GOP Hired Law Firm Drops DOMA Case

Published in DailyGrito

This week, the Atlanta-based law firm, King & Spalding decided to not defend DOMA. The firm was hired by House Republicans to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, (Defense of Marriage Act) which prohibits Federal recognition of same-sex marriage partners. Shortly after the firm announced that they would no longer defend DOMA, Paul Clement, a partner at King & Spalding, former solicitor general under George Bush Jr., and the leader of the case, resigned. He nobly stated, “I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters.” Of course, Mr Clement also added that his personal position on same-sex marriage was irrelevant, as he quickly partnered with Veit D. Dinh’s notoriously conservative firm, Bancroft PLLC and will proceed in his heroic defense of DOMA. I am sure Mr. Clement is just being a responsible lawyer and does not have any ideological bias in defending the blatantly bigoted DOMA policy.

Well, Mr. Clement, you are going to loose.

King & Spalding’s decision to not defend DOMA is part of a growing pattern. Although bias and bigotry against LGB ‘t’ people is alive and well, greater consciousness about justice is moving past the personal and into systemic. Powerful systems like the Obama administration, and especially the US Department of Justice, are taking historic positions in not supporting discrimination, deeming DOMA as unconstitutional, and furthermore bring into question a large question of fairness--refusing to side with bigotry.

This systemic change also reflects public sentiment. It is becoming increasingly unpopular for law firms to defend anti-gay laws, because their image suffers and people will not support them financially or politically. Outside of the Ken Starrs of the world, not many people want to do business with bigots. People overwhelming support the rights of LGB people, especially marriage. I say, “LGB”, because Trans people are still completely off the radar in terms of Federal and even State discussion about their rights. They are still worried about basic survival, so debates of something as mainstream as marriage is one of their least relevant considerations.

The most important contribution about this moment, to me, is that it gives us a positive starting point to begin the legal negotiations of DOMA, which I believe will lead to a successful repeal.

My position on same-sex marriage is a complicated one, but above all, the repeal of DOMA will do a historic thing. It will return a huge sense of self to LGB ‘t’ people. Preventing the potential for something as catastrophic as a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage is an important step for the entire United States. We need to finally put an end to DOMA and the ludicrous notion that sexuality should be negotiated in courts.

Second Open Letter to the UNH Administration Regarding David Cote

Published in The New Hampshire

The UNH community has been waiting for the university's public response to my first open letter regarding David Cote. It was published in The New Hampshire two weeks ago in addition to my first piece published over a month ago.

David Cote is the CEO of Honeywell, a UNH alum, and the keynote speaker for our 2011 commencement ceremony.

I expected the administration's silence on this issue. Nevertheless I gave them ample time to contemplate a response. Yet, nothing, not even a generic press release as a token of formality was given. I, however, applaud the administration for its transparency. The arrogance that is represented in David Cote certainly matches the values this administration holds in inviting him here and refusing to participate in dialogue about him. This makes transparent an important value held in this university – arrogance.

I still find it incredible that David Cote is our speaker. He is the one who must inspire, mobilize, and ignite our consciousness. Most critically, he is speaking because our community embraces his ethics.
Most of us do not.

For UNH Inc., however, Cote's values are perfectly in line. His deplorable union record fits well with the union politics going on at UNH. Giving the complicated history of staff unionizing and the negotiations with the faculty union, the message is clear – UNH does not support worker rights to collectively bargain and negotiate their contracts. What is most disturbing is that the student body is completely absent from these negotiations, drenched in apathy as the university staff sits at a limbo, constantly vulnerable.

If that was not enough, student-run publications serve as the administration's anti-union campaign. The editorial published against the faculty union was a clear example of the subversive politics that are beginning to emerge. While I understand that the faculty is better off in terms of social and financial status than staff, the UNH community must not buy into the myth that the faculty is at fault. This is a systemic problem of the administration against its workers, not the faculty against UNH.

These elaborate fabrications that our faculty are living the high-life is absurd. Many work without contracts, many are part-time lecturers, the rest are seeking tenure in an educational system that does not value their scholarship and is interested in making them professional teachers. In other words, how much of their scholarship can they sacrifice to become cannon-spitting-talking-heads for uninterested students.
The faculty is completely obligated to unite with the staff. You must both realize, that outside of a few tokens, faculty are also working-class people.

