Pamela Johnson's Blog

One day, a year and a half ago, I casually read a list of issues that Bernie Sanders believed in promoting. Although I did not know much of Bernie at the time, perhaps seeing him a few times on Bill Maher, I loved his resolve to give a clear voice to a number of concerns I had. I began to talk to people about Bernie, and the more I heard him speak, the more I read of his past, saw his unpretentiousness, his absolute integrity, his foresight and vision, the more staunchly I stood behind him.

Not many days have passed in the last year and a half when I did not promote Bernie in some way—contribute financially to the campaign, write about him, share on social media, talk to others, and believe in the opportunity of his candidacy to change our society. The hope was for a revolution–one that moves us from a capitalistic system where the factors of production are owned by individuals making all the wealth, to one of democratic socialism, a true political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. This was, after all, the psychedelic dream of the sixties. A society that cared for all its people. That a whole new generation of millennials had accepted the promise to work and struggle for a better future, was oil on fire. As a movement, we understood that the very life of the planet was at stake.

Unknown copy 6Like millions of other Americans who supported Bernie and who are now being told we are faced with a Hillary/Trump choice, I am at sea. Where do we go? What do we do? More importantly, who gets our vote?

My overwhelming emotion in these last days has been grief, as if something precious has been lost, never to be retrieved. At the moment, I simply need to grieve for the possibilities of what could have been.

One argument is that Bernie moved Hillary to the left of center, that his strong showing influenced the party platform. For this, we should be grateful. Although the platform has many of the elements that Bernie and his democratic followers fought for, we ask ourselves if Hillary has the political will? Part of our grief is knowing that the one person who could have truly led us into a progressive future, was forced into making a terrible choice—whether to take his millions of followers and begin a new and desperately needed third party, possibly giving the election to Trump, or stay the course and take the, hopefully, sure way by handing an undisputed nomination to Hillary.

In my grief, the image that keeps playing over and over in my mind, a kind of PTSD, is watching Bernie walk off the stage after his speech on Monday night, his head bowed, his shoulders slumped, knowing full well what he had done, and falling on his sword. Should he have pulled a Ted Cruz, taken his followers and moved to the Green Party with Jill Stein?

There is a real possibility that he could have succeeded and really made history. With a poll of 15% of the vote, he would have been on the presidential debate stage, and now, introduced to the American people, he would have a better chance at delivering a message that was not promoted at the beginning of his campaign by mainstream media. A good many traditional Republicans would have voted for him, as well as Democrats and Independents.

I pray he does not come to regret his decision. If Donald Trump is elected in the fall, then all our work, financial efforts, hopes and dreams, his sacrifice and the sacrifices of millions of others, will be in vain.

images-3 copyWhen others ask why Bernie’s followers are angry, or call us sore losers, or tell us to get over it, or suggest we have to see reality, or use fear of the Republicans to insist that we vote for Hillary, we need to step back and say to them why we feel the way we do—the DNC had already anointed Hillary before the race began, the person who continually tipped the “neutral” scales was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a woman who has now been promoted to a higher position in the Hilary campaign. We know that people were wiped off voter rolls, provisional ballots uncounted, polling venues greatly reduced, Bernie ignored by the corporate media, and when finally given air time, the news story was always slanted toward Hillary (Time Werner (CNN) is 8th on the list of Hillary’s top contributors to the tune of over $400,000). The coup de gras was Hillary’s declaration of presumptive nominee while the people of California were still voting.

Bernie supporters are angry because they recognize corruption and unfairness. While we are working for more thoughtful government without big money political influence, one that works solely for its citizens, we are being pushed into voting for a campaign that is being influenced by corporations. Bernie supporters are asking: Is this a democracy?

Some are saying that Bernie sold out. But I believe he was caught between a rock and a hard pile. He truly believes that the most important issue that faces us now is to beat Trump and continue to promote the movement he has begun. I believe he will spend the summer traveling this country to get progressives elected in local, state, and national elections, and promoting the revolution of democratic socialism, a movement away from the 1% that owns as much wealth as the bottom 99%, and in doing so, our laws and our lives.

I am bothered by the huge amount of attention surrounding the fact that Hillary is a woman. This is a smokescreen to garner votes. Anyone—regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation or gender—should be able to secure a nomination. The person I wish to elect is not one who is male or female, but one will fight for the issues.

I watched Bill Clinton’s very sanitized speech last night, as he enumerated all of Hillary’s many fights over the years and none of her mistakes. Political mistakes are a whole different brand of mistakes. Bill Clinton changed the focus of the Democratic Party during his election from workers to white collar men so that he could garner the Southern vote. His Crime Bill of 1994 created mass incarceration of minorities and draconian sentencing. His trade agreement, NAFTA, destroyed American jobs without replacing them. Hillary’s vote on the war in Iraq created untold misery for millions of people. These are not mistakes that we can lightly gloss over. They are mistakes of the elite, of those who have forgotten the despair of generational poverty. They are mistakes that show a lack of vision and judgment.images-1 copy

Now we are told that we are faced with a choice of fascism or oligarchy. Death by bullet or death by quicksand.

For those of you who stood looking up at the huge screen of Hillary and the shattering glass, her too-long eerie silence while adulation reigned, looking like a scene from Hunger Games, be SURE that you know a vote for Hillary means a boots-on-the-ground war in the Middle East, continued fracking that will pollute our ground water, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a treaty that will cause havoc with our environment, create job destabilization, and further empower corporations able to override a nation’s laws, and an agreement that has no exit clause worked into the document.

As for the rest of it: Will Hillary change the marijuana laws, erase felony drug records, release people from prison for crimes that several states are now making millions on, change the way we treat our prisoners, offer counseling, life skills, and job training, increase a man or woman’s self-esteem before they leave prison?

Will she improve schools, change the foods kids eat, and support before and after school programs in science, the arts, and sports?

Will she find ways to deal with the proliferation and sales of assault rifles?

