly, or that their numbers include multitudes of completely innocent women and children. Facts are the death of fascism, so conveniently ignore them. Muslims are obviously of the "wrong" race and religion, so treat them as a single entity. Once you have convinced yourself that all Muslims comprise one single dirty, evil, inferior entity, you can then squash Muslim women and children like bugs, without qualms (or, more likely, stand by while someone else squashes them, then hands you the bill in the form of a slightly higher tax return).
(5) Lash out at people who have never done you or anyone else any harm, on the theory that one day they might, because they seem "different" and therefore inherently dangerous. Trample them underfoot. Smash them to smithereens. Weimar Germany made damn sure Jews didn`t "get out of line" by preemptively banishing multitudes of completely innocent women and children to walled ghettos, concentration camps and, eventually, to gas chambers and ovens. Today the governments of Israel and the United States have colluded to inter millions of completely innocent Muslim women, babies and children in walled ghettoes and concentration camps. The government of Israel has created, and the government of the United States has supported and funded, this new Holocaust: the Nakba ("Catastrophe") of the Palestinians. Can some terrible new "final solution" fail to lie ahead, since they have nowhere else to go? "Out of sight, out of mind" must be logically followed, in the cold calculations of fascism, by, "Why bother to keep our inferiors alive, since doing so is inconvenient and expensive? Since they are not like us, the Chosen Few, what right do they have to breathe our air, live on our land, or drink our water?" Hitler didn`t set out to exterminate the Jews. For years he tried to find other nations to take them in, with little success. He then came up with a plan to ship them to Madagascar, but finally abandoned it as infeasible in the middle of a world war. His macabre "final solution" was the result of his having made millions of innocents homeless and destitute, then not wanting to pay to keep them alive. He had convinced Germans that Jews were the "problem" when in reality he was the problem. But isn`t this what the leaders of Israel and the United States are doing today, when they say the "real" problem is Muslim terrorism even though the systematic terrorism of the Nakba came first, and has been ongoing for more than sixty years? Entire generations of Palestinian babies have been born into the iron chains and cages of feudal serfdom; now multitudes of them have died without ever having drawn a free breath. Is this new Holocaust in any way "better" than the last one, or have new fascists only managed to prolong the suffering of their victims?
(6) Swear that the victims of fascism "had it coming" and were "responsible" for whatever befell them. Deny that the horrors being inflicted on them are in any way the fault of the people wielding the power. Create bizarre excuses for inflicting collective punishment on completely innocent women and children. Go to church and praise the good Lord that the Chosen Few are not dirty, evil, inferior beings, like their victims. Never bother to ask if completely innocent women, babies and children did anything to deserve their collective fate.
(7) Elect someone like Hitler, George W. Bush or Sarah Palin, then sit back and watch the fireworks. Hitler invaded and conquered one nation after another, until he finally bit off more than he could chew. So far Bush, Palin & Co. are behind schedule, since the blitzkriegs of Afghanistan and Iraq got bogged down a bit. But when Palin assumes power and bombs Iran, by way of "supporting" Israel, we can easily exceed the death toll of World War II, which was only a paltry 70 million souls, give or take a few mil. Who cares how many completely innocent women and children die, as long as God, church and state keep marching smartly in goose-stepping time toward the Apocalypse? Sing "What a Friend We Have in Jesus" while trampling all "inferior" beings underfoot. Thanks to his "Amazing Grace" the Good Lord will understand, condone and forgive.
The really important thing is to never stop to question why the people in power must dominate their victims. Was it ever in the best interests of average Germans for Hitler to rule over Poland, France, Russia and Great Britain? Of course not, but the power of fascism lies in its ability to mesmerize commoners into blindly following rabble rousers down the path to destruction, parroting some absurd slogan like, "We want our country back!" while in reality forfeiting it to power-mad lunatics. If anyone ever opened their eyes or thought a coherent thought, the whole process would implode. Fortunately for the fascist overlords this is unlikely to happen, thanks to the way Christian churches brainwash innocent children, virtually from their diapers, to believe that a racist, intolerant God favors Jews and Christians and plans to destroy non-believers, then send them to an "eternal hell" for not "believing" in his person, even though he never bothered to speak to any of them personally. No one should ever question whether it is "loving," "compassionate," "just" or "wise" for God to behave so cruelly, unjustly, intolerantly and boorishly. After all, what really matters is that the Chosen Few inherit the earth, despite the fact that they are not meek, nor peacemakers, nor any of the things Jesus desired them to be. No, one must never ask oneself whether one`s chosen God or religion are compassionate, just, or make any sense whatsoever. If Germans had asked such questions of themselves and their beliefs, they would never have inflicted such terrible collective punishment on innocent Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and all the other people they considered "inferior" to themselves. If American Christians ever opened their eyes and asked themselves why they believe God and Jesus are intolerant bigots, and why people like Bush and Palin behave so unjustly and boorishly, they might save themselves, their children and their grandchildren. But of course fascists care nothing about anything, but believing they are the Chosen Few and venting their self-righteous anger on the most convenient scapegoats — damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, women and children be damned. So praise the good Lord and pass the peanuts, because soon Fox will be providing us with the phantasmagoric details of the destruction of Iran, which will result in a continuous war zone from westernmost Iraq to easternmost Pakistan. Once we have united most of the Muslim world against us, we can greatly exceed Hitler & Co. in mayhem. We can then listen to the moronic religion-infused ravings of Sarah Palin and rejoice that we somehow managed to elect a Fuhrer who is much cuter, even more charismatic and nearly infinitely stupider than Hitler. She will constantly remind us that we are the "good guys," the "fair-haired ones," and the "apples of God`s eye." She will constantly point out the evil nature of our fearsome enemies, the Muslims, never questioning if what the governments of Israel and the United States did to Palestinians constituted another Holocaust. She will assure us that victory is certain, once we stamp out and eliminate our "inferiors." She will assure us that God is on our side and that Israel, our Italy, can protect our flanks, ignoring the fact that there are mere handfuls of Israeli Jews, but more than a billion Muslims, and that Israel already has its hands full with Hamas and Hezbollah.
