 Did I say current issues or today's issues? That was what I said. Hello, this is Tansy Thomas, and at least my name is Tansy Thomas. And this program is about the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. We are going to discuss the relevance of his message to the current issues today. And my guests here, the panelists are Hamza El Nahal. He is the director of the Islamic Center of Davis. Next to him is our former mayor, Ken Laxdad. Hi, Tansy. Hi there. And this gentleman here is? Thank you for that gentleman. I like that gentleman. This is Dick Lemington. He's a professor of ethnic studies. And what do you want to say? We're just you first. I try to keep that in mind. OK. All right. And this lady here is Hannah Biverstein. She is a member of the Jewish Fellowship of Davis. All right. Great. All right. I have given our panelists a speech that was made by Dr. Martin Luther King in 1967. It's called, Beyond Vietnam, A Time to Break Silence. And it was delivered April 24, 1967, at meeting of clergy and laity concern that's in camp. Clergy and laity concern at the Riverside Church in New York City. One thing about this speech, I'm using this because it was referred to me. And I have to give credit to Dr. Revin Timothy Malone. Who was so taken by it. And so I saw that it would be very useful for this discussion. The speech, in the speech, Dr. King expresses anguish in making this moral decision. To speak out, it was very difficult to speak out and make a declaration of being opposed to the Vietnam War. And he was quite anguish about it because it sounds so unpatriotic. And he knew that it was going to be trouble. And of course, the communist scare was going at that time. So it's a very, very pregnant discussion of his anguish and any reasons why he had to make this declaration, despite he knew what was to come. And he was concerned about that this war was going to increase the suffering of people, not only in this country, but abroad. He's concerned of the impact of US foreign policy support of dictators, quashing the dreams of people, not only here in this country, but abroad for peace and a fair and just war and human rights, all of those kinds of concerns. And he was concerned about the denial of freedom. And he explores very, very thoroughly. He gives very forceful arguments of why this war was so cruel and how destructive it is to all humanity, not just to the people in the US. All right, I believe this speech speaks to concerns that the panelists have, as I understand it. You bet. And so I would pose a question I'd like for each one of you to individually discuss how this Dr. King's anguish, all his concerns, how it relates to the things that you are concerned about. And so I will start with you, since you're in the first place. I'll start with you, Hamza. Well, I would like to greet you with Islamic greeting, first of all. As-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. May peace, blessing, and mercy of God be with you. My name is Hamza Nakhal. I came from Egypt in 1969. I've been resident in Davis since that time. And I came to study for a PhD. And I finished my degree by 75. And now I have three children here in Davis. And they all went through the Davis school system and the university, two of them graduated and one of them in her way. I'm also involved with the Davis Islamic Center. And I'd like very much to thank Tensey Thomas for inviting me to be part of this panel. And I'm really honored to be here with a distinguished panelist. And I think activities such as this today, where the community come together to discuss issues of concern and open dialogue is a way to finding solution and making resolutions. As I said before, I came in 1969. So I came past Dr. Martin Luther King. But back in Egypt, we all followed his steps. We all followed his movement because he stood up against his own government in matters of war. And he stood with the poor. And he stood with the oppressed people. And he was really a, he was a hero. To us, he was a hero. So Dr. Martin Luther King, by any means, is not only an American hero, he's an international hero. And we're really proud of him. And I look up to him all the time for his courage and for his braveness. He was just an outstanding person. And on occasion of Martin Luther King Day, one cannot but reflect upon the man, his ideals, and what he believed in. This is because the very things that Dr. King fought for a few decades ago are coming back to haunt us again. Perhaps this is a way that his legacy lives and how he's remembered and appreciated when the struggle itself is alive to remind us. It's time to break silence. Today's awareness is seeing unprecedented a thing called war in terrorism. I'm not sure if Dr. King could have predicted this very event, but he definitely saw a very vivid trend and vicious cycle of violence that the US was involved in. Today, war with Iraq is imminent. Diplomacy in the words of President Bush will not work. And the war in terrorism may last for years. Dr. King criticized his own government for perpetuating and encouraging violence because the simplest answer has been to take up arms. The only thing that we have gotten out of this is that it tears countries. It kills children and annihilates the infrastructures. The land of Babylon or Iraq as we call it today once had the lowest children mortality rate in the world. Now has one of the highest infant mortality rate and the cancer rate and the worst resources in the world after the Gulf War. Apparently, the destruction that Iraq suffered once is not enough, as our government is ready once again to invade the war-torn country that even the government knows is not a threat to the US nor does it harbor any terrorist. Nor that it's been seen that it harbor any mass destruction. Within the boundaries of this