Will the illegal immigration issue finally be solved?

Will the Glass-Steagall Act be strengthened?

What of the issue of diminishing and destroying capitalism—the real direction of the revolution? Will she be able to stand against her largest donors to whom she is indebted: banks, investment companies, and media corporations.

So for those of you who ask how we are feeling as Bernie Sanders supporters after his Monday night speech—it’s time YOU understand. No, we are not going to automatically accept Hillary Clinton as the nominee. Not without careful thought. The issues are much too complicated to decide out of fear, or rationalizations, or shame. Give us time to come to terms with what many consider the loss of our nation, and quite possibly, our planet.

For the moment, give us the space to grieve. Respect our right to do so. As we get closer to November, as we listen to the debates, as we weigh what is real and what is convention illusion, we will make our decision on voting.

One of the largest misrepresentations of this election is that Hillary Clinton has earned her right to be President. Hillary pundits will tell us that she has experience, and more importantly, that she is a woman. So important. The time has come for the United States to have a woman President.

Agreed. The time has come. But not this woman.

I see so many of my bright, beautiful friends being sucked into this illusion.

I feel as if I am back in 1968, and we have a choice for a Democratic nominee—Eugene McCarthy—the man who would end the war in Vietnam, the nominee who would open the door to the possibilities of a new culture, the candidate supported by the youth of America. Activists took to the streets of Chicago with the words: “the whole world is watching”, and indeed, the world was watching to see which way the scales would tip—would the corporations and munitions factories, Dow Chemical and Monsanto, continue to make millions off the war, or would we be able to bring the young men home and move toward establishing peace in Asia? Instead of hope and an end to war and special interest groups, we got Hubert Humphrey a defeat in the General Election, and Richard Nixon as President.

It would be difficult to put into words the enormous hope we had for creating a better world in the sixties, and for the election of someone who would change the world along with us.

When I look at the youth of our nation rallying around Bernie Sanders and his stirring message of possibilities, not only for this country, but for the future of the world, I see that same hope arisen in a new generation. “According to NBC News/SurveyMonkey’s latest weekly tracking poll (January 12, 2016), Sanders has captured 68% of Democratic voters under 24 years old, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a lonely 26%.” A vote for Hillary and her “things will go on just as they are” policy, is to take hope from our youth.

In 2008 I voted for President Obama because I knew that Hillary had voted for the war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation’s history. The fact of this disaster, then and now, cannot be over emphasized. Hillary simply did not have the courage to do the right thing, afraid a “no” vote would be political suicide after 9/11. She had her eye to this moment, to the Presidency. It would have taken a great deal of personal integrity and strength to say “I know this is simply a war for oil.” But Bernie had that strength of character.

When we went to war in 2011, I left my home in suburbia and for the first time since the seventies, marched in protest in a giant gathering in San Francisco. Our smaller group marched alongside Friends of Father Bill O’Donald from St. Joseph the Worker Catholic Church in Berkeley. Father O’Donald had recently passed away, tired after numerous stints in jail for refusing to return at-risk immigrants over to immigration to be deported and killed.

We all knew what the Iraqui war was about—a way for the Chaney bunch to steal the oil reserves they had been craving for the oil companies. We knew, even those of us who had been buried for years under children and schoolwork and volunteering in the schools. And Hillary did not?

She knew.

Why is it Hillary is the last to jump on board the bus for the common good? Like in every other case in which she has “evolved” her position, she lacks courage, integrity, and character. Nor is her desire for power a small motivator.

Hillary at one time supported the Keystone Pipeline—will she continue to support the veto, or change her mind again? Cave to special interests? Bernie has always been against the Pipeline.

She was the last to champion LGBT rights, and to promote the marriages of all our citizens, including those who are gay. Once again, she only came on board in 2013 after watching others do it and feeling that the political fallout would be acceptable.

Hillary refuses to champion the minimum wage to $15.00/hour—so far. Instead, she supports a $12.00/hour minimum wage, guaranteeing that someone will have to work two jobs.

From The Nation: “Socialist feminism assumes that redistribution is the best way to begin improving life for the vast majority of women, both materially and socially. To take a none-too-radical example, in countries like Denmark and 
Sweden—which offer a broad range of social benefits provided through the state rather than acquired in desperation, as they so often are here, through marriage or a job—women can live more comfortably; raise healthier, more secure children; and sleep with whomever they please. Throughout her long career, Clinton has demonstrated contempt for turning this project into policy.” (The Nation, January 5, 2016, “Why This Socialist Feminist Is Not Voting for Hillary”)

Hillary says she wants to fix the criminal justice system, but does not support the legalization of marijuana. The number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2014: 700,993. The number of those arrested for marijuana law violations whose most serious offense was possession only: 619,809 (88 percent).

Hillary will bring us into further wars. She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying in 2015: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” Obliterate?

She also supports war in Syria. From The Guardian, 19 November 2015. “Hillary Clinton calls for more ground troops as part of hawkish Isis strategy–Democrat wants to ‘intensify and broaden’ Obama’s policy with greater use of special forces, but rules out return to mass deployment of US troops”.

In the Huffington Post, November 9, 2015, columnist H.A. Goodman writes: “Clinton always evolves; usually following Bernie’s lead on issues. I wouldn’t sign a contract with an “evolving” clause, nor would I want a president who continually evolves based upon reasons unknown to the average voter.” I couldn’t say this better, except to add that Hillary is not a policy leader, she’s a follower—although she will have Bill as an advisor, if that’s the kind of President you want.

A vote for Bernie means we can look ahead to creating the progressive kind of society we know we should be creating—one that those of my generation have worked and struggled toward for 50 years.

Bernie has been called a “one in a lifetime candidate”. This is no ordinary election—the entire future of the history of our planet lies on the decision we will make.

We have an alternative to Hillary, and to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and the rest. Someone who speaks clearly and with integrity and courage.

Please, dear friends, the whole world is watching.