Another reason Mr. Cote, the defense technology producing, anti-worker, anti-environment reactionary is a great fit for UNH is his companies environmental record. Nothing like having the CEO of one of the most wasteful and toxic corporations come to UNH, the "leader in sustainability." The EPA reports Honeywell as one of the most destructive companies in the United States, ranking 44th in air population and a leader in producing toxic waste. I wonder if UNH is going to market Cote in the sustainability office, perhaps our Department of Environmental Studies can host him for an honorary lecture.

We are all very aware of what sustainability means to this university. It is nothing more than a marketing strategy that is being exploited at the cost of fair-minded students and educators that have an actual concern with sustainability.

You want to be a leader in sustainability? Here is some advice:
1) Do not invite anti-environment neocons to our graduation.
2) Put away the propaganda campaign of biodegradable cups and invest in Hamilton Smith Hall before part of a wall falls on one of our part-time lectures with no health insurance.
3) We do not need cutting edge water fountains, we need playable pianos in the music department. Then again I wonder what our president's priorities are as he attends every hockey game and never attends student performances in the music department.

I hope this makes my position clear about Cote. Perhaps with this letter, the administration might admit how problematic and hypocritical it is to bring this man to our graduation. Then again, this administration is aware of these facts, and will continue to be arrogant.

I ask the administration to respond publicly to this letter and recognize our voices of concern, that above all believe that we are an institution that stands for transparency, honesty and justice.

Open Letter to the University of New Hampshire Administration Regarding David Cote

Published in The New Hampshire

Administrators,

It is difficult for me write this- the subject is complicated, but nevertheless critical. Two weeks ago, I published an opinion piece in TNH entitled, "Cote a bad choice for commencement." David Cote is the CEO of Honeywell Inc., a UNH alum, and the keynote speaker for our 2011 commencement ceremony. I wrote about his poor record regarding workers, and reflected on his problematic status as an American CEO - especially the political dissonance that's being stirred up by this increasingly destructive reactionary movement we are dealing with. I criticized the UNH administration about itsperceivably uncritical deliberations in finalizing its decision to invite Cote. I attempted to persuade the UNH community to not be compelled by the argument that somehow it's our fault for being unhappy with Cote because we did not participate actively enough in the nomination process. Our domestic and global desperation is far greater that some tedious nomination process that tries to make invisible the fundamental problem. Cote's selection sends a message of arrogance through loaded implications about our university. Although we don't "officially" endorse Cote's politics, we do by association.

If anti-working class sentiment and the disturbing transparencies that suggest our public universities are being run as corporations weren't enough, now comes the publicly available yet untold story about Honeywell's relationship with the U.S. government. Honeywell is one of the largest beneficiaries of the now estimated $750 billon defense budget; the defense budget accounts for nearly 20 percent of the overall budget. The technology that Honeywell manufactures is some of the most advanced, and includes missile-guiding systems. I urge you all to read Nathan Tabak's detailed article on Honeywell, which walks you through Honeywell's defense contracts. It also includes a letter from Honeywell to its shareholders regarding its collective lobbying effort (which they spent $1.9 million on) for the U.S. congress not to cut a thing from the defense budget. Curiously enough, Cote sits on President Obama's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform." If, in fact, our illegal occupations in the Middle East are one of the major causes for this so-called "deficit," then I remain unclear of Cote's sense of "fiscal responsibility and reform," as his company lobbies to sustain one of the most reckless industries of spending. Perhaps the term "ethical" should be included in the title of President Obama's teatime with corporate executives commission, as they might question some of the profound tensions and hypocrisies in their policies. The war is a profit machine for American corporations.

Despite the shock that will develop as Honeywell and Cote's record becomes more visible in our community, it's not at all surprising. This is business as usual. I do not expect that any person with global influence will read this letter, or choose to deal with the disheartening fact that many in this community are not even marginally compelled by the fact that the privileges and comforts we hold as Americans are protected by our subversive involvement in supporting and financing terrorism. Even though we acknowledge that we are the most privileged people in the world, the rights of many in our country are under attack. How convenient it is for Honeywell to send a letter to shareholders and organize a collective voice against the government for their interests (assisted, of course, by massive capital) while workers' ability to unite their voices collectively for something as basic as a reasonable contract is being trampled on by Cote and so many others.

