Three Old Facebook Posts

Last July, when my wife and our two daughters were off in Missouri for a family reunion, I wrote three Facebook posts. Here they are.

Looming First Iris

Come late June early each morning
as the sun rises to greet the flowers

of our terraced garden out front

we rise and anticipate the first Iris bloom.

As the Iris patch turns soft purple

Brenda will rise early to paint.

Looming First Iris
http://www.brendajclark.com/paintingf15.htm

A Horticulturalist’s Visit

Late Sunday afternoon a horticulturalist visited our gallery.

“The color pulled me in,” she said. “That large canvas depicting a look-in on your garden has Hollyhocks. Was it painted some time in late summer?” she asked.

Garden Outback
http://www.brendajclark.com/paintingf14.htm

After our visitor had toured the gallery and seen Brenda’s several Poppies and Iris paintings, she noted how these flowers bloom about the same time in June.

When I described the two beds of these flowers at home, the visitor proudly acknowledged her college degree and profession, and spoke at length about Brenda’s two Iris paintings: Looming First Iris I and Looming First Iris II. (The first is acrylic on arches paper, the second acrylic on wood block.)

Our visiting horticulturalist seemed to like both, stating fondly how she came to love the Iris  as a flower when studying Van Gogh’s still life paintings of them.

She liked the paper piece for the way Brenda’s Iris seemed to be the sole being in its universe and engulfed by lush green foliage.

The wood block’s rich contrast of a bright yellow background and green stems surrounding the Iris, and the swirling brush strokes with Impasto edges, fascinated this horticulturalist.

Myself, for summer 2013, I like Brenda’s painting, Poppies ‘n Iris and Me, inside a wood shadow box.

Patron and former art professor, Ray Betts, noted that Brenda’s work some times achieves a “stained-glass effect.” I guess he’s right; the shapes of the flowers, their stems and leaves, do project this effect. 

Lyrical Realists
http://www.brendajclark.com/news8.htm

“Why guess,” perhaps I should say. An evening like tonight is a fine time for a visit to the gallery, or for sipping a glass of wine while checking out Brenda’s work online.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes

I've changed my mind.

Again.

The evening of my last post - A Horticulturalist's Visit - my favorite flower painting for the summer was Poppies 'n Iris and Me.

I guess it's my fine art whim, being at the gallery almost daily.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes.

This morning, I am choosing Poppies at the Wellhead.

It' almost like a still-life painting. A findly woven tapestry with it's disappearing space, and hints of Catmint and Chives amidst so many Poppy blooms.

A sole plant that my father and mother gave to Brenda and me for our anniversary during our first June in Leland.

You want to put this painting in a vase, and water it.

Does anyone have a really large vase that I can borrow?

Winter On My Palette

Post Note: The post that follows was written for the Facebook page of our fine art business, the Brenda J. Clark Gallery. It was then picked up and posted by MyNorth.com. Here is the link:

Up in Michigan during winter.

Snow.

Pure white. Fluffy and soft. Virgin. Where no man should tread.

A wonderlust for snow and the loving pact that Mother Nature and Ol' Man Winter have struck. Looking out at winter up in Michigan, snow symbolizes it. Our minds always interprets it as white.

Winter's snow up in Michigan also makes for painting outdoors. Just ask Expressionist painter, Brenda J. Clark. She paints winter's white differently.

Fishtown in Winter

I remember that blurry, snow-swirling day above Fishtown. Brenda was determined to be out in it, painting. So I hauled an old palette crate down to the guard rail along side of Lake Street, padded it with a couple of moving blankets, and then backed my SUV up to the crate and lifted up the back door.

Inside, she sat. Shivering. Frothy steam poured from her mouth as she drank hot cocoa and absorbed the melting marshmallows. Out she went to paint, and in Chicken Big ran to our gallery. I checked back with her every half hour, bringing something hot to drink. She painted all day.

But the snow _- it was not exactly white. The circle road around the harbor parking lot moved in iridescent pinks and yellows. Fishtown's buildings glowed red violet.