If you have not heard the story of the blind men and the elephant…

Once several blindman came upon an elephant. The first said, “Oh, an elephant is like a large rough wall.” The second said, “No. An elephant is like a thin short stick with hair at the end.” A third said, “You are both wrong. An elephant is like a huge narrow leaf.” “Indeed not,” said a fourth, “The elephant is hard, smooth, and pointed.” “You are all are incorrect,” said the last, “an elephant is like a hose.”

Moral of the story: All the men were right and wrong, but to get a clear picture of an elephant, one must take each observation to make a whole animal.

When I first started to begin to use social media about three months ago, I was rather excited to share my thoughts and those of others. Before that time, I had only visited Facebook every three or four months, and when I did think to post something, I was so new to the system, I was terrified–until I found the “edit” button.

Everyone in the publishing industry was adamant that to promote my new series of books, A Nation of Mystics, I had to use social media. There was a large price tag attached to hiring someone to set me on the social path, so I spent weeks learning new skills (instead of writing)–setting up new accounts on Facebook, both book and author page, new accounts on LinkedIn and Twitter, discovering hashtags, Instagram, and Google+. There was the blog to write, the web author page to maintain, daily postings, an author profile on Goodreads.

After days (weeks, really!) of effort I finally began to post in ernest on Facebook, developed a presence on several sites that I thought would suit the theme of my books, and began to delight in sending news of interest for publication. In those first days, I was quite taken with this marvelous new world of sharing–political news, art, photography, health suggestions, history, music, stories of interest–all leaning toward the themes in my writing–environmental issues, the politics of equality, the possibilities of a world of peace. I found myself sending articles and pictures to people I knew would enjoy them, a lovely way to give a gift.

In my enthusiasm, I was truly unprepared for the world that would open before me and for what I had to learn. My small circle (by comparison to the millions on Facebook), generally had the same goals, could discuss items of interest with great passion, and support each other by pushing back the boundaries of our understanding.

After a few days on Facebook, I suddenly felt I had slipped down the rabbit hole, all sense of perspective gone.

Rule #1: Never take it for granted that most people feel the same way you do about issues (even if they’re on a site called Peace and Love).

My first eye-opener occurred when I realized that each post I published, whether whimsical or politically driven, prompted as many attitudes as the number of people responding. And there the story of the elephant needs recalling. As a former university professor, I had often thrown out a clipping or newsworthy article to have students comment. The point was to broaden a topic by looking at all parts of the elephant. But with Facebook, rather than have control of a classroom discussion with mature adults, any post became a piece of raw meat that appeared to cause a feeding frenzy of comment.

While some of the comments led me to believe that many supported the particular post I’d made, others shared with me a level of vitriol that was hard to fathom. I believed that those sharing my experiences in the sixties would have a certain mindset. Although many still held to old ideas and looked forward to promoting peace through cooperation, others evidenced a cynicism that was difficult for me to understand.

I still believed that as a group, the deep themes of compassion and the search for non-violent solutions to problems was a given. Now I found among those who had shared my experiences in the sixties, angry, fearful people who demanded guns without restrictions, trashed immigrants, attacked Malala (nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize) for her insistence on the power of education, and spouted conservative rhetoric about race and religion.

There were those who refused to support the President or to see his grace while he worked through the years of a Congress and a Republican tea party who did everything possible to hinder his policies, regardless of who was harmed.

Which brings me to the second discovery:

Rule #2: Never consider that people want to be intellectually stimulated

A brief, and one would think, interesting video explanation I posted on the differences between democratic socialism, communism, and fascism caused an uproar. Clearly, these are the important political choices we will make in the new year as we move into elections. Yet the number of people who felt threatened by the very discussion was mind-boggling.

When asked why I posted such items, my only response: “Thinking is good.”

Too often I was told that politics shouldn’t be a part of the postings. And yet, what was the sixties other than political–everything from long hair to smoking ganja to “dropping out” caused a shift in the political process. One hundred thousand of the young of our nation made their way to the Haight in 1967. A half million people appeared at Woodstock in 1969. These were people who wanted change, who worked for change, and who created a new culture of change–awareness of the earth, of the role of women, of gender, sexual, and social equality, of whole food and yoga and meditation, who worked, and still work, for a world of peace. Wearing long hair was a sign of independence then, but it also meant tweaking the nose of the military-industrial complex, “ain’t gonna’ study war no more”.

Trying to speak to such people who believed differently lead to the next discovery:

Rule #3: Never think you can respond to anger in one line

When I considered how I was to logically answer questions and comments laced with cynicism, fear, rudeness, or insecurity, I had no idea where to begin. Often, the problem was not even the fault of the angry challenger, but the size of the issue. Soon there was another response by someone else, then two, ten, sometimes a hundred, all different facets of the elephant. Where do you begin to explain (in a line) why xenophobia is bad?

My purpose had been to stir the pot, to share, to remove lassitude, to become strong as a group by intellectual discussion, finally, to join together in strength. Yet even when I found myself apologizing profusely to someone who had typed in some harsh comment: “I’m sorry. I did not mean to offend. Our purpose is to come together rather than create animosity”, the comments would go on, sometimes for days, others joining the fight over something that should be obvious–simply, love the earth and all sentient beings on it.

At one point, I wondered if I could continue, or if I should leave Facebook forever. I consulted with everyone I knew who had an interest in social media. How could being separated by a screen gave the power to be ill mannered at best and cruel at worst? I found that I was not alone in my concerns. Social media could be blamed for everything from divorce to suicide. No one had any answers, except to say that “it happened” and it “wasn’t pleasant”.

So what to do?

Rule #4: Try to listen

I discovered if I was to continue on social media, I needed to develop the ability to listen to the other voice, and if it was an impossible situation, to skim through the response. Ignore what I could not change (in one line). Develop a tougher skin.