My question now is: how do we deal with this situation? Is the solution to protest graduation - the moment when hundreds of proud parents will sit and forget that their house was almost foreclosed on to fund their children's education? When students, some putting themselves through school, don't want to think about the tens of thousands in loans that they will soon face without a job? Is it to cut off Cote from being a potential donor (which by the way, is the only rational justification for his selection)? Meanwhile, our university is already poorly funded and a further cut of $31 million dollars is being proposed by the legislature, chipping away incrementally at what is barely left of public education.

Because it pains me not to ask the obvious question of why and how we continue to live our comfortable lives as we compromise the lives of innocent people around the world, I ask this administration to localize this global problem to our community, and ask: even if our opinions are meaningless, in this already corrupt system, regarding the rights of workers and the countless lives of children we take over seas - simply - why are we choosing to endorse that disturbing reality at commencement, the one day that we can imagine hope, and at least lie to ourselves about being justice-promoting people? Let us reflect on that fact that our actions matter. Ask David Cote not to speak.

I ask the administration to respond publicly to this letter and recognize our voices of concern, that above all believe that we are an institution that stands for transparency, honesty and justice.

Remembering our History: "El Mozote"

The massacre that took place in El Mozote, El Salvador in 1981 serves as a chilling reminder of the human cost of war. Mark Danner’s narrative of the massacre is a vivid and disturbing picture of the massacre committed by Salvadorian armed forces starting on December 10, 1981. Perhaps the only ‘good’ thing about Danner’s book is his intoxicating syntax and the brilliant sophistication of his narration skills, other than that, it serves its purpose--to show the extreme violence used against the innocent civilians of a small village (nearly 1000 killed) and the US’s role in financing and endorsing the massacre.

As I reflect on the events of “El Mozote”, it is difficult to ignore the images of rape, torture, and cold-blooded assassination that run through my mind, but perhaps more difficult, is negotiating my position in the world, the value of my Americanism, and my sense of responsibility that remains unpacked and uncritical--running parallel to a historical record that is saturated with US supported terrorism as a means to global supremacy.

The massacre at El Mozote, although widely unknown, both in cultural discourse and negligibly absent from the main-stream American pedagogical canon, is a crucial moment in the Cold War. “El Mozote” severs as the “parable” of the Cold War, teaching a moral lesson and revealing the ethical tensions in the construction of American foreign policy during the Cold War in Latin America, particularly the problematic framework of exercising rigid ideology in foreign policy. Whether an “anti-communist” or “human rights” policy, the disconnect between American foreign policy and the people of Latin America resulted in a serious loss of human life.

I will briefly discuss American foreign policy towards El Salvador leading up to “El Mozote” and how the people of El Salvador were caught in the middle of very problematic political negotiations. I argue the following points:

1)Both the “anti-communist” and “human rights” approach towards El Salvador were problematic.

2)Regardless of with policy, the people of El Salvador suffered. The people of El Mozote had no where go, and know one to trust, leaving everyone at fault for the massacre (except the people of El Mozote of course).


From Détente to Carter: “News has a kind of mystery”

American composer John Adams wrote the opera “Nixon and China” in 1987. As a young boy studying music in New Jersey, I checked-out a VHS copy from the library. I did not know what the connection between Nixon and China was, and more important, I had no idea what American opera sounded like. I was used to Mozart and Wager. I’ll never forget the opening. The Spirit of 76 lands on the stage, President Nixon comes down the stairs with Pat Nixon and Henry Kissinger. President Nixon then come forwards and shakes the hand of Premier Chou En-la, he begins to sing an obsessive melody, the text: “news has a kind of mystery”. I am not a huge fan of Adams, but that is certainly a profound opening. It describes the Cold War post-Nixon perfectly. It also serves as as an explanation of the events of “El Mozote” nearly ten years after Nixon landed in China. Nixon was worried about how the world would report the historic moment, what would they think of him, what would the world think of America, and what it meant to show “weakness” during the Cold War.

Nixon embraced a policy of Détente (co-existence) to easy-up on the growing tensions between the communist and non-communist super powers. Of course, its rhetoric and application were quite different. Nixon was certainly not practicing “co-existence” with Latin America. After the successful removal of President Allende of Chile, the U.S continued to reinforce the the expansion of liberal economics and the destruction of the Left in South America. While attention on South America was going full force, Central America was gearing up for yet another attempt at the Left. In El Salvador, the FMLN (Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional) sprung full force by 1980, this, after a period of stagnation during the Ford Administration. U.S foreign policy towards Central America and El Salvador during the Nixon Administration was primarily about building allies who supported the economic interests of the U.S. Through providing aid to countries like El Salvador, they maintained a solid base of political support. Of course, their reason for providing aid was purely political and not at all humanitarian. Through the election of Carter we saw that the policy of “softly” building allies though U.S aid to strengthen hemispheric hegemony was going to change.