land, people have not been safe from this war. Not only have the civil rights or people have been violated, but so have basic human rights. Low abiding folks who have tried to live the American dream have found an American nightmare riddled with the very racism Dr. King tried to fight. Yet the Jim Crow laws have once again come back disguised as USA, USA Patrick Act and Home Security Act which forces only one group of people from a specific background to register with the INS and at times suffer a risk when trying to comply with the law. American citizens are being spied on through phone lines and it is said that every key stroke is recorded now by a secret organization that gets unlimited amount of funding from unknown resources while there are Americans that are jobless, homeless and do not know where tomorrow's bread come from. Dr. King made it a point that domestic problem were directly affected by foreign policy. Money that goes to war does not feed the poor. In fact, this causes the poor to rise up because they resent those who have money and the poor rise up domestically and internationally whether in the streets of San Francisco or Washington or in Iraq or in occupied territories because injustice cannot last no matter how many weapons it has. We in the US should not support injustice and oppressive regimes. We did in the past and we continue to do so today. The US must allow the people, every people to make a choice on their own. We once imposed and back Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and we still today support Mr. Sharon. Our president even referred to him as a man of peace. Let us speak for the poor. So oppressed, the voiceless, the weak and support them until they can get back on their feet. This is not in any way an unpatriotic activity. Rather it is a reassurance that we all belong to fraternity of humanity, regardless of our ethnic background, religion, gender or color. Let us keep Dr. King's spirit alive by teaching our children a different way of conflict resolution. War is definitely not the answer. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Well, a lot of people watching this program listening to Hamza would probably think that we're, it's some kind of a forum on Iraq or it's a forum on the Middle East or something like that. And they see the placard that says it's about Martin Luther King. How do they put that together? And I think Hamza did put it together. There is, in this speech, which was given 36 years ago, it was given at a time that people thought that King, by associating the civil rights movement in this country with the anti-war movement, was gonna hurt his cause. Instead, I think what it has done is it brings to us today an echo of reality, really. What it does is it synthesizes some things, ordinary Americans, Americans from all backgrounds. Every one of us sitting here today has ancestors that came from someplace else. This is a country that unique in the world represents the world. And so it's legitimate for us to take our principles that we were found upon which we were founded and apply them to the present reality. And that's what King was doing. I mean, he may have been talking about Vietnam, but he was talking to us about Iraq. He was talking to us about social justice in this country. He was talking to us about jobs. He was talking to us about the impact on the economy, the impact on social cohesion when you have a government that replaces democracy and replaces, excuse me, I can't speak when there's an interruption from the director. Democracy, on the one hand, inclusion, values which are so important to us. And on the other hand, corporatism, militarism and huge investments in war. I mean, just look at the present situation. I think if Dr. King were here today, all he'd have to do is change a few words in this speech. He could just change, he could just take the word Vietnam and put Iraq. Absolutely. If he wanted to, he could just, and then he'd probably be saying without even missing a step, where was the right to vote in Florida for so many people that were, today would be still part of his movement. Where is the money for social justice in this country when we look at the fact that 30 days of military buildup in Iraq, the cost of that would wipe out California's budget deficit. There'd be, I mean, we could take that money and use it for our own country. Instead, what's happening is, you have these fleets sitting offshore, burning up gas, burning up manpower and womanpower. You have people that are serving in what we're told is a volunteer military. But when King talked about the draft and talked about the sons of the poor, and now today the daughters of the poor are going, we say, well, we've eliminated the draft. We have an all military, an all volunteer military. But think about it. What that means is we're saying to people, if you are minority, the way to get ahead in society is to join the military. And then what do we do? We say, well, we're gonna now put you in harm's way. We're gonna experiment on you with depleted uranium. And I think if King were here today, he'd be just adding these things to the list because it's a continuum. 