Rule #5: Make friends

Just at that tipping point where I found that social media might not be for me, a few new people I had met on Facebook reached out, supporting, going out of their way to introduce be to others, and caring. Their efforts were a breath of fresh air in this closed system, renewing my faith in the people of my generation.

Now, when people want me to respond to their posts or accept a friend request, I have learned to research their sites and home pages and to look for the good in what they are presenting. If I feel they have the same purpose and a positive intention, I am happy to respond.

Rule #5 Research the source

I have come to realize that to continue to publish, regardless of response, I must be true to my own values and post the truth as I see it. I still find nothing appealing in the politics of fear mongering. I still believe it important to educate and to take a stand when confronted with racism and xenophobia. I fully support restrictions on firearms (have we really decided yet whether the Constitution guarantees state militia the right to bear arms or every individual in the state–depends on the Constitutional scholar you’re asking). So . . .

Rule #5: Be yourself.

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama tells us over and over that the goal of every man is peace and happiness. Yet that is the great debate of our country and one that occurs on social media–how do we achieve that happiness.

For the time being, I will continue my publications, and I will be myself. That self means choosing a political, spiritual, and social path that shares with others, for I know, in the deepest place of reason, that the only way we will survive these perilous times, is to care for the whole. And in doing so, achieve that happiness.

When asked if I wanted to see the new Star Wars movie, I thought of several reasons why I simply didn’t have time for it. I wondered if I could take a few hours to see something I was sure would be a bit slow with an overly simple plot. But to make several people happy, I left my typing and found myself in a movie theater on a Saturday afternoon.

We pre-purchased our tickets (Day 2 after release), arrived at the theater an hour early to ensure good seats (I thought I was being overly cautious), found a long line, took a place at the back, and waited. Around me, others were there and I listened as they told stories of their Star Wars experiences. One man told his group that he’d already heard that “you’ve got to see the movie more than once”.

Then the groups began to mingle, to talk to each other, about where they were when the first Star Wars movie was released, about the experiences of their kids, about whether or not Hans kissed Princess Leia in any of the films, yes, once, but not until the third film when Leia unfroze him from the carbonite. It was only in the second film that Leia said “I love you” and he said “I know”. I marveled that those lines had so touched the people around me that they were still remembered thirty-five years later.

Thinking back, speaking to the people around me in line, I was reminded of the first time I saw the first film at the Coronet Theater in San Francisco. We were living in the East Bay when Star Wars could only be seen in ONE movie theater in the nation. Not many (any) theaters were up for taking a chance on innovation in art. On the day it was about 105 degrees in Orinda, we went to the Coronet and a comfortable 70 degree San Francisco. We couldn’t get in to the first movie, but we’d been warned. We brought chairs, a cooler, and made friends in line as we waited for the first available show. My god-daughter reminded me that we had to wait for the third movie that day.

Once into the Coronet Theater, a whole new world came to life–not simply space ships and extra-terrestrial worlds, but a world of multi-species co-existence in a galaxy far, far away. Most importantly, the Force was a powerful idea representing the Light, an energy running through all things, and if you were strong enough and wise enough, you could learn to use the Force.

On this December afternoon in 2015, thirty-eight years later, we settled into our chairs with popcorn and drinks to watch Star Wars Episode VII, The Force Awakens. As soon as the film began, I knew we had a good group in the theater. There was a sense that we were on a journey together, not only one of memory, but one of renewal. As characters were introduced into the story, there was spontaneous applause. With each poignant scene, the audience was there with the story–gasping, crying, laughing.

Most remarkable, they wanted to be there.

At one point it occurred to me that attending this movie was a spiritual experience. We were reminded of things that are important to remember–that there is good in the world, sometimes it does not come easy, but we always have a choice, whether to choose the Dark side or the Light.

As I watched this marvelous multi-racial-gender-age-species film, it became so clear that the producers and directors had brought to life an extraordinary message. At a time when we are desperately in need of good in the world, when there is evil abroad and intolerance, racial stereotyping, and xenophobia at home, director Jeffrey Abrams has given us a world where we are reminded that it is the soul, intention, and ability of a man that is important–not his race, religion, age, or gender. Everything else is illusion.

For the many children who saw Episode VII today, I hope the message of the Force becomes a touchstone for who they are and who they may become.

May the Force be with you.

About ten years ago, I had just returned from Jamaica where I had spent time in trying to develop a recycling center. In the course of my stay on the island, I had come to know a good many Rastas.

Rastafarianism, briefly, is a back-to-Africa movement that holds Haile Selassie, the one-time Emperor of Ethiopia, as a living god, believes the Bible to be sacred text, and uses ganja as a sacrament in understanding the divine.

There are a great many nuances in Rastafarianism that cannot be placed in a single sentence—food choices made on Biblical instruction (pork is unclean), I-tal food is better—natural and clean—lots of vegetables and fruits and fish not over 12 inches long, no alcohol; the role of women (a very conservative patriarchal society); attitudes towards sex (lots of it for men reflecting his personal power, while women are to be monogamous); an unflinching belief that Haile Selassie is alive and well; a contempt of Babylon (Western imperialism and the corresponding social and political domination); and a ban on cutting hair, leading to beards and dreadlocks.

In returning to the United States those years ago, I learned college-kid-with-dreadsthat a good friend was to play guitar with Mickey Hart at the World Music Festival in Marysville, California. On arriving at the music fest, I was surprised to see vendors selling the same goods I had just left vendors selling in Jamaica—tee shirts with Rasta colors, pipes, decals, and many other Jamaican items. Small stores created to look like a Caribbean village sold hemp clothing, Jamaican jerk, and I-tal food.

What was most amazing to me was the number of vendors and families from Humboldt County. And in looking closely at these white dreads, those wearing the dreadlocks of the Rastafarians, it was clear to me that these were generational family members. The elders of this tribe were old hippies, perhaps in their sixties, a second generation of older adults in their forties, children in their twenties, and a whole group of younger kids under five, some riding on hips and others with long hair already growing out.