Shocked by the amount of human rights that were being violated as a result of U.S economic involvement in Latin America,
Carter advocated for a policy of “human rights”, which refocused the way the U.S supplied aid to Latin America. Under the “human rights” policy, the U.S would provide aid to countries that were observing human rights. By changing the authoritarian framework, and committing to protect human rights, the pathways towards democracy were more likely to happen.
Both of these strategies were inefficient. Especially in El Salvador, while the U.S supported El Salvador pre-Carter to build compliance, there were no requirements for the aid--just, “ fight against communism”. In terms of the “human rights” approach, there was a requirement, “do not violates your people’s basic rights”-- however, in both cases, there was no infrastructure in place to see where the money was going. Similarly, there was no accurate way to define a foreign country as “observing” human rights, when there was no system in place to monitor their government.

In the case of El Salvador, while the Carter Administration provided aid to El Salvador for their compliance in observing human rights, the money was funding an increasingly conservative government that would, after Carter, be pressured by the Reagan Administration to act against Leftist forces.

Although good-willed, whether aid is being provided for observing human rights, or for fighting “softly” or “aggressively” communism, the fact of the matter is, money is coming in, and no one knows where it is going. This creates an economic foundation for any political system to act accordingly to their interests, especially if there is sudden change in foreign policy--like what happened after Carter with the election of Richard Nixon.

Reagan: Re-energizing Tension & the Return of the Hard-Liner Approach

The election of Ronald Reagan surely meant trouble for Latin America. Through his critiques of “softness” on behalf of the U.S towards communism under the Carter Administration. Reagan sought out to establish the U.S as a hard-liner against communism, because of the lack of attention on behalf of U.S could result in a massive overtake of the Left in Central America.
With substantial flows of revenue provided by the Carter Administration and the aggressive shift in the Reagan Administration, and the rise of the FMLN as a guerrilla group. Regan committed his Administration to taking down the communists. Reagan increased the amount of aid going to El Salvador, not for “human rights” but for military aid to fight the FMLN and other Leftist groups forming against the Salvadorian government. In addition, CIA operative began to train the Salvadorian army.
This radical shift highlights that as long as aid was being provided, despite ideology, it funded the Salvadorian government for its political interest, having nothing to do, of course, with the people of El Salvador.

“El Mozote”: Caught in the Transition

On December 10, 1981, Salvadorian armed-forces, financed and trained by the U.S, arrived at El Mozote, a remote village in El Salvador, under a lead of FMLN activity in the area. When faced with a population of farmers of around 1,000 (some estimate), the Salvadorian forces proceeded to massacre the population over two days of interrogations concerning the FMLN’s whereabouts and activity.

Like Nixon, the Reagan Administration faced once again the “news has a kind of mystery” situation. How would the world react? Under the umbrella of spreading democracy and fighting the “evils” of the Left, we were partially responsible for the death of hundreds. And in the case of “El Mozote”, people that really had nothing to do with it.

Although the U.S was clearly a large contributor to this horror, in a way, everyone was at fault. The events at El Mozote show that the innocent will always pay the price for battles of ideology. The people of El Mozote had nothing to do with this mess. The FMLN was partially to blame, as their activity in the area put many at risk. The Salvadorian forces were certainly at fault for showing such abysmal ethics and profound disregard for human rights. They really did apply brute force with no just cause. The people of El Mozote were not armed, were clearly not the leaders of a guerrilla group, the children who were slaughtered, women and girls who were raped and killed, and farmers who were gun-fired to death were not concerned with arguments of Right vs. Left. The were concerned with living their everyday lives. And, of course, the U.S was at fault for training and funding the Salvadorian armed-forces and intervening in El Salvador.

You would think that after such undeserved pain and suffering, the U.S would have stepped-back and reflected on our mistakes. On the contrary, the Reagan Administration worked to hide the massacre from the press. Similarly, the FMLN used the event as propaganda and the Salvadorian armed-forces did not admit fault.
The result was the death of hundreds for something they simply had no involvement in. Not knowing were to go or who to trust, the people of El Mozote paid with their lives.