The following morning, Brenda had a head cold, but the snow swirled round in round in swirling pinks and yellows.

http://www.brendajclark.com/painting18.htm

Blue Winter Breaking

Snow can be blue, too. Scientifically, it turns blue when packed together and deep enough. The red light waves are absorbed and only the blue waves escape to reflect that color back in to our eyes.

On that warming March day on Leland Estates Drive overlooking the Manitous Islands, the huge snow base of two feet plus had begun to melt. It began to compact. Brenda's palette for the snow that day reveals just such a blue hue. She didn't study the electromagnetic spectrum before going out to paint that day, but came as close to realism as her Expressionistic mode (unknowingly) took her.

Blue Winter Breaking could also be a summer scene, suggesting the sun's bright light bouncing off a sandy ridge above Lake Michigan. But it was a perfect winter day melting toward spring.

http://www.brendajclark.com/painting3.htm

Panning the Manitou Islands in March

This cold day should'be turned anyone's hands a raw pink; instead these hues showed up in Brenda's painting mid way up North Beach from the deck of a summer resident.

Maybe Mother Nature scolded Ol' Man Winter for such cold that day, causing him dismay, only to see the color spectrum revert to a monochromatic pink.

We usually think of pink as hot, flush with emotion. Pure love. Pink roses. Pink flamingos. From now on, think pink drifts of snow on North Beach.

http://www.brendajclark.com/painting98.htm

Blissfully White at North Beach

By contrast, when Brenda painted Blissfully White North Beach, she recalled fondly, "I could've gotten a tan on the beach that day."

It was a bright winter day glowing from the sun's rays and it warmed up Brenda's color preference.

The high level of reflectivity made North Beach glow in yellows. The sunlight bounced off of snow-covered sands and back into the air. Frank Zappa and his Huskies were no where to be found.

http://www.brendajclark.com/painting97.htm

Blue snow. Pink snow. White Snow. Yellow Snow.

Snow is a kaleidescope for Brenda J. Clark in winter.

https://www.facebook.com/BrendaJClarkGallery

Elitist Hypocrite

What would William Safire, the award-winning columnist for the New York Times, have written about the term "elitist hypocrite" used in the recent National Rifle Association Stand and Fight ad  that criticized President Barack Obama's position on putting armed guards in schools?

Safire wrote a weekly column called On Language that analyzed the usage of contemporary language, including unusual phrases. Following his approach, let's look at the meaning of these words  - "elitist" and "hypocrite." What do these words mean by themselves as particular parts of speech, together as a phrase, and in the context of our nation's political debate about gun control and violence?

Dictionary.com defines an elitist in adjective form as "(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society."

The same source provides two definitions for the noun, hypocrite. With President Obama being an elected public official and public figure, let's use the definition: "a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."

"Elitist" finds part of its roots in old French, meaning selection or choice, while in Middle English, the word "elitist" became a "chosen person."

A "hypocrite" in the Greek language refers to an actor - "one who pretends to be what he is not."

In the phrase itself, the adjective, elitist, complements the noun, hypocrite. It suggests that this person is the worst of all hypocrites.

Political Context

The NRA ad declares that Obama is an "elitist hypocrite" because he questions the effectiveness of having armed guards in all public schools, while his daughters have them at their private school.

In reality, the guards at the Obama girls' private school are secret agents, and they are responsible for protecting these girls for national security reasons. Our country has an obligation to protect its president and his family so that the president can fulfill the duties of his office without fearing daily for the security of his daughters.

Here's what Obama did say about armed guards at schools: "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools," Mr. Obama said during a recent interview on the NBC News program Meet the Press. "And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem."

Representative Leadership

The national problem of gun violence requires solutions that the majority of Americans support and can accept. President Obama has asked Congress to pass four measures:

1) Require background checks on all gun sales.
2) Restore a ban on "military-style assault weapons."
3) Ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds.
4) Toughen penalties on people who sell guns to those who can't have them.

Meanwhile, NRA leadership has been pushing for armed guards in all schools, while positioning the NRA and its membership against Obama's four proposals.