36 years later, what has changed? What has changed? I think people like me that now have grandchildren, but who could remember when we were reading this speech 36 years ago, we had children then, now we have grandchildren. What has changed? What has been learned? All of a sudden now, we're gonna repeat trickle down economics. We're gonna repeat, we're gonna repeat invasions abroad. We're gonna repeat foreign conquest, you know? I mean, it's really sobering. I'll tell you, I'll be thinking about these things on Saturday in San Francisco. Right, though. Okay, thank you, thank you. Well, we have a couple of very excellent presentations and I'm sure we'll all have something to say. I, by the way, the college I work at is Solano College, I didn't know that. Hope you revealed it, right? I think one of my bosses down there, but I do wanna say that I think one of the important things about Dr. Martin Luther King and this speech and other speeches I use quite a bit in classes is the fact that his words are as appropriate today as they were then. You can see that readily and I think Ken made some very, very astute points when he compared some of the things today where there isn't much progress. I would say this, that Martin Luther King would be very disturbed today. Of course, you know, he would have been fighting right on up today and maybe he would have been able to be the powerful speaker for peace and social justice. He may have, we may have made more progress perhaps. Who knows? But I think he would be very disturbed because we, in many respects, have not made much progress. As a matter of fact, we've probably made giant steps backwards. At least that's my view. One of the things as a teacher that I think is important and is very important in this speech that you gave us to look at, that Tim Malone passed on to you, is the profound truths in the speech, the profound truths that we're lacking. Now remember, this is the 1960s and here we're back up into the, that we're at the new century now. In the 1960s, we were not only going through a civil rights and social justice revolution in the midst of a horrible war, but we were going through an educational revolution. All of a sudden, thanks to people like King and Cesar and people, but King was very, very important, we began to realize that we have not told the truth about American history. That we made the United States always look like the great world liberator, the great first revolutionary power that really showed a colonial power, what's what. And we set this wonderful thing in motion and then began to rewrite history and to make revolution a dirty word. And I think King was able to throw that out and because of the civil rights movement, we were able to make changes in education and these profound truths began to become part of our curriculum in many of the schools and this was a very important impact on the part of King. Now this speech is profound too because it points out a very important thing about Vietnam. Many people in the early 60s, when we were well into Vietnam, we were well into Vietnam as soon as World War II ended. As soon as Franklin D. Roosevelt died, the anti-colonial policy of the United States switched to the Cold War and a very anti-colonial position, so much so. As he points out, here we go and practically finance the French re-admittance into Vietnam with billions of dollars. And of course now, today as we see Iraq and we see this move to try to protect what once was colonial Western controlled land, we see the same parallel. We see, hey, we're trying to hold on. Sure, Iraq is independent and has done some good things like Tom's have pointed out. They really, and they were once our ally. But all of a sudden, as he says, an enemy is just as capable of being an ally one minute and we change very quickly. And he points that out in the speech, which I think is very important. Here we are now seeing Iraq as an enemy because we need something Iraq has. And I know many people like to deny the value of oil and so on and so forth. But it's pretty apparent that as he says in here, the United States who were the strong liberator oriented country that were supposedly liberating the Vietnamese were really the pals of the landlord class against those who wanted to be liberated. And here we are again, the pal of the oil class and opposed to those we'd like to see a liberator. We think by some of our tactics that somebody's gonna get mad at Sonan Hussein and they're gonna overthrow him by just like we hope that something in Vietnam never happened, never happened at all. He makes a very important statement that I wrote down myself that war is the enemy of the poor. And I think that we've both of Hunza and Ken have commented on this. And you know, it seems to me like that's so true. The United States government because of inaction, historically was at war with America's poor. They were at war with the people enslaved. What about the wars with the Native Americans? And they incarcerated them into reservations in which they're still living, not that they might war up. But I mean, the point is initially those were prison camps. They incarcerated the Japanese. They made sure that the ghettos and barrios in the United States stayed just that with laws that deprive these people of social justice. And so King, he knew what war was because his own country, like you said, he was willing to, well, you oppose your own country, declare war against yourself, wouldn't you? I mean, do any of us want the United States to be honest? Well, I wanna tell you, the United States is about to be honest. The Patriot Act and the Homestead Act are acts to try to deny the basic Bill of Rights. The very thing that the United States government denied Indians, denied African-Americans, denied the Asians that came over where it strictly came over here for work, denied after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, denied the Mexican people who chose to be citizens here and was able to get most of their land from them by hook or crook. So they've declared war. The United States government supports this corporate colonial activity that keeps people in chains. And I think that he's pointing out, King is as relevant today as ever. He talks about the millions of people we killed in Vietnam with poisons and things like that. But what about the bombing of the sewage plants, the bombing of the water supply and the 600,000 women and children and aged