In closing, let us never ask Bush and Palin seem like less intelligent Hitlers. At least Hitler could speak intelligibly. No, all that matters is that Bush, Palin & Co. have promised to "save" us by ignoring facts and plunging recklessly ahead with what hasn`t worked in the past, and who can doubt the irrational words and faith of true believers?
Various members of this Society have strenuously objected to all those who would compare Bush to Hitler. Hitler served in the front line in WWI and was awarded his country`s highest decoration for an enlisted man; during the Vietnam War George Bush deserted from Stateside service in the part-time Air National Guard.
Kelly Jean White MD: MEDITATIONS
Above my head
Scratched into the thick bark What creature’s claws?
cement dinghy beached—
a planter for fake flowers beside the macadam drive Cold night
Hunter’s Moon shining Through the belfry dawn the sun grows brighter than my candle Due at work before dawn It takes two alarm clocks To get me up
Dr. Charles Frederickson:
THERE IS NO PATH TO PEACE;
PEACE IS THE PATH.
Everybody makes his unique path differently. One can’t be sure they’re proceeding along the heartfelt path of wisdom and enlightenment without walking on it. Choose your particular path with mindful heart, guiding what you’ve got to have and must do in order to achieve self-awareness of who, what, where and why you actually are. Yearning for the impossible and following your gut instinct, while seizing the opportunity, become a trailblazer, conquering fears scaling the uphill path to human progress.
Over every mountain, there is an unexplored, yet to be determined purposeful path, both up and down; inside and outside; a way forward and back. Never follow anybody else’s path; it simply does not work the same way twice, rolling up behind you as you pass, forcing the next person to find their own predestined way. Not knowing where I’m going inspires me to keep putting one foot in front of the other, gaze focused on moving toward a higher place.
While climbing steep zigzag stretches, occasionally stop to rest, to catch your breath and to enjoy the view. Dare to venture beyond uncharted territory traversing new directions without maps, forging ahead by just going out there and doing it. Easy paths usually end up nowhere. Difficult paths challenge us to overcome self-imposed obstacles, mental ruts, prickly thorns and rainbow puddles. When you stumble, pick yourself up, finally reaching the top, keep going.
Dr. Charles Frederickson
AWESOME DAVID LAWRENCE:
COMING TO A STATION NEAR YOU: THE TAILIBAN HOUR
KATIE COURIC INSULTS THE BLACKS BY SUPPORTING THE MUSLIMS
Pert Katie Couric endorses a Muslim-themed “Cosby Show” to do for Islamacists what Cosby did for blacks. Katie is the spoiled child of an emancipated western system. It amazes me that she would want to support the Muslims, the unwitting enemies of females, whose theocratic/political history shows such disrespect and violence towards women. She wants to support the same men who hide women behind berqas, stone women to death for committing adultery, honor kill their own daughters for dating westerners, perform cliterectomies to guarantee girls won’t have any sexual pleasure and in Saudi Arabia won’t allow their female family members to drive or to go out into the world unescorted by men. And here’s a biggie Katie, Muslim women get shafted in divorces. Tell your sisters. No alimony. Right on Katie. Do you even have a clue as to who you are? Do you realize the gift that you have living in America? Do you really want to insult African-Americans by suggesting that they are as cruel as male chauvinistic Muslims? Do you realize that African-American males were victims, not terrorizing misogynists?
EARL WARREN AND BROWN v Board of Education (1954)
(submitted as a paper for undergraduate course requirements at St Joseph`s College)
It has become fashionable to commemorate different eras of the court under the label of the presiding Chief Justice. However, with Chief Justices other than John Marshall and Earl Warren, such a title is purely honorific. No other justices completely dominated the court as effectively as Earl Warren or John Marshall. If Marshall engineered the practice of the majority opinion in which all judges in agreement silently concurred in the majority without writing a separate opinion, strove toward unanimity in decision making and laid the groundwork for all that was to come, Earl Warren is a second focal point in the history of the court and towers over all those who lay between him and John Marshall in terms of the impact on the US national state. Earl Warren is said by his admirers to be asea in contradictions: an admirer of California progressives, a tough fisted District Attorney of Alameda County (Oakland), California, the World War II wartime Republican governor of California who urged the rounding up of Japanese immigrants, and Republican candidate for Vice-President in Thomas Dewey`s unsuccessful 1948 campaign against Harold Truman. As District Attorney of Alameda County, then a trolley car suburb of San Francisco, Warren is credited with improving police training and professionalization. (Compston, p 21 -22; Horowitz, i - ii). Watching the liberalizing trend of the court , during his administration, President Dwight David Eisenhower would describe Earl Warren as "his biggest mistake." (Kamins, p 994). How did this come to be? The Supreme Court is a political institution. Its Justices and the Justices of all the Federal Courts are appointed on the basis of political merit. Rehnquist, p 237-239. Chief Justice Warren was appointed on the basis of a promise made by President Eisenhower to Warren then Governor of California in exchange for support in the election of 1952. When Chief Justice Fred Vinson died on September 8, 1953, Warren was quick to remind Eisenhower of his promise.