Astounded at first, I asked myself what this was about. Clearly, this was not a back-to-Africa movement, nor did this cultural group believe in the godliness of Haile Selassie. Rather, this was a group who had chosen ganja as a sacrament and who had put their beliefs and spirituality into a religion that also held ganja as a sacrament. Where else was there a place for the spiritual use of Cannabis in American society.

Over the years, the dynamic of Rastafarianism has spread worldwide. Those white dreads I first viewed are no longer unique, but can be found in every country. With those deadlocks, there is often a belief in vegetarianism, social justice, political liberalism, and an acceptance that ganja is sacramental and offers a spiritual experience.

Now with the end of marijuana/ganja/Cannabis prohibition on the horizon, with California apparently ready to legalize “recreational” marijuana in November of 2016, with more states accepting medial Cannabis, with Bernie Sanders prepared to introduce legislation that will remove Cannabis from the controlled substance Schedule 1 list of drugs that have no medical uses, isn’t it time to think about what the use of Cannabis and the change in consciousness really is?

The Rastafarians have known for a long time that ganja is aUnknown sacrament. Bob Marley, perhaps the world’s best-known Rastafarian has said: “When you smoke the herb, it revels you to yourself.” Also: “Herb is the healing of a nation; alcohol its destruction.” The source of this belief—the Bible: Genesis 3:18 “…thou shalt eat of the herb of the field”, and Proverbs 15:17 “Better is a dinner of herb where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith”.

As we move into this new era of legalization, whether personal use is for medical reasons and the outstanding benefits of some strains of Cannabis, or for relaxation (Rastas believe this is part of creating peace), there can be little doubt that there is a heightening of consciousness. If, as a culture, we learn to respect the Cannabis experience, if we approach our experiences as sacramental, where might that insight take us as a people?

I recently went to see another one of Tom Hank’s extraordinary movies, Bridge of Spies. UnknownNo one watching the film could be untouched by the scenes of the building of the Berlin Wall—first the movement of people from the houses surrounding the area, the concrete blocks and cement delivered by trucks, the barbed wire resting aimlessly about while the building is completed, and finally, the creation of the no-man’s land of barbed wire, machine gun towers, and sniper positions between the last house on the East German side and the wall itself. There it stands in the film, ugly, gray, threatening, and towering over the city. A place where one must pass single-file through Checkpoint Charlie.

Years ago, Robert Frost wrote about walls:

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,

That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,

And spills the upper boulders in the sun;

And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.”

Robert Frost, 1914

The Berlin Wall, of course, had three purposes—the first, physical, to control the lives of East German people; the second, political, to make a comment to the West, to the idea of capitalism, to sere a burning comment into those who look upon it; and finally, the emotional, to shun acceptance of the differences of others and to crush the human spirit seeking freedom and happiness.

Today, we are confronted on a daily basis by the thought of a wall to be built on our southern border, proposed and promoted by Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“It’s something that can be absolutely done, not done at tremendous cost,” Mr. Trump said on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria.” “You know, it’s been costed by politicians and they came out with these outrageous numbers. As you know, I know how to build. I know how to get it done. We’ll have a great wall. We’ll call it the Great Wall of Trump. We’ll have a great wall and it’ll be — it’ll be actually — it can be a good-looking wall, as walls go, but we will have a really terrific wall and it’ll be done for the right price.” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...)

Some have called the proposed policy “moronic”. Douglas Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, writes in Foreign Policy magazine, August 18, 2015, that the Mexican border is perhaps the most patrolled and highly defended border anywhere in the world for two closely connected countries at peace with one another. Judging from the border, you’d never know Mexico was a friendly nation linked to the United States by a treaty agreement worth over half a trillion dollars in annual trade.

He goes on to explain how we got to this position. President Ronald Reagan created a climate of fear concerning terrorism on the Mexican border (incidentally, not the Canadian border), and promoted the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, militarizing the border with Mexico.

Before 1986, migrant and illegal workers generally came to work in the United States, then returned to Mexico with money to invest in their own communities. But once the common border entry points were blockaded at El Paso and San Diego, migrant workers had to spend more time and money, and great risk, to cross the Arizona deserts. What began as an attempt on the part of the U.S. government to discourage border crossing, backfired. Men could no longer take the physical or economic risk of returning to Mexico and then re-crossing into the United States for seasonal work. According to estimates of the Mexican Migration Project, since 1986, more than 7000 Mexican immigrants have died and the average cost of the crossing rose from $650 to $4500. (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/d...) Workers stayed. Thus began the large number of illegal immigrants.

Perhaps Mr. Trump feels the same sentiment that Carl Sanders’s neighbor voiced in 1914: “Good fences make good neighbors.”

Might we not equally ask the questions Mr. Sanders asked himself at that time:

“…I wonder

If I could put a notion in his head:

‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it

Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.

Before I built a wall I’d ask to know

What I was walling in or walling out,

And to whom I was like to give offense.

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,

That wants it down.'”

There are other walls in recent history that also seek to separate people, and for every wall there are those who are affected: physically, politically, and emotionally:

The Egypt-Gaza Barrier, built by Israel to purportedly reduce the smuggling of arms, munitions, and militants through tunnels. The wall will be 7-11 kilometers in length and extend 60 feet underground when completed.

The Kuwait-Iraq wall spanning 120 miles.

The Great Wall of Morroco, 1600 miles thorough sand, separating the Moroccan-controlled Southern Provinces controlled by the Polisario Front (a Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement) and northern Morocco. Known by some as the Wall of Shame, it prevents Sahrawi refugees from returning to their homelands.

The Israeli West Bank Barrier, 420 miles, separating Israelis and Palestinians.

The current India/ Pakistan border barrier runs 340 miles and is composed of barbed wire, thermal imagers, and sensors. It is patrolled, lighted, and its lights can be seen from space at night.