people who have died in Iraq based upon United States constant bombing and were not even at war? So it seems to me like, if I had to say, King would be very, very angry today. He would be speaking out on a daily basis and his marches, he'd be at San Francisco this Saturday, big time, right up there in front. He's written the speech. Yeah, we definitely could use it. But I think reading the speech again really shaped my speaking and I think calling United States hypocritical in its behavior, I'm not afraid to do that and I think that it needs to be done straightforward. Thank you. And now, Hannah? I'm Hannah Biberstein and among many other activities in the city, I'm a member of Beth Havarim and I'm speaking today as a Jew and as I'm taking the position of one segment of the Jewish community. I'm not speaking for Beth Havarim and the Jewish community is very, very divided on the subject on which I'm gonna speak. The biggest problem, obviously, for Jews is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, obviously. And Martin Luther King's words are very profound and very relevant to one segment of the Jewish community that has a special plan for dealing with this problem. And so that's what I'm gonna go into a little bit. The meaning that it has for us and the leaders of this movement refer to Martin Luther King explicitly and cite him and base their opinions on his works. Okay, the message of Martin Luther King has always found resonance in the Jewish community. Rabbi Abraham Heschel, one of the most renowned modern scholars and articulators of Jewish spirituality was a close friend of Martin Luther King and marched with him. It is no coincidence that the disciple of Rabbi Heschel, Rabbi Michael Lerner, has become a leading spokesman for an alternative approach to the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today. He has founded an organization, the Tikkun Community, dedicated to peace through reconciliation between Palestinian and Jews. He states explicitly that his approach is based on the beliefs of Dr. King. I can do no better to illustrate this point than quote Rabbi Lerner's six points is articulated in his new book, Healing Israel Slash Palestine. And the first point is ending the oppression of the Palestinian people. Second point, ensuring Israel's survival and security and eliminating terror as a daily reality of life in Israel. Three, recrediting Judaism and the Jewish tradition in the eyes of Jews and non-Jews who wrongfully identify insensitive or immoral Israeli policies with Judaism. And at the same time, and I think Hamza will appreciate this, recrediting Islam in the eyes of people around the world who wrongly identify Islam with a small group of Islamic extremists. For protecting the Jewish people from the growing global anger and anti-Semitism that is being fanned by Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Five, and this one is straight out of Martin Luther King as far as I'm concerned, developing an ability on both sides to recognize the legitimacy of the other's story and the other's perception and learn how to see the world through the other's eyes as well as one's own. This in turn creates the precondition for the possibility of an approach to reconciliation based on generosity, kindness, open-heartedness and a genuine desire to make the world safe and fulfilling to both the Israeli and Palestinian people. Thus defeating the impulse to terror, suicide, murder, or obliteration of the other. And the last one is recrediting the global hopes for a world of peace and justice which are undermined by views that see this particular struggle as an example of the intractable nature of antagonism which supposedly proves the futility of trying to heal or change the world. And I certainly personally find a lot of resonance in Martin Luther King's approach to the solutions that this movement has in mind for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you. I actually appreciate every word you said. I appreciate every item. Well, I think we are on the same wavelength. I want to tell you, every rally I went through for the Palestinian, I didn't go for anyone for Israel, but I went for everyone in Palestinian and had a lot of Jewish people going with me. Yes. And I have a lot of Jewish friends, by the way. That's right. So I am not at all... So I know a lot of Jewish people are really sympathizing with the Palestinian because a lot of them refuse the oppression. Yeah, that's right. It is this viewpoint though points out something which I personally feel in this movement field that both sides have a legitimate viewpoint and somehow... And both sides have done great wrongs, both sides. And somehow there has to be a reconciliation the way Martin Luther King says you have to see the other's viewpoint and you have to be able to live. It's no good blaming constantly. This is bad, you are bad, that's bad. It doesn't get you anywhere. Absolutely. Well, you know, it's interesting. But this is not the topic. The Israeli conflict is not the topic. It's part of the story. It's part of the story. And we're trying to tell that story through the words and the acts. Of Martin Luther King. And you know, I would think that one of the things he'd be doing today is pointing out dichotomies, pointing out where we ourselves know the truth but we don't carry it out in other places. For example, our own government today, representative of the American government, announced that it was possible that we would extend a hand of economic assistance to North Korea and that we'd like to see some cooperation from them. Now that's called exchange. That's called, that's an attempt at reconciliation and it's a complete contradiction to what's going on in Iraq. It's almost as though we don't listen to our, you know, it's a very strange