(cont`d col 2)
Time Magazine featured on its cover a horrifying picture of an Afghani woman mutilated by her husband. The caption read: What will happen when we leave? In Britain a recruiting sergeant, facing down a peace demonstration, held up the cover of Time and yelled, "This is What we`re fighting for. "
Question: should the US or Britain offer asylum to Mouslem women who are threatened by death, torture or mutilation due to Islamic practices in their own countries?
QUESTION PROPOSED BY The Gentlemen of The Society.
In this Society, The Dean is rarely in agreement with the Mentor on such questions. Except on a mathematical proposition which can be demonstrably proven, the Dean and Mentor approach all issues from an entirely different perspective.
At the root maybe the fundamental conception of the nature of the world. The Mentor would reject Genesis in favor of genetics and embrance Darwin as an article of faith but reject Darwin`s fundamental teaching: niches and survival of the fittest. The Dean is far more realistic, retaining the cultural value of the New Testament, but recognizing that the Law of Nature is an unforgiving law that can only be played with so much.
Yet, I am troubled by this question.
On one hand, it is good propaganda to admit a small number of mouslem women threatened with mutilation beheading or torture. On the other we are admitting people who would bring with them sharia law which includes not only cute little "I - dream - of - Jeanie" costumes but also the darker side of islam, honor killings and beheading.
Intensive US propaganda posits that Islam is a religion of peace and that there is a good Islam out there. Is good Islam equivalent to good Nazis or good Kamikaze warriors or nice agrarian reforming Communists of past struggles?
I do not accept such a proposition.
Refugees from Mutilation
The UN Convention on Political Refugees (which America has signed) obliges countries to extend help to those refugees in danger of their lives. There have been floods of ‘political` refugees to Europe, many from war-torn regions of the world (more of which are cropping up all the time) and liberal countries have taken in so many that they are now facing acute social problems including long-term unemployment among immigrants and racism among native-born, so that economically, politically and democratically, the countries of Europe have incurred growing problems. Moreover, there has been rising anger that governments are not distinguishing between economic migrants and political refugees. Typically, refugees do not bring birth certificates, testimonials, Wanted Dead or Alive posters etc. with them and sifting through depositions from people, who need interpreters for everything, is no easy task. One assumes that the smart ones get through. No word returns from those turned away so one hopes they were not lynched upon their return. Occasionally, a camera crew takes up a story and gets a scoop but more and more, ordinary people in recipient countries are beginning to realize that the whole is a giant lottery and direct their anger both against their own governments and the new immigrants. Recently, an issue has arisen in the US as to whether a woman threatened with the cutting off of her nose and ears should be accepted as a political refugee and also granted asylum in the US. It would seem to me that physical danger to life and limb short of death is not covered by the Convention. No one yet says that mutilation is covered by the UN Convention, although why lopping off heads is covered while lopping off hands is not, is an issue you would have to ask a lawyer about. In theory, we are all horrified at the notion of a woman defaced and mutilated according to some unbelievably barbaric law or custom. But in practice, how can we tell, who is telling the truth? Who should we turn away? Do we accept the woman`s husband as well? Or only the children? Just to stick to the ridiculous real-life situation for the moment: how do we know who is who under a burkah or woman`s headgear? In Afghanistan, this covering extends from the crown of the head to the ankles, is made of very thick stuff and the woman peers out through a sort of sewn in vizier in front of her eyes, which must give her a vision of the world seen through a wire fence and with the blinkered perception of a cart-horse. She is allowed to speak to other women but not men apart from her husband, brothers, father and sons (not even cousins may see her face). Her husband`s will is law and transgression brings with it anything from a beating with a stick to a beating up. The woman does not choose her marital partner. Mutilation is according to tribal law or possibly a far going and radical extremist Taliban interpretation of Sharia or Moslem Holy law rather than according to what is normally practiced in Islam. I have myself worked in the Middle East and have never heard of a custom so barbaric as mutilating a woman cutting off her ears and nose, although I was aware that the penalty for adultery was stoning and that my students sometimes attended executions to watch beheadings and the chopping off of a hand for something so relatively minor as thieving. The question arises as to what we are doing to support ‘Democracy` in Afghanistan. To start with, the terrain is so difficult and the tribesmen with their fierce war-lords so intractable that we just do not control very much of the country at all. Nor do we control Kharzai and his henchmen. Very much suggests that he, as much as the Taliban, gets his money from growing opium poppy and producing heroine. He and his government are corrupt. Western hand-outs are going direct into his pockets and those of his clique. He was not elected President last time. The vote was rigged. He is not popular with his own people any more. We transformed him from tribal chieftain to Western marionette. In between times, he learned very good English and also learned the rules of rhetoric such as words like ‘democracy`, ‘right to self-determination`, ‘financial assistance` and ‘help to reorganize the Afghan Army and police force`. In between times, the Afghan adventure has become enormously costly in funds and material and that most precious of all: soldiers` lives. If we had any control whatsoever of the situation, we would intervene to stop the mutilation of innocent women. If we had a real dialogue with the Afghan government, we would get them to do something to stop their own women having their noses and ears cut off. If we were serious about training the Afghan police force, we would train them to track down the criminals, who perpetrate this heinous crime. Liberals at home may take comfort from the fact that schools have been set up in tents for young girls. Up to now, they have their ears and noses. No doubt in future, they will be thrashed within an inch of their lives if they dare contradict their men folk. After eight years in Afghanistan, American ground forces do not control the land. They have made no headway in changing the way of life of these people. They cannot even protect the women from the most extreme form of barbarism. To say now that America must accept a stream of refugee women fleeing from mutilation is a sop to public opinion and an offering on the altar of hypocrisy at home.