Just as members of Congress and our President are elected and have a responsibility to represent their constituents' beliefs on a particular issue, so does the NRA leadership. A look at two polls reveals that the NRA leadership is not considering its members' beliefs on gun control. Rather, it is acting contrary to the desires of a majority of its members.

Those Polls

A May 2012 poll commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz reveals strong support for gun control among NRA members. The poll found that 74 percent, or 3 of every 4 NRA members, agree "criminal background checks should be required before selling a gun to a potential buyer."

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted earlier this January found even higher support for background checks being required for all gun purchases (whether from a licensed dealer or via an unlicensed private individual and including those at gun shows). Of NRA members who were respondents to this survey, 85 percent indicated that they favor background checks on all gun purchases. This compared to 9 in 10 Americans who support background checks, whether they had a gun in their household or not.

Looking at Obama's measure to ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds, the same New York Times/CBS News poll found that 6 in 10 respondents supported a ban on high-capacity magazines. Of those respondents living in households with guns, the majority supported a high-capacity magazine ban.

Elitist Hypocrites, Please Stand Up

As these polls indicate, NRA members want stricter background checks on all gun purchases, and a majority of gun owners support banning high-capacity magazines.

Very clearly a majority of NRA members (and Americans) support two of Obama's gun control proposals. Yet the NRA is advocating against its NRA members in these two regards.

Applying the definition of "elitist," the NRA leadership considers itself above the membership it represents. NRA leadership considers its opinion and knowledge as superior to the beliefs of its NRA members. The NRA's leadership is not listening to and respecting NRA members' viewpoints on key gun control measures.

Put in the context of the word "hypocrite" - the NRA leadership is pretending to be something that it is not: the NRA membership.

It is the NRA leadership that is acting in an "elitist" fashion and like a "hypocrite." The "elitist hypocrite" is not President Barack Obama, but in the persons of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and President David Keene.

The Man in Black

Suttons Bay, Michigan.

Waiting at the deli counter for my Pastrami on Rye, a new customer appeared.

He was a man in black with an open carry. Deadpan face and serious, he wasn't wearing a police or security guard uniform.

As this man in black stepped up, I stepped aside. As I moved quietly to the other end of the counter, the four deli workers' actions slowed to a stop, and dead silence took over. All casual conversation stopped. Fear seemed to seal our lips. This man in black wielding his open carry was controlling the entire situation. A chilling effect had set in.

For us, the clear and present danger test had been met. Why was this man in black "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater?" ... His open carry was shouting out "beware of me. He was disrupting the civil environment and putting public safety at risk.

Why was this civilian wearing an open carry in a quaint, peaceful little town with its own local sheriff? In a county where the county sheriff's office and jail are less than five miles away? And where many people don't lock the doors of their homes at night?

The man in black's Second Amendment right to bear arms was trampling on the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression for the deli workers and myself. Gone was our casual conversation, and the confidence and security associated with friendly dialogue. The minority right of the man in back had suppressed the liberties of the majority.

Later, I pondered why I had not slipped away to the front of the store and manager's office to express my dismay and feeling of helplessness about this open carry? Why hadn't I shown some vigilance by requesting of the manager that this man in black leave the store, or at least exit the store to put his handgun in his car before returning to the deli counter?

Later, I also wondered in how many other places across America that another man in black was imposing his minority right on a majority of law abiding citizens?

Majority Rule and Minority Rights

A goal of our Founding Fathers in writing the U.S. Constitution and its amendments was to ensure the rights and liberties of all citizens. Our Founders strived for a proper balance between majority rule and minority rights, aiming to prevent the majority's will from dictating a forced solution for a particular matter of public policy.

Our Founding Fathers realized that decision making on a public issue might not yield the 'right' answer, but one that was "satisfactory" to all. The minority would have their say just like the majority. It was expected that individual citizens would sometimes be a part of the majority and sometimes in the minority. There would need to be sacrifices and compromise for the common good and in the public interest.

What Comes First

What came first, the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech and peaceably assemble?