Perhaps the most famous of all walls of separation is the Great Wall of China. Built over several centuries by a combined labor force of soldiers, convicts, and commoners, the great wall is said to have taken the lives of over 400,000 workers, most of who were buried within the wall itself.

How many others will be buried because of other walls we humans build?

“…I see him there

Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top

In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.

He moves in darkness as it seems to me,

Not of woods only and the shade of trees.”

Perhaps it is time to also ask: Do fences make good neighbors?



Mending Wall by Robert Frost, 1914, in its entirety:

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,

That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,

And spills the upper boulders in the sun;

And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.

The work of hunters is another thing:

I have come after them and made repair

Where they have left not one stone on a stone,

But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,

To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,

No one has seen them made or heard them made,

But at spring mending-time we find them there.

I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;

And on a day we meet to walk the line

And set the wall between us once again.

We keep the wall between us as we go.

To each the boulders that have fallen to each.

And some are loaves and some so nearly balls

We have to use a spell to make them balance:

‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’

We wear our fingers rough with handling them.

Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,

One on a side. It comes to little more:

There where it is we do not need the wall:

He is all pine and I am apple orchard.

My apple trees will never get across

And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.

He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’

Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder

If I could put a notion in his head:

‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it

Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.

Before I built a wall I’d ask to know

What I was walling in or walling out,

And to whom I was like to give offense.

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,

That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,

But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather

He said it for himself. I see him there

Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top

In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.

He moves in darkness as it seems to me,

Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

He will not go behind his father’s saying,

And he likes having thought of it so well

He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’

I can remember most vividly three books that were a staple of our bookshelf as my children were growing up: Loving Hands: The Traditional Indian Art of Baby Massage by Frederick Leboyer; Free to Be You and Me by Marlo Thomas and Christopher Cerf; and Be a Frog, a Bird, or a Tree/ Rachel Carr’s Creative Yoga Exercises for Children by Rachel Carr.

I often gave my children massage as infants and toddlers; sang with them to the songs of Free to Be You and Me while encouraging their creativity in a safe space; and became that frog, bird, or tree with them. All revolutionary ideas in the United States at that time. Even in California. Even in Berkeley.

Today the ideas that were first promoted by sixties youth looking east to the ancient traditions of Asia, are commonplace and a part of school curriculums promoting wellness, conflict resolution, and mindfulness.

Mindfulness is a concept developed for understanding meditation. It refers to being in this place, at this time and conscious of this moment. Teaching breathing techniques to children puts them in the moment. The breath carries with it relaxation and quiet alertness. Often, it simply takes ten deep breaths, pulling air deep into the lungs and into the stomach, then slowly releasing it, fully, letting the mind travel on the air by concentrating on the flow into and out of the body. Yogis have given a name to the unique quality of the energy of the air, calling it prana.

Today, there are a great many new books for children on mindfulness and meditation. Below is a small sample of the wonderful work authors are creating for parents and children.

In an article in The Atlantic “When Mindfulness Meets the Classroom”, English teacher Argos Gonzalez speaks of mindfulness to students in one of New York City’s poorest districts (http://www.theatlantic.com/education/...). In his hands he holds a Tibetan meditation bell, a bowl that when tapped, lets out a reverberating sound throughout the classroom.

“Today we’re going to talk about mindfulness of emotion,” Gonzalez [says] with a hint of a Venezuelan accent. ‘You guys remember what mindfulness is…[it’s] being aware of our feelings, our emotions, and how they impact us’.”

Gonzales then begins to teach them about breathing and how the breath can lead to mindfulness and a sense of how to deal with emotions.

Janette Scott, in an article in The Art of Living, lists five reasons children should meditate (http://www.artofliving.org/meditation...). First, to harness the monkey mind, the mind that jumps from place to place, and often, the body jumping with it. Meditation has been shown to improve attention and to help children with ADD or ADHD.

Secondly, meditation helps children with the stresses of puberty, the physical and emotional challenges of first becoming an adult. Rather than a child wonder how he or she will be perceived, meditation allows for a center to let thoughts pass freely and often to examine the emotions that accompany those thoughts, in a safe and quiet space.

Third, to de-stress over academic achievement. Meditation allows the brain to focus and mental activity to heighten.

Fourth, the teaching of mindfulness through meditation can lead to a healthy emotional development. Those things that are real and important often become clear in meditation. Studies have shown that meditation increases the capacity for compassion and empathy.

Finally, meditation allows for a different understanding of time. Children can understand that this moment will pass, and that they are a unique individual with a great deal to offer to society. In fact, a lifetime of potential and achievement.

The Telegraph in the United Kingdom recently posted a study: “What’s the difference between these two brains?”: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/healt...). The picture on the left is a cross-section of a brain belonging to a three-year-old who is loved and cared for by his mother. The picture on the right, the brain of a child who is ignored by his mother. The brain of the loved child is much larger. Through meditation with children, we know that the brain can develop into a powerful and healthy tool.

Schools around the world are now using meditation teachinques in the classroom. Teachers report that children are calmer and more focused as they begin the day.

The words of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, give us all pause to think and reflect: "If every eight year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world in one generation."

The sixties gave us a vision of the future, with new tools and skills, and an undeniable glimpse of the power of the mind. If we begin teaching peace, compassion, and empathy to children, giving them the skills to cope with life, growing, and human emotion, where could that mind-energy take us?

In listening to Pope Francis’s speech to the United Nations (September 25, 2015), his sentiment towards the environment and man’s place in it was strikingly familiar, one we had heard for many years. Man was a part of nature and our interrelationship was an intimate symbiotic reality. Clearly, so many ideas from the environmental movement, those ideas of ordinary people working of necessity to better the world, came together in one remarkable moment, in the form of a humble man lending his power to world enlightenment.

In an earlier post (Teach Your Children Well (Part 1) Man’s Place in Nature), I had written:

Part of the task in teaching environmentalism, was to help children understand the natural world and their place in it. Coming out of the sixties, many of us understood on a visceral level the oneness of all things. We knew we were only a tiny part of creation, that the universe coursed through us, and that we could use and direct mind energy into creating a world that was safe, sane, and aware…Man, our children learned, was only one small part of creation, and our existence was intimately bound to all other life.