If my religious and cultural beliefs include sacrificing children to bloodthirsty Gods, should I be allowed to slit my son`s throat, as Abraham almost killed Isaac (according to the Bible)? Self-evidently, no. The freedom to adhere to a religion or culture must have reasonable limits. In a civilized nation, such "lines in the sand" must be drawn at points that keep one person from harming another person unfairly. Religious or cultural beliefs that cause one person to be treated as "inferior" to other people due to circumstances of birth, social class or standing, etc., are anti-democratic and therefore un-American. I am reminded of a story my business partner, a black man, once told me: when his father was a boy growing up in Mississippi, he was ordered to call little white boys "sir." I was shocked, immediately understanding how such a seemingly small slight could hurt a young boy, both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his peers. Any nation, religion or culture that allows one child to be favored over another can hardly be called "civilized." And yet the basis of many religions is that God "favors" one person over another. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament ), God favored the Israelites over their neighbors and commanded ethnic cleansing and genocide, the "slaying of everything that breathes." As a result, religious fanatics like Moses, Joshua, Caleb and King David decided that "thou shalt not kill" did not extend to Canaanite women and children. According to the Bible, the "man after God`s own heart," David, killed every woman when he "smote the land." Today unfortunately the same outmoded thinking persists in Israel/Palestine, where people who consider themselves the "chosen few" try to rule others by the divine right of birth. If we want peace rather than racial violence and war, it`s time to tell people of every religion and culture that "superiority" ends where the law begins, with equality.
When we have sanctuary cities for perfectly healthy Mexicans, it shocks me that we can`t give sanctuary to women brutalized by Mouselem men. Liberals accuse us of mistreatment of illegal aliens but refuse to see the insane violations of humanity that Mouselem men commit on their poor women. Even American liberal women fail to admit the horrors of Mouselem men because it doesn`t fit in with their agenda to hate American men and their failure to give American women an extra ten cents on their pay checks. Note that I rarely spell Muslem`s correctly because I don`t really feel they deserve accurate spelling. They are prehistoric beasts who stone their women to death and should be stricken from our vocabulary, removed from this planet.
Awesome David Lawrence
Within most Muslim families, certain precepts operate – mother should be loved; father must be obeyed; elders and relatives deserve respect. Social, religious and economic moralistic considerations are associated with having and nurturing children, with affection for offspring deeply ingrained. The carefully taught impulse of children is directed toward socially approved and religiously idealized forms of behavior, reinforcing inseparable religious and socio-cultural overlap. Traditionally, female children are encouraged to adopt their mothers, grandmothers and aunts as role models, striving to be pious, unobtrusive, modest, good-natured and responsible. The father is the dominant authority figure and has full rights within the family. He is accountable for the family`s well-being, for the ethical conduct of his wife and for the protective upbringing of his children. God and society are regarded as the ultimate judges of his actions. Outsiders intent on imposing perverse value judgments to influence so-called progressive change will never work. The abusive image of the West has become divorced from reality, laced with xenophobic hatred and intolerant fears. Most dogmatic, extremist positions are based on misinformed emotional biases and misconceived prejudicial beliefs. Warped US versus THEM mirror value judgments distort morally questionable images.
Dr. Charles Frederickson
Show that man the video of the Iman explaining how a man ought to chastize his wife for her own good, assuring his audience of the faithful that she would enjoy it but cautionning the faithful not to bash her face lest you make her ugly.
I think women are a different category of humanity than the men in Mouslem cultures. They need some salvation from their swarthy beasts. I don`t believe they`d have the power to institute sharia law on a governmental basis. They would just be little hurt people, protected by their removal from Afghanistan and other stupid Mouslem countries and living in lower midle class housing in Queens.
Awesome David Lawrence
c yes, those women should be admitted as refugees-- refugees deserve our support
The situation Afghani women face will remain perilous whether our troops stay or leave. Should the US or Britain offer them asylum? That sounds good in theory, but what if hundreds of thousands or millions of Afghani women need asylum? We can certainly help some of the women on a case-by-case basis, and should, as we are able. But in reality we can only do so much to help. In any case, our military is not "helping" so much as making matters worse. Just because some Muslim men mistreat women doesn`t mean that we can blow things up and solve the problem. It has been estimated that more than 500,000 Iraqi children died of starvation due to economic sanctions before the Iraq war. It has been estimated that another 170,000 Iraqis died as a result of the war. Afghani deaths have been estimated at around 50,000. If we kill 650,000 people – the majority of them women and children – what moral authority do we have, to criticize Muslim men? Is it "better" to maim and kill women and children as long we only do so "accidentally"? I fail to see any morality, only insufferable hubris and hypocrisy that continues to get innocents killed while little or nothing changes for the better. When did morality stop requiring truthfulness? I hate to see men abusing women, but I don`t see how our government maiming and killing women and children in ever-increasing numbers helps anyone. A better plan would be to tie US financial and military aid to Muslim nations to how they treat women and children. But the US government just announced that it will continue to give military aid to nations like Yemen, even though they allow children to serve as soldiers. It seems that whenever there is a war to be "won," however impossible it is to win, our "morals" fly out the window, and we end up dumping truckloads of cash and weapons at the feet of anyone who pretends to be our "ally." The result in the Middle East is that the tail wags the dog, until the dog becomes exhausted and admits defeat. If we really care about women and children, we should stop maiming and killing them in fruitless, unwinnable wars and tie our financial and military aid to human rights. If a nation allows women and children to be abused, we should cut off all aid, period, and ask the United Nations to develop a plan for dealing with the problem. We must be willing to be truthful and accept our limitations. But if we had done these things in the past, men like Saddam Hussein might not have done nearly as much damage, because almost everyone in the Middle East wants American money and weapons. Why not use what we have to offer as leverage, for the sake of Muslim women and children, and put human rights at the top of the list of things we ask for in return?