If the presence of a person carrying a gun acts to suppress the free speech of a majority of people in a given situation, then hasn't the balance of liberties defined in our Constitution been jeopardized?

If a minority of Americans carry a concealed weapon or have an open carry, and the presence of such weapons alters the environment of our public places by heightening the prospects of violence, then aren't the rights of the majority being undermined? Haven't civil liberties been suppressed or removed?

When the Second Amendment supercedes the First Amendment right to free speech or freedom of assembly, then hasn't the Fourteenth Amendment been violated? All Americans have equal protection in public places, not just those carrying guns.

Let's look at the make up of America using our first and second amendments. The First Amendment represents the rights of all Americans, while gun ownership, including carrying a concealed weapon or open carry, represents a minority.

The Numbers Speak

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and last census, there are 312 million Americans living in 115 million households in the United States. This represents an average of 2.7 people per household.

Of America's 115 million households, 32 percent or 36.8 million households own firearms. This means that just under 100 million Americans live in a home where there are firearms.

Of the 310 million firearms in America , 20 percent of gun owners possess 65 percent of these guns. In other words, a very small minority own two-thirds of all firearms.

Quite simply, gun owners represent a minority in America's democracy. More specifically, the 36.8 million households that possess firearms, the 99 million people living in those households, and the 20 percent of gun owners who possess almost two-thirds of America's firearms do not represent a majority of Americans.

Biden Commission

As the Biden Commission on gun violence gets ready to announce its recommendations, one of its goals must be to address the current imbalance between the excessive power and force of gun owners as a minority over the majority of Americans who do not own firearms.

The Biden Commission must formulate a satisfactory, comprehensive set of measures that embodies the U.S. Constitution's principle of majority rules and minority rights. The commission's recommendations must make accountability by gun owners the driving force for these measures. 

Rite of Passage

Rite of Passage

Green City, Missouri – Just after noon my father-in-law rode out on his big machine  to cut their football-field-of a-front-lawn.  I cut the smaller back yard with their self-propelled walking mower.

It must have been contagious. Before we finished two hours later, freshly mown grass with bright green ‘cut’ lines was the norm in the neighborhood. The neighbor across Pfeiffer Street to our left was riding and cutting on her John Deere; her neighbor rode his Cub. Not to be out done, the Mayor rode hard to catch up and contour his pasture-of-a-lawn to our right.

Each spring folks in this rural northeast Missouri town take to their lawn mowers. Grooming their lawn – “keeping it pretty” –  is a matter of pride and self-expression, a ritual. It’s part of their rite of passage in spring.

Grooming one’s lawn is an integral part of Green City’s community spirit. This simple task is taken seriously. It is a civic responsibility – a matter of allegiance to the community’s wellbeing. It is tantamount to the oath taken by an elected government official to bear responsibility for the welfare of his constituents.

Come spring in Missouri, tight bunches of petit magenta-pink flowers on Red Bud trees and creamy white flowers of the Wild Plum and Dogwood glow with radiance. Spring’s clean, light air casts their colors iridescent against a barren farmland cleansed by winter’s pure white snow. You can see through the patches of color along roadsides, in fields and yards to view the past. Spring is about transparency.

Spring offers us transformation with its longer days and warmer temperatures.  It gives us more comfort, spawns new hope, and drives our psyche to feel refreshed. Spring’s transformation confers on us an inner strength to be patient not only with ourselves but others, too.  It says, afford others their dignity by being fair.

 The rain and plow in spring turn the barren into plenty and provide for us. Spring stirs clusters of new life.  It says, “See through the changes at hand. See them through.”

Spring in Syria

Walking behind the self-propelled mower, I wondered about spring in Syria? How have the traditions of spring in the Syrian culture been affected by Bashar al-Assad and his army as they rain down shells and kill innocent children, women and men in their attempt to squash the yearlong uprising?

How do parents in Syria cope with the uncertainty of daily living and its routine? There must be constant anguish about sending their children off to attend school every morning, five days a week in a violent, unsafe war environment. Have their children been able to wander home and play intermittently in the streets along the way home?