These ideas were not mine alone, but ideas belonging to a human movement. Standing before the people of the world in the United Nations, Pope Francis agreed:

“First, it must be stated that a true ‘right of the environment’ does exist, for two reasons. First, because we human beings are part of the environment. We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human activity must acknowledge and respect. Man…possesses a body shaped by physical, chemical and biological elements, and can only survive and develop if the ecological environment is favourable. Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity.”

At the same time, I was reminded of the liberation theology that had grown in the Church in Latin America in the seventies, a Latin American Church with which Jorge Bergoglio would have been intimately familiar.

Born of Vatican II, Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian theologian and Dominican priest, returned to South America after the ecumenical council with the mandate of Pope John XXIII to study the social systems around him. As he observed, he began to see the possibilities of a mature church. At that time, Pope John had asked that Catholics adopt a more humble role in the world, appreciating the humility and material poverty of Christ. Gutierrez found that national leaders were indeed working to better their nations by development, but Gutierrez also began speaking of ‘liberation’, rather than development. Development was a system that merely came from dependence on First World countries and capitalism. Development was not raising the standard of living for anyone but the elite. The real problem, Gutierrez decided, was the oppression of the poor by governments who were sponsored by First World nations.

Gutierrez gave his observations, and a movement, a name with his book A Theology of Liberation (1971).

Very simply, liberation theology believes that a Christian’s duty is to create a world of peace. Christ told Peter to put down his sword. If a man is to know the fruitfulness of peace, he must have justice, for one cannot exist without the other.

Not simply legal justice, but justice that encompasses all the activities of life. When whole populations lack basic necessities, when they are forced to live in dependency on systems and institutions that take from them the very initiative and responsibility authority is supposed to promote, when the marginalized are denied participation in the social and political life of a nation, then we may consider those systems institutional violence.

At the United Nations, Pope Francis also said:

“The misuse and destruction of the environment are also accompanied by a relentless process of exclusion. In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged…economic and social exclusion is a complete denial of human fraternity and a grave offence against human rights and the environment. The poorest are those who suffer most from such offences…”

The reaction to liberation theology by conservatives is to cast the ideology as Christian Marxism, but Pope Francis reminded us that theology does not reduce faith to politics. Nor does it search for power. Rather, it searches for ways to aid the efforts of humans to discover their capacity. Society is no longer the servant of the Church. Instead, the Church becomes the servant of society. The system keeping the marginalized in place is modified to one of government and Church working together to enact social change. To teach correctness and consciousness raising. To narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

From the United Nations address:

“…we are dealing with real men and women who live, struggle and suffer, and are often forced to live in great poverty, deprived of all rights.

To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty, we must allow them to be dignified agents of their own destiny. Integral human development and the full exercise of human dignity cannot be imposed. They must be built up and allowed to unfold for each individual, for every family, in communion with others, and in a right relationship with all those areas in which human social life develops – friends, communities, towns and cities, schools, businesses and unions, provinces, nations…”

Liberation theology implies a thoughtful understanding of the relationship between God and man—a rethinking in the meaning of a Christian life. It proposes that if we are to work in the spirit of Christ and eliminate institutional violence, then we must rethink poverty. Not only material poverty, but the poverty of spirit. Transformation of society also means a transformation of self. Of discovering God’s concrete will for us. Only then do we find the very essence of God in what we do and what we become.

“Such understanding and respect call for a higher degree of wisdom, one which accepts transcendence, rejects the creation of an all-powerful élite, and recognises that the full meaning of individual and collective life is found in selfless service to others and in the sage and respectful use of creation for the common good (UN address, 2015).”

Although Pope Francis has not proposed that liberation theology is a part of his personal ideology, he does claim that aspects of it are certainly reasonable. What he does oppose is armed violence to overthrow oppression.

“War is the negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment. If we want true integral human development for all, we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and between peoples (UN address, 2015).”

While Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict VXI, denounced liberation theology, Pope Francis invited Gutierrez to his Vatican residence (2013), met with Arturo Paoli, liberation theologist from Argentina (2014), and lifted the suspension from Miguel d’Escoto, Maryknoll priest in Nicaragua working with the Sandanista government (2014).

“The option for the poor, Francis has said, comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It’s the Gospel itself. If you were to read one of the sermons of the first fathers of the Church, from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor, you’d say it was Maoist or Trotskyist. The Church has always had the honor of this preferential option for the poor (Pope Francis, 2010).”

I remember when my children were small and first attending school in the mid-to late seventies. Environmental activism and awareness was just beginning to make headway into the curriculum, and teachers had begun to find ways to connect children with the environment, teaching local and global responsibility.

Part of the task in teaching environmentalism, was to help children understand the natural world and their place in it. Coming out of the sixties, many of us understood on a visceral level the oneness of all things. We knew we were only a tiny part of creation, that the universe coursed through us, and that we could use and direct mind energy into creating a world that was safe, sane, and aware.

In good part, studies concentrated on how everything on earth was interconnected—water, rain and snow, creeks and rivers, plants and the sun, our relationship to wildlife. Children were taught the word “pollution”, and showed examples of what we race of humans had done to damage the environment, what we continued to do, and how we needed to change our activities. Man, our children learned, was only one small part of creation, and our existence was intimately bound to all other life.

Part of the new environmental programs were designed to foster awareness of respect for animals. The list of disappearing species was growing larger, and the kids each studied different marine mammals as a major project. They were also taught to make certain that the earth was a cleaner place (not a single piece of trash lay on the playing fields). And once a year, for many years, the children went Tripping with Terwilliger. Packing children and lunches into volunteer parent cars, we left Oakland with comfortable walking shoes, hats, and sunscreen, and made our way to the Marin County tide pools.