I do not understand what people mean by “Islamophobia.” It implies that being afraid of Muslims is somehow a negative. Let’s face it, it seems rational to me to be afraid of people who blow up innocent civilians in places like London, New York, Madrid and Mumbai. A realistic fear is not a phobia. It is not irrational to fear honor killings, gay executions and hiding women behind veils. “Islamo-repudiation” would be a better word. We repudiate such an angry, violent, self-justifying religion. Some weak-minded liberals point out that not all Muslims are terrorists. Wow, that’s quite an intellectual leap. Well, thirty per cent of Muslims believe in suicide bombing. That’s over three hundred million potential terrorists. Here’s the broom, Mohammed. Sweep out the stables if you want to ride into modernity with the rest of the world.
Awesome David Lawrence
A Suitable Ending
They lived together;
a woman who needed love,
a man who couldn`t give it.
She was a child of innocence
and didn`t know;
he knew and went through
the motions. He had
the cross to bear.
She left when she met a man
who wakened dormant feelings.
Alone, ill-humored, berating
God and the universe,
he found at last a despair
that gave him the morbid pleasure
he was seeking.
Kelly Jean White:
the sun grows brighter than my candle
Due at work before dawn
It takes two alarm clocks To get me up
First weekend this year without a murder And now the NRA challenges tight new Philadelphia gun laws.
Friday night pizza—
Burn scars along the baker’s arms As he reaches into the oven.
Frost stars my window pane
Blue sky over The abandoned church
In snowy branches
Flash of red and olive drab The cardinal pair
EARL WARREN AND BROWN v Board of Education (1954) cont`d
In the meantime Brown v Board of Education had already been argued before Chief Justice Vinson on December 9 1952 in the waning days of the Truman administration. The facts in the lead case of Brown v Board of Education were uniquely compelling. The Brown plaintiff had sought admission to the school closest to her home in Kansas, a state which had been in the time of the rebellion of the so-called Confederacy, a free state in allegiance with The Union. She was denied admission solely on the basis of color. The United States District Court in Kansas saw nothing particularly wrong with such an arrangement. It is obvious from the fact that there are only four colored schools as against eighteen white schools in the Topeka School District, that colored children in many instances are required to travel much greater distances than they would be required to travel could they attend a white school, and are required to travel much greater distances than white children are required to travel. The evidence, however, establishes that the school district transports colored children to and from school free of charge. No such service is furnished to white children. We conclude that in the maintenance and operation of the schools there is no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination in the matters referred to above between the colored and white schools. The avenue was open to argue that the distinction created in Kansas was purely arbitrary, without a rational basis in violation of due process. Instead, the plaintiffs filed a Brandeis Brief, a brief short on pure legal theory, but with an emphasis on analysis of factual data in this case a doll experiment conducted by a prominent sociologist and backed by the sociological theories of Gunnar Myrdal expressed in his 1944 book The American Dilemma . Brandeis briefs had originated with Louis Brandeis` style of argumentation based upon a compilation of statistics in Mueller v Oregon justifying progressive legislation. However the Supreme Court has not always enthusiastically embraced them. Justice Edward D. White, clearly unimpressed with Brandeis` style, remarked sarcastically: " [I] could compile a brief twice as thick to prove that the legal profession ought to be abolished." (Bernstein, p35) Argument before the court focused upon a doll experiment in which black school children selected a white doll as nicer than a black doll, (Library of Congress Exhibit) rather than the absurdity of going the expense to bus a black child elsewhere than the nearest public school. It is said that on this point John W. Davis, a name partner in the effete New York City law firm of Davis, Polk & Wardwell, counsel for the segregated institutions in South Carolina, towered over his adversaries future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and future US District Court Justice Robert L. Carter.
The main focus of Marshall`s argument had been on a study of school children`s choice of dolls. In response, Davis showed that in the non-segregated North, black children preferred the White doll over the black one by a far larger proportion than those black children in the segregated south. Davis concluded his argument with the reminder that the Supreme Court could not constitute itself as a national Board of Education. Roberts & Stratton, p 250. Due to divisions on the court Chief Justice Vinson ordered re-argument. When Vinson was replaced by Earl Warren, holding the office under an interim appointment from September 30, 1953 onward, the court reheard the case on December 3 1952. The parties were the same with the same arguments. The only difference was that Earl Warren now wore the three striped robe of the Chief Justice and now sat as an interim appointee in Fred Vinson stead. Roberts & Stratton, p 253. Following Warren`s successful confirmation in March 1954, the decision was handed down six weeks later on May 17 1954. The decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka Kansas proved to be the keynote of Warren`s two decade long reign in the US Supreme Court. Unabashed admirers say of Warren that he was no legal scholar. He could not have competed on an intellectual level with his predecessors or his colleges, (Kamins) but his emphasis on what is "fair" rather than what had been up to that point legal under existing precedents demark his tenure in the court. (Hall, p 914-915). If his admirers are not impressed with his legal acumen, they revel in his leadership of the court, his control over the court`s direction and his commitment to a fundamental fairness at all levels in government. (Kamins)
The purpose of the paper is to discuss The Brown case in terms of judicial decision-making. Was it rightly decided? Was the court`s use of sociological evidence more convincing than the approach taken in Bush v Gore or McClesky v Kemp? What is the role of Judge made law in a democracy? What is the role of the judiciary in establishing policy, shaping politics and overriding popular majorities? Do judges serve precedent or do they remake the law? Is the Court a reliable check on the other branches of government and a trustworthy final word on the meaning of the Constitution?