Parents need stability in society to send their children out into the world. Children need structured learning on a regular basis at school. They long for the choice to interact freely with each other as a part of growing up. These aspects of childhood surely play out as ritual in springtime; rather, they did.

Have these same Syrian families been able to work along side of each other in sprucing up their shared courtyards – cleaning its walls and customary fountain, pruning its citrus trees and grapevines, planting flowers while letting the children play?

Families need to interact, too. Their pride looks for ways to be exhibited behind the closed doors of courtyards where life happens in a private way. What about the traditional lunch of chicken kebab, lamb kibbe, tabbouleh, hummus and flatbread? Hmmm….

How many of these same families, neighborhoods and communities have had their regular marketplace or “souk” days interrupted and even stopped by indiscriminate bombing and attack from the Syrian army?  

The souk is a thread in the social fabric of Syrian culture. It is the commercial place where people earn their livelihoods and others buy food, drink and staple goods for their nourishment and homes. Haggling at market over a woven rug, bartering over food prices, and debating local politics make the souk a vital part of daily living in Syria. Come springtime these marketplaces come alive again as the sun drenches vendors’ stalls and people mingle with a new energy.

And what about those weekly and even daily visits to places of worship? The quiet and calm right to practice religion in a sanctuary has also been interrupted. People fear going out at all.

What has happened to the expectations of the Syrian people trying to exercise freedoms associated with a march toward democracy?  They’ve been threatened and intimidated, jailed and tortured, even stamped out permanently in 9,000 cases and counting.

His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan described the Arab Spring as “a call for dignity, justice and freedom,” noting “there’s no going back on the legitimate aspirations of the people to have a larger say in the way their societies are organized.” Syrians, like other peoples of the Arab Spring, are saying let us determine and shape our rites of passage not only in spring, but every season throughout every year.

Getting Back Spring’s Transformation

United Nations and Arab League special envoy, Koffi Annan hopes he has succeeded in getting Assad to agree to a six-point peace plan. A cease fire began today, and seems to be holding. But it will be tested tomorrow - Friday - when Syrians congregate for prayer at mosques. Heavy weapons remain in city squares such as Homs. Snipers rest on rooftops. Troops are still present, too, and at the ready. Annan's peace plan was one more necessary step in an international process that will eventually isolate and remove Assad. Of the six points in Annan’s peace plan for Syria, two demanded transformation this spring:

Mr. Assad, end the violence and accept “an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people.”

Mr. Assad, fulfill your commitment to “respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed in Syria.”

Upon assuming power after his father’s death and during his first address as Syria’s new leader in July 1999, Assad proclaimed his Damascus Spring for change and a more pluralistic, civil society. It began to happen. Access to the outside world via the technology of the internet, satellite dishes, and mobile phones occurred. Foreign newspapers and publications showed up at newsstands, and open criticism of the government was reported in local Syrian media. Then Assad suddenly reversed course a year later and began jailing people who opposed his rule.

Last spring, Assad struck back again to prevent the Arab Spring from establishing a foothold.

As one Middle East expert noted, feelings of grief, anger and helplessness in the Syrian people grew out of Assad’s repression. Yet the Syrian people could not be held down any longer. They transformed these downtrodden feelings into compassion and solidarity, and rose up. The fear was gone. There was a choice of flight or fight, and the majority of the Syrian people have chosen the latter.

The UN and international community must not allow Assad to continue his assault on Syrians’ rite of passage to democracy.

See It Through

Spring is pure and its rights must be respected, not only in America, but in Syria, too.  A Greater Syria in spirit requires the building of a civil society complete with human rights and opportunities to establish individual rites of passage. Syrians want civil rights as well as political rights. They long for equal access to economic opportunity.

What will next spring bring for the people of Syria? 

Genocide in an Election Year

We watched the election returns on CNN Europe in Karmen’s apartment overlooking Zagreb’s main square. So many people from the former Yugoslavia were hoping for a Clinton victory.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton had been speaking out against the Bush administration’s inaction in Bosnia. Only after losing the election and just before Clinton’s inauguration, did the