Mrs. Terwilliger brought a sense of excitement to the children, teaching them through their senses how to perceive the world. No longer did the kids have only the electronic stimulation of a television, or the pages of animals in a book, but they ran and touched and sniffed the salt air, watching the tide pools fill, the sea anemones sway, carefully picking up a shell with legs, and listening as Mrs. Terwilliger explained how to gently return the animal to the home it knew. All of us, adults and children, had to stop and ponder our need to respect even the simplest form of life and our obligation to be mindful and care for it.

The California curriculum began to change, and in keeping with the feathers of the youth movement of the sixties, we began to look to our First Peoples for insight into the natural world and how to regain our place in it. Our textbooks were no longer Eurocentric, but prompted a different approach to the history of African Americans, the Inca, Aztec, and Maya, and the great civilizations of ancient China, Persia, and Egypt.

Over the years, the practical aspects of environmentalism continued to blossom, and indeed, we continue to teach each new generation in many parts of the world that our unity with earth is enormously important.

In the rainforest of Sri Lanka, children gather to plant trees in an land where deforestation is prominent. These children will have a new view of forests and their importance. As they plant, they understand the lesson: If you plant a tree, you change the environment for the better, create clean air, change lives through education, and feed the poor.

In Dubai, these kindergarteners are going green. In addition to the kindergarten, the Rajagiri International School collected cans and bottles, had a green parade on Environment Day, made art from recycled materials, and discussed water conservation—all with the slogan: “Our Earth—Our Future—Just Save it”.

A beach cleanup in South Africa by a local cricket team who took time away from practice.

Children in Jamaica listening to a story by children’s author Jana Bent, The Reggae Band Rescues Mama Edda Leatherback, the story of a turtle who swallows a plastic bag.

Schools around the United States are recycling, offering an environmental Student Council position.

And of course, we cannot forget that children need to be taught, that it is our responsibility to provide the education.

Dawn Wayne had written a marvelous article entitled “Going Green with Children”, a must read. She includes, and explains, suggestions for reducing plastic use, shopping locally, unplugging electrical devices, making Mondays meatless, and encouraging kids to reuse (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-wy...).

In a recent post on Unify.org, an organization dedicated to world global meditation, a writer commented (http://unify.org/makepeace-a-practica...

“Sometimes the simple wisdom of an elder can echo in your mind for many years. In 1998 I was at an international gathering of indigenous elders called Belonging to Mother Earth. Each morning we drove through Camp Pendleton National Guard Base at dawn to participate in a traditional sunrise ceremony on the beach. Before the ceremony one morning an elder spoke.

‘Every day we see these fine young men and women awake earlier than us practicing and preparing for war. They are making their war ceremony and they outnumber us. We must one day outnumber them by greeting the sun with peace ceremonies. Then, perhaps they will join us and the world will know peace.’

To view images associated with this blog visit: http://pamelajohnsonauthor.com/teach-...

During the 1960’s we first became familiar with the idea that the earth needed husbandry, that corporations were polluting the Mother for profit, and that it was up to us to find ways to heal an environmentally stressed planet.

In our lifetime, we had already witnessed dramatic air pollution catastrophes—sulphur dioxide fog emissions from a steel plant in Pennsylvania killing 20 (1948); the consequences of the use of DDT on wildlife (The Population Bomb, 1949); heavy smog episodes in New York killing 260 people (1953); world-wide levels of carbon dioxide climbing to 300 parts per million (1960); the first endangered species list including the America Bald Eagle (1966); the Santa Barbara oil spill releasing 200,000 gallons of oil for 11 days (January, 1969); Ohio’s Cuyahoga River bursting into flames from oil and other pollutants in the water, the flames reaching a height of five stories (1969).

We were influenced by Jacques Cousteau’s The Silent World (1953), reminding us of the importance of our oceans; Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), alerting the nation to the fact that DDT in human tissue had tripled from 1950 to 1962; and Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb suggesting the necessity for family planning.

The Whole Earth Catalogue became available in 1968.

The first earth day is organized by Dennis Hayes and held April 22, 1970; conservatives call it a Communist plot because the day is also the anniversary of Lenin’s birthday.

In 1972, the Clean Water Act is passed (October), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (October), the Costal Zone Management Act (October), and DDT is banned in the United States (December).

The year 1973 sees the passage of the Endangered Species Act, and in 1974, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act, regulating the nation’s energy demands with environmental objectives.

Enter Global Warming.

In 1974 global warming begins to become a topic. Chemists Frank Rowland and Mario Moilina introduce the idea that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are destroying the earth’s ozone layer. Not until the early 1990’s are CFSs fazed out of product production.

Jimmy Carter becomes President of the United States in 1977. He establishes the Department of Energy; launches the Nimbu-7 to measure the ozone layer; appoints Dennis Hayes, Earth Day organizer, as head of the Federal Solar Research Institute; installs solar heaters on the White House roof; and issues The Global 2000 Report to the President from the Council on Environmental Quality.

Then Ronald Reagan becomes President.

Reagan issues an Executive Order giving the Office of Management and Budget the power to regulate environmental proposals before they become public; cuts the EPA budget by 12% and the staff by 11%; and dismantles the solar water heating system on the roof of the White House.

By 1985 Global Warming is once again highlighted by Nature magazine—the hole over the Arctic is growing—declining about 4% per decade since the 1970s—the study confirmed by Nimbus-7. Since that time we have seen a rise in sea level, a rise in the earth’s average temperature and in ocean temperature, shrinking glaciers, ocean acidification, extreme events, glacial retreat, and decreased snow cover. Still, they are those who continue to deny the science of global warming, in spite of fate fact that the world’s scientific community has confirmed the facts.

Should you need facts at your finger tips, as well as the observations by America’s top science societies, visit the NASA site: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-co...

Perhaps as we grow in our appreciation of what is at stake, we can remember the words of Mahatma Ghandi: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.”