(cont`d col 3)
EARL WARREN AND BROWN v Board of Education (1954) cont`d
The Brown Decision
The Supreme Court of the United States is both a court and an arbiter of policy. As a Court, it has over the course of its history jealously guarded its independence and the secrecy of its internal proceedings. As an arbiter of policy, it practices, politics in two directions, first politics in the larger sense of determining what is right and second as human beings the ordinary office politics and rivalries among the individuals in a small group. In the main, historically, the formation of internal blocs among the members of the court, as well as the private tiffs of the justices, are shielded behind the pomp and ceremony of the judicial aura. In the past, the pall of secrecy extended not only over the justices themselves but also over the small body of law clerks and support staff which maintain the judiciary as the smallest branch of government. Historically, the public glimpse into internal proceedings of the court was limited to the public pronouncements of its decision in which justices generally maintain a syrupy air of politeness to each other, in the past common with all male courts in the English speaking world, "my worthy Brother, this" and "my worthy Brother, that." See Rehnquist, p 250. With the grist of political science, piercing the veil to uncover the actual decision making process hidden from view, study by political science of the internal processes of the adjudicative function has proven difficult. The Brown case is unique in that so many of the key figures went public with the behind the scenes story and so much of the internal story was retold during confirmation hearings held decades later. The court which originally heard the Brown case in 1952 was agreed that segregation ought to end. However, at least five of the nine were reluctant to accomplish this worthy goal through judicial fiat. Only Justices Minton and Burton openly agreed with Justice Douglas that segregation should be ended by court order immediately. Justice Frankfurter held his piece. The only clue Justice Frankfurter gave at oral argument came in the form of a question posed to Thurgood Marshall, should the court "take judicial notice of Gunnar Myrdal`s book?" (Roberts & Stratton, p 245) In potential opposition were Black, Clark, Reed and Jackson who were personally dissatisfied with the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson but who were either unwilling to place the court on the battle line of politics or institute a reign of government by judicial fiat. In the midst of the division on the court, future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, then a law clerk at the court, wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson with the flourish that the constitution does not embody the sociological theories of Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, (Roberts & Stratton, p 265), an allusion to Justice Holmes` famous comment in the Lochner dissent in the earlier part of the 20th century that the constitution does not import the social theories of Herbert Spencer, the social Darwinianist philosopher who dominated legal thinking until the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Lochner v New York.
Enter Earl Warren as Chief Justice on September 30, 1953. Appointed purely as a political favor from Eisenhower, Warren came to the court without judicial experience of any kind. In his public life he had served exclusively in an Executive capacity as Governor and District Attorney of a suburban county. (Horowitz 7 -8) If the concept of judicial restraint was alien to him, his strong suit was interpersonal skills. (Kamins). In disposing of the Brown case the influence of his background both as a successful politician and as a successful executive would be apparent. (Hall, p 913-914)
Warren relied in part on the judicial tradition of secrecy to keep the intense deliberation over the Brown issue out of public view inside the court while he awaited confirmation. (Hall, p 913). Southern democrats still in control of influential positions in the Senate Judiciary Committee would have scuttled the nomination. (Hall, p 914) However, Warren found an ally in Felix Frankfurter. Frankfurter made extrajudicial overtures to his former law clerk who obtained the assignment to write the Solicitor General`s amicus curia brief. Using a simple code, Frankfurter told his former law clerk of the private reservations of the holdout justices. The government`s 600 page brief was hand crafted to assuage all remaining doubts and concerns. (Roberts & Stratton, p 257).
Whisked through confirmation hearings, Warren with the benefit of unanimity boldly announced a decision which not only resolved the cases before the court in an exceptionally short decision but also ended segregation in public schools throughout the entire nation with the bang of the gavel. The sculpting of the decision, terse and pointed, "separate but equal is not equal" reflect Warren`s experience as an Executive Officer. The decision as announced was short enough to be printed in full in newspapers. It was designed for maximum impact, a clever device of a career politician. The style deviates from a judicial style in that the judiciary adjudicates a specific case on facts presented, rather than announcing a general policy. The Brown decision goes further. It instead invites all affected states to participate in submitting desegregation plans "with deliberate speed" to the court. The format of the court`s order is more legislative than judicial in that the order foresees ending all public school segregation everywhere in one swoop. It is said that warren recognized the need for time for the country to adjust to the change. (Hall, p 914). Was the Case Correctly Decided?
Perhaps Earl Warren`s lack of judicial experience aided him in making such a broad pronouncement and embarking on an offer from the court to assist in voluntary desegregation plans throughout the nation. An experienced jurist, having searched for the most limited grounds, might have preferred to simply decide the case before him, determining that the Topeka arrangement of shipping the Brown plaintiff away from her local school was absurd and let evolving precedent eventually whittle away segregation. However, an Executive acts, while a judge awaits the parties who want to bring the next case. Was the case correctly decided? Of course to many, North and South, it was not. However as the holdout justices recognized, segregation had to end. The legislatures of many states and the Congress were not quite ready to bring its total demise. Thus someone had to end it. The best the holdouts could muster by way of apology for lingering segregation was that ending it by judicial fiat would put the court in the line of fire on the issue of social change, a position that did not scare Warren, the Executive accustomed to bold action.
Warren`s Doctrine of Essential Fairness
Warren`s biographers agree that Warren`s quest anticipated protection of the individual from the powers of the state through the fusing of an expansive constitutional interpretation of equal protection and due process with a search for social justice. (Hall, p 914). Often Warren in consulting with the justices would simply ask: "is it fair?" (Hall, p 915) Justice Frankfurter one of the architects of the Brown decision soon found himself out of step with an activist court not bound by judicial restraint and abandoning any connection to precedent. He attempted to tutor Warren on the passivity of the judicial role through endless memorandum which Warren found tedious and boring. (Hall, p 914). The problem the great scholar Frankfurter saw in building precedent on Warren`s concept of "fairness" was its subjectivity. Different people would define the concept in another manner. Frankfurter warned Warren against using the vagueness of his conception of essential fairness to go tumbling into the "political thicket," a step Warren would move into with Baker v Carr. (Kamins)
Criminal Law Reforms
In the meantime Warren would reform criminal law by providing the right of assigned counsel to indigents in Gideon v Wainright, enforcement of exclusionary rules in Mapp v Ohio, a free appeal in Anders v California, law library services to prisoners in Bounds v Smith, a fair trial in Duncan v Louisiana and Rideau v Lousiana, proof beyond a reasonable doubt in In Re Winship, regularized identification procedures in US v Wade and the now famous Miranda warnings in Miranda v Arizona. (Kamins) The Gideon ruling invited a degree of behind the scenes insight into judicial activism`s quest for fairness almost equal to that of Brown. (see generally Lewis) Although Gideon enjoyed unanimity among the justices, many of the other decisions reforming criminal law were decided by sharp 5-4 votes with bitter dissents. In Bounds, Justice Harlan criticized the ruling promising that it would deluge the courts in pro se petitions of dubious merit but chockfull of irrelevant legalisms. In Duncan, Justice Harlan saw a difference between fairness of a trial evaluated in constitutional terms and fairness from a state law perspective. By the time of Gregg v Georgia where the death penalties then existing were outlawed, the court had fragmented into eight separate opinions. The fractured majority lacked a consistent theme of whether there were insufficient procedural protections or a violation of the cruel and inhuman punishment provision. Gregg v Georgia would lead to a new era in constitutional rulings where the opinion was a short per curium summarizing the position of a fractured majority could agree on followed by the several separate concurrences and dissents.
How does the sociology of Brown compare to McClesky v Kemp and Bush v Gore?
One Man, One Vote
Among the legacy of the Warren`s court`s emphasis in constitutional issues on essential fairness over hoary legalisms derived from precedent were Baker v Carr which established the principle of one-man-one-vote, so that the vote of any voter in a state had to be approximately equal to the weight of any other voter and Gregg v Georgia which outlawed death penalties imposed without clear and definite standards. Like Brown which enmeshed the courts in the desegregation process, Baker, over Justice Frankfurter`s bitter dissent that the court had waded too deep into the political thicket, enmeshed the courts in the electoral process through re-apportionment of legislative districts and saw the courts redraw historic legislative lines. Of purely local interest, was the resultant demise in the wake of Baker of the Board of Estimate, the Upper House of the New York City Council, and the elimination of the Councilman at large seats in New York City which originally were created to assure representation of the political parties locally in the electoral minority, mainly the Republicans but occasionally the splinter party Liberals and Conservatives as well. Board of Estimate of City of New York v Morris.
The Death Penalty
In McClesky, the petitioner premised a Gregg based challenge to Georgia`s death penalty on the basis of a statistical showing of disproportionate impact on Blacks. For the majority, Justice Powell took the view that a statistical demonstration of a greater impact of the death penalty on black defendants charged with capitol crimes did not satisfy the defendant`s burden of proof that the state adopted the penalty in order to discriminate. In Justice Powell`s view the adoption of the penalty in spite of a discriminatory impact would not constitute unlawful discrimination.Thus, to prevail under the Equal Protection Clause, McCleskey must prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose. He offers no evidence specific to his own case that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence. Much of the text of Powell`s decision bears striking similarity to the Federal District Court`s decision in Brown, reversed by the US Supreme Court. Dissenters argued that the statistical study relied on, carefully subjected to careful multi-level regression analysis, clearly demonstrated that race could not be eliminated as a factor in death penalty cases. This decision highlights the problem with the Brandeis brief. It may persuade those who are inclined to be persuaded. To those who are not, Justice Edward White`s adage that statistical compilations could prove just about anything the statistician wants them to prove would pertain. Justice Powell may have in his decision implicitly agreed when he remarked that such statistical studies should not be accepted without affording the state the opportunity to provide its own statistical study. 23 years separate Brown and McCleskey. While segregation had by 1987 been nearly eradicated, social attitudes had changed in the interim. The simple but visual doll experiment in 1954 might have been an eye-opener, "persuad[ing] the persuadable" holdouts deciding whether a child could attend the neighborhood school (see McCloskey, p 164) while the weight of a tabulation of numbers might not work for a murderer who killed a police officer responding to an armed robbery. Again the situation in McCleskey, though disparate from Brown, illustrate the difficulty, foreseen by Justice Frankfurter, of building a foundation for law on Earl Warren`s personal notions of essential fairness. Justice Powell saw essential fairness differently. If all precedents, guidelines and templates for action are discarded on the basis of a subjective view of essential fairness, the law becomes so uncertain that actors in real life are walking on cardboard flooring without effective guidance.
Bush v Gore raised an equal protection issue in a different context. In the cloudy election of 2000, Bush is said to have carried Florida by a handful of disputed votes. A majority of the court dividing over political lines determined that a recount of the electronically cast ballots under a state law which allowed for discerning the clear intent of the voter would violate the one-man-one-vote standard of Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Simms since Florida had no objective standards to determine what the clear intent of the voter was. This would violate equal protection because voters in the disputed counties where recount had been ordered would be accorded greater weight than those in counties where the result was clear. The dissent argued that there could be no equal protection violation if a there is no particular person whose rights had been violated. It is very difficult to equate Brown with Bush. The Bush case was a political issue shrouded in invocation of the platitudes of Constitutionalism. The issue, as explained in the first line of the concurring opinion, was who would be President, not whether a little girl could attend her local school. (McCloskey, p 184). Reynolds and Baker had already established the Court`s right to intervene in Electoral matters. Personal ideology had little to do with the result. (Dershowitz, pp 121 -151, 153). Five of the Republican appointees voted for the Republican candidate; two Democratic appointees voted for the Democrat. A similar result was obtained in the disputed election of 1876 through an Electoral Commission. In any one of the sister republics in Latin America this event would be called a bloodless coup, wholly apart from George Bush`s overtures to General Colin Powell who became Secretary of State. The entire process was an attempt to place a veneer of constitutionalism to shade the reality of what had occurred. Small wonder in the real world President Bush felt he had to do nothing for the disappointed Democrats. (Jacobson, p 70)
Did the result meet the criterion of "essential fairness" which Earl Warren would have used to determine the issue? Perhaps, it would not have met Earl Warren`s personal sense of "essential fairness." However time and change put others in his place, bringing their views to the court different subjective views of the concept of "essential fairness."
The Aftermath of The Warren Court: Who Did Earl Warren Benefit?
No single Chief Justice has cast as long a shadow as Earl Warren. If judicial independence means that Supreme Court Justices, appointed for life, may stand above the public will, in a democracy, the power to elect the legislators and indirectly the President, means that there is a public mechanism through which a public may effect change. Announcing decisions is easier than enforcing them if there is no public will to see them enforced. If the 1954 decision in Brown v Board of Education ordered a conference among all interested parties to end finally racial segregation peacefully in the South, the subsequent parlay that Warren invited and that resulted in the 1955 decision did not peacefully accomplish that end. Ultimately, within two years, Eisenhower had to employ troops to enforce desegregation orders in Little Rock, Arkansas as did Kennedy in a melodramatic showdown with Governor George C. Wallace in Alabama and in an even more violent confrontation in Mississippi where bullets filled the air and federal Marshalls were fired on. (Koenig, p 319). Segregation ended as had slavery at the tip of a bayonet. Ultimately bayonets and court ordered busing ended segregation in the Southland, but having ended de jure segregation, the court spurred white flight from the cities to the suburbs which benefited from the one-man-one-vote ruling of Baker v Carr. In 1974 in Milliken v Bradley, the era of busing came to a halt when Warren`s successors appointed by President Nixon, with the vow of changing the direction of the court (McCloskey, p 217-220), refused to allow federal courts to merge school districts to access the white flight into desegregation plans. By the time of Milliken, busing inside a city limits, according to the arguments offered in favor of multi-district busing, bused black students from one black school to another. Although President Eisenhower may have rued his choice of Earl Warren, the ultimate political impact of Earl Warren favored the Republican Party. Earl Warren did what even the universally popular General Eisenhower could not. He singlehandedly broke the "Solid South," ever faithful since 1877 to the Democratic Party. Nixon`s "Southern Strategy" won the White House for the Republicans and gave Nixon the opportunity to change the complexion of the court. (McCloskey p 234). It also unglued the Old Democratic coalition. Both Nixon and Reagan had followings among the Northern White Working Class, never enjoyed by Republicans. And if Baker v Carr might have been intended as a means of giving greater voice to the poor and downtrodden in the cities at the expense of more traditionally oriented rural areas, the actual beneficiaries were the Republican suburbs which started to swallow legislative seats at the expense of neighboring cities.
Under the law of unexpected consequences, so many personalities involved in Brown went public that the court`s former facade of syrupy public politeness simply broke down. At least five justices were informants for Bob Woodward fascinating report on the inner workings of the court. (Everidge). The mystique and mystery was gone forever.
And did the federal constitutionalization of state criminal law really lead to a sociological balance in favor of the individual? Today we can hardly say that it produced a Jeffersonian democracy. It did produce a state with more laws, more police, more police surveillance and intrusions into personal privacy, many times more people in prison particularly for non-violent offenses and far more contact of an undesirable nature between police and private citizens than ever before.
Worthy as a piece of irony is Gunnar Myrdal`s legacy. He cemented the myth in the American mind of Sweden as an utopian, benevolent, progressive kingdom endowed with a highly moral sense of liberality and altruism. Its past as a quiet Nazi ally which allowed German industry to outsource there and which supplied volunteers to no less than two SS divisions: SS Viking and SS Nordland was pleasantly forgotten in the mix.
Scott Armstrong & Bob Woodward, The Brethren : Inside the Supreme Court (Simon and Schuster, 1979)
Dr. Charles Frederickson:
Solitary horn of charging rhino
Goring fossilized fantastical molded clay
Thick hide protective shield penetrating
Wrenched gut woes befouling humankind
Isolated loner herd instinct desensitized
Snout refusing to be muzzled
Dust devil whirlwind blinders shuttered
Cleft hoofprint traces left behind