thing. It's almost like, you know, if it was a person they'd say you were mentally ill. You know, because you just don't have, you've got two different views of reality that they clash. And I think that King would be looking to the strengths in negotiation. Yes. The strengths of peace. Yeah. He says in this speech that there's nothing soft. There's nothing soft about what the world's great religions have long said about what it means to love. Exactly. You know, I think unfortunately our kids today, when they go play some of these video games and everything else, there's a theme of violence, a theme of retribution and that somehow action has to be negative and proactive and you attack. As a matter of fact, and I think King cites Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism. Right. I mean, he goes right down the line. They all come back to something very central to his speech. Exactly. Which is actually, it actually works politically. It does. If his countries are willing to do it. And I was struck tonight by watching Jim Lehrer's program. Is it, on the one hand, the president saying he's sick and tired. Yes. Sick and tired that people aren't agreeing with him. That's why he's sick and tired. And meanwhile, the Secretary General of the UN is just saying we are not talking about war. Yeah. We're talking about, you know. I mean, the voice of King, I'll just let the viewers make up their own minds of I think who's reading the historic text the right way. I think that on that point though, the North Korean point that you made, the idea that the United States is willing to give something to get some cooperation. I think that that profound truth that I was talking about that King would be able to point out as a preface to that is the fact that the United States, shortly after Bush was elected, withdrew from nuclear international controls to a major, a major nuclear treaty. And that was of course part of the policies of this government. And yet when North Korea tried to do it, all of a sudden, you know, I mean, along before that it became one of his axis. Double standard. I think we have to point out that the United States has its plans to fight a war in Iraq and that North Korea is kind of muddying up the water. So they're willing to play the old British balance of power game to try to checkmate, you know, and I think that the King would be pointing out these hypocrisies, this consistent support for the old colonial guard and the same old tactic, you know? I think the frustration, the good thing about King is he kept a strong optimism. The rough thing about myself is I keep a strong pessimism because I feel we've, most of us have been infected by the disease of this game of hate and love. And how do you, you've got both diseases now. How do you, you know, and which one is stronger? He says, toward the end, which I think is a tremendous, you know, point that is where the oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever rising tides of hate. Well, you know, the tides of hate go up with every kind of bigger type of device to use to kill people and to get your way. Let me interrupt at this moment to let viewers know that they wish to call in. This would be a good time. We can accept the calls as this discussion continues. I just want to agree with both two gentlemen in there. How can we expect our youth, our people, to be not violent while our government did everything with violence? It just takes arms on everything. So I think we're really giving the wrong message to our generation day in and day out. And if we go back, reflect on Prophet Joseph, may peace be upon him. He, the same very people who harmed him and wanted to get rid of him, he actually forgave him. And he told him, I forgive you. And from then just peace settled out. There were no problem. So we can always go back to our history. See, so what war does accomplish and what peace does accomplish? So it's obviously we can definitely do better if we find other solution than more. There are many, many other ways we can sit down and give and take as my brother Ken Wagstaff here pointed out. And we must really get away from the war attitude. This is not getting us anywhere. Do you think that there's an element of a desire, world domination, on the part of the, well, whether it's the U.S. or of the powerful, anyway. What is it? Down through the ages, haven't there always been certain movements toward world domination, whether it's Napoleon or Alexander the Great? Isn't that sort of like a dream by the powerful? Tansy, I won't put this country in that category. I mean, don't misinterpret just for myself now. I see. I said this country, unique among all the nations, represents a cross-section of the earth. Everybody's here. And at the same time, we're the United States. I mean, you're looking at it. I mean, we elected, oh, I take that back. We did not elect George Bush. Let's see what you're going to do. Somebody appointed, I don't know. But anyway, he's the president. Yeah, don't go too far. He represents an important, we have a power structure. We have an executive. Somebody has to put that together. But whose message should that person carry? Exactly. The message of the American people. I will tell you, if you look at the polls, even though they are manipulated at times, if you talk to people, I can't find an overwhelming desire on the part of the United States, people to have hegemony over the world. No way. In fact, most people are proud of the fact that in their lifetimes, the United States has had opportunities for domination that it did not take. A lot of people defended the previous Bush when he said, all right, we've pushed him out of Kuwait, now we stop. But now all of a sudden, that's not good enough for the young guy. Yeah. I think the important thing, though, is to speak out. I'm a, well, I was lucky enough to be able to escape the Holocaust the last minute in 39. You were? Yeah. Wow. I'm a Holocaust survivor. And the one lesson, I think, that most of us learned is that when your civil liberties and your rights are curtailed, you have to speak out early, either early or forget it. You'll never get another chance. And I do want to quote, which I always do, there's a very famous German minister, Martin Niemeler, you may have heard of him, who later went to the concentration camp who illustrates this. He said, in Germany, they came first for the communists. And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews. I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics. And I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me. And that time, no one was left to speak up. And I think that's the message that is important to me, that you really have to speak up. You have to speak up now, because, well, events may take place so that later on it's much more difficult or even impossible. I just want to comment on your world domination issue in there. Because I think we can have the world domination by peace, not by war, by kindness to other people, not by fighting them. If we spend half of what, maybe even quarter of what we spent on last year was $365 billion. If we spend half that much or quarters that much to feed the hungry and help the oppressed, I think we'll have much better stature in the world than what we have now. Everybody in the world hates us now. Everybody. But I think that, isn't there a confusion at the top, the difference between leadership and domination? It seems that they're saying we're leading what their behavior is dominating. And so there's semantics going, propaganda. But so that, in a way, they are very clever, propaganda-wise, very effective, and it seems like wrong declared right by popular demand going on or something. And it's really strange, but I think the country is coming around. I understand that the poll really shows that the people who support it, they like him as a person. It seems that he's got a lot of people like, but they don't like his policies. But they like him. Well, I think- No, whatever. My mother used to say, when you go to the supermarket, don't go there when you're hungry. Right. Because you'll buy all the wrong stuff. Right. And you'll start eating the first thing you see, and so on. Right. I would say, if you're gonna make a foreign policy, don't start with fear. And I think what's happening is a lot of people in the United States, some of them for the first time in their lives, on September 11th of 2001, felt fear. That's true. That's true. And fear is, I think, difficult to overcome. And I think the first step, though, is to realize that you should not be making permanent decisions based upon what you feel in terms of fear. Oh, right. And you have to really assess. Well, now, what are we afraid of? And I think most Americans, when you tell them, that Iraq did not attack the World Trade Center, they have to pause for a moment. Because their fear wants to strike out at somebody. Right. Or do something. But then you say to them, and then you say, there's someone you don't understand, whether it's the North Koreans, whether it's the Iraqis. The first thing we've got to do is we have to see the strength we have and be confident in that strength and not be afraid. And we can then do what George Bush's father used to always talk about. He talked about a new world order. Now, that used to kind of scare me. And then I'd read, well, I know what they really mean is that we have the opportunity now to build up the world. We don't have to waste all this money on defense. That's what I... You hoped it meant. But now it has words like world order and worlds like homeland and so on have a different cast. They sound like something out of the 30s. No, I think you're right. It's for you. I think what you're saying is true. I think that one of the things we're looking for is a practical way of addressing this. So that the people of the United States are informed. It took a long time in Vietnam when it was rolling along before the press was forced to start talking about it. And I think that in some ways, the education system contributed because the civil rights movement forced this, what I called earlier, more profound truths. And one of the things I feel, to some extent, is lacking even in today's educational system is that the profound truths have been watered down to a great extent. Like I would point as an example, the social studies standards in the state of California have been watered down. And the role of women, for example, is somewhat reduced. Certain minority positions have been reduced. And the former governor of the state of California involved, and Martin Luther King would, of course, oppose this, but I do feel very strongly that we have to have a base of knowledge. We have to have the truth. We can't do the problem in this. We have a phone call. Maybe it'll be a phone. Hello? Hello, hi, how are you? Oh, fine, thank you. Do you have a question for us? Yes, I just wanted to address the issue of having more knowledge that the gentleman just brought up and the role that the media plays in that. Because it is my view that the corporate-sponsored media has not been portraying the truth about the war on terrorism. I think we seem to be getting a lot of regurgitation from what the army officials keep saying or what the White House says. All right, well, thank you very much. We'll see how the response go. All right. Well, I just want to say directly to what this young lady says. If we are dealing with teaching our students about what Iraq and the countries in the Middle East and they're becoming informed about what's happening, and they find out that at one time, Iraq was an ally of the United States, that a lot of the so-called weapons we're looking for were given to them by the United States, that at one time, Saddam Hussein was a pal against the war against another Middle Eastern country. I think that's the kind of thing that has to be brought out. They can't keep talking about the Battle of Gettysburg when we got issues like this. And that's what I mean by profound truths, and that's what I think this lady's getting at. I see. Anyone else? Well, go ahead. Hannah, how's the picture? Well, I think our whole way of thinking is incorrect. War on terrorism is not like any other war. I mean, the whole thinking has to be different. There's no beginning. How do you know where it began? How do you know when it ends? It's just an entirely new concept that our leaders and probably our population hasn't dealt with and can't really fathom fully. It's not a war. I mean, in the way we talk about war. I think, Hannah, you really have put your finger on a big problem now for not only for the American people and for its leaders, but it's a problem in terms of how we educate people. The caller was talking about the role of the media. Now, it's very easy for the media to adopt this war paradigm, because A, you get good guys and bad guys. Exactly, which everybody likes. You get an exciting video of aircraft carriers and jets and all that. Heroes. And you can get people on. You can get the doves and the hawks to argue and so on. And as a matter of fact, what I think some Americans understand is that terrorism in this world is to a large extent an outgrowth of poverty and despair. Of course. We are breeding new terrorists every day. And I say we, I mean, in terms of you just took a strip around the globe and you've got the haves and the have-nots. Exactly. You've got the countries to the south. We not only have a third world, but I think we're developing a fourth world. We're developing people who are almost stateless. They don't have any... Correct, correct. There was an article recently that I was reading about what's happening in Africa with some of these rebel armies that really, they don't have an ideology other than destruction. They're striking out. Because they come out of these great masses of urban areas that aren't even cities. They're dehumanized. If a new world order means anything, it means that we've got to take this incredible prosperity that Europe and the West and the United States and the rest of the Western world, the so-called first world have. And figure out a new Marshall plan for the future. If we don't do that, then I think that some of the things that have happened thus far are gonna look like a picnic. What do you think about the great focus on our national security as you know, I was concerned about should the constitution, civil rights and all of these suspended along with the 10 Commandments for the sake of our national security and is our national security too important to lead to God? I mean, what's the role of the people with moral values, religious leaders? How do we reconcile it with what's going on? It seems like we're going, you have made very good point. Under the current administration, I think there is a strong wind of races start to blow our way, really. If just the last Saturday, Reuter reported there were some racist people in Maine, in Lewiston called themselves World Church of Creator. And there were some Somalis. Yeah, we know about them. There were some Somalis and they just feel that the white people are fed up to have all these Somalis coming in here. So, and this is this loads that comes in where you can tab on people's phone and tab in their emails and I'm honestly afraid of my own self. Oh, I am too. I can't, you know, when anybody talked to me on the phone, I'm very careful what I'm saying. I can't open my mouth anymore. And if I, even when I'm here, when I'm talking, I don't know what's gonna happen to me after I get out of here. So, and I want to Muslim feel the same way. I'm not the only one. I understand. But now look, I think, again, let's get back to the problem of fear. I think I'll give George Bush credit for a couple of points that he made early on in the terrorist crisis when he actually stated that we as a country represent all faiths. He went, he has been, he went directly to Islamic leaders. Yes, he did. He recently, and what's the key is Islamic holiday where he showed up at. At Al-Fatriah. That's right. And he was there in Washington. I mean, and if you know, if somebody representing Mr. Bush is listening right now, I'll just say, hey, you get big numbers when you do that. People want that kind of leadership. That's the kind of president we want. We don't want a president that says that he has to have his spies find out what we're doing with our computer keyboards. We need a president that I think would speak for the best and the strengths of the American people. People all over the world, I disagree with something you said. You said everybody hates us. Actually, there's a lot of people that hate us. I know that. But there's a lot of people. It's not so much hate as it is deep frustration. Frustration with what they know that this country is capable of. They know what we can do and what we did in Europe and what we've done that we could expand the Peace Corps. That's right. They've seen Americans at their best and they want us to go there again. I think that they like American people but dislike what our foreign policy, what the corporations are doing. And when the political officials say that we are protecting American values or many things they assign as American, they're really talking about business interests. They're not talking about values. And so I think that's what America is about. So, and it's not between the corporate wishes, excuse me, the corporate wishes and the American wishes of the public are two different things. And but politicians don't make that distinction what oil companies want and what the people want. Well, there was one thing too, the same George Bush that made these nice statements also hasn't done much to stop incarcerating people. Profiling beyond, you know, without courts, without due process. And I just think that it seems to be a political balance for him. We give him a kudo but he's still locking innocent people and holding them. Yeah, and profiling and yeah. Hello, is there someone there? Hello? Hello, this is Mike. All right, do you have a question for us? Thank you for calling. Do you have a question? Yes, I do. I'm enjoying the show. Thank you very much for putting it on. I think we'll need to see more. Thank you. And I'm looking for a little help from you folks, perhaps maybe some guidance. Most of the people that I've talked to. Could you talk a little louder? Yes. Most of the people I've talked to do not agree with Bush. They don't agree with his policies or the direction he's taking us. I don't think anybody is convinced that Bush is actually evil or malicious but perhaps that he's just lost his way and needs guidance. Some of the comments have been made that people are reacting or operating out of fear. And we're certainly getting, there's that. There's also influence being provided by corporate America as somebody suggested earlier and by the media. And certainly the elected officials are influenced by the desire to keep their elected positions. What's missing is some kind of mechanism for the people who have an opinion to express their opinion. I certainly know that a lot of people are feeling like this is something that's happening to them. They feel disenfranchised. We seem to have lost the mechanism and the democracy for the people to express their will coherently and plainly to their elected officials. And you folks perhaps maybe address some of the mechanisms that are available for us now that might be effective. All right, we have about a couple of minutes left and so we'll see what we can do with that. Thank you for calling. I'm gonna point out one thing to the caller. And that is that people should not underestimate the power of the pen just for openers now. There's a lot of other things you can do. You can be in marches. You can make sure you vote. You can speak out against hate at home and at the workplace. You can tell people openly that what you want this country to be but if you write a letter, I used to work in the state capital and my boss used to tell me, he'd say, give me that postcard, I wanna read. I'd say, it's just a postcard. I mean, I was gonna give you an analysis. I don't want the analysis. I want the postcard. Look at the postcard. Do you know if somebody writes a postcard, the rule of thumb is that there's another 300 people that didn't have time to write that agree. And I'm telling people for 23 cents or whatever it is now, I guess they raised the rates, 27 cents, whatever it is. Hold the Congress's feet to the fire. They said the president's supposed to work with the UN. Well, let's see if he will. And just because they passed a war resolution, that's not a blank check. Write a postcard. And Mike, Mike, write a postcard. All right, one other question about that. Postcards are effective. What about emails and phone calls, especially how effective are they? Well, I don't know because I mean, I didn't work at the capital. Personally, I think that the internet has been valuable to people who are opposed to war and in favor of King's points of view of working and taking a stand, being courageous. I think there's a lot of information you get that you don't get in the newspaper. Now, you have to be careful. You don't know when it's a solid opinion, but I mean, what is the newspaper? And certainly it's beating a lot of the news. Now, there are some radio shows, such as KBFA, and some that really have very, very fine reporting that do give another point of view other than the governments. But I think that Ken is right. The power of the pen, not only writing letters, writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper, calling in such as Mike and the other lady did, and her listening are involved. And I think having panels, forums, and now, of course, I'm just gonna say, bringing resolutions to local. All right, well, that's very good. We're down to a final minute. What, this very great discussion. And I'm happy that you're my guest. And it's been a terrific job. All right, final word. Tansy, you know, I wanna tell you, you make a great moderator because you know we're all gonna keep talking. You managed right there to bring everything into a nice close, even if we fade out. Martin Luther King was spied upon by the FBI. Martin Luther King was a victim of some things which we thought the government had promised they would not do anymore. And in the USA Patriot Act, they've announced they're gonna do it again. And I think people should know that on February 5th, the Davis City Council is going to take a look at the USA Patriot Act. Great. Councilman Harrington is sponsoring a resolution for the council to look at. The Human Relations Commission voted in favor of it. We did. And we would ask people to get down there, you know? Now, this is right out of Martin Luther King because he was the victim of it. We're in fade out. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. You have faded out. Thank you very much. You're all right. It's great. I can't be very nervous actually, but you guys made me very comfortable. Yeah, it was wonderful. I really appreciate being in here with you. Thank you very much. Thank you. You forgot about the camera, didn't you? I didn't even look at it. I had to look at it because Ken's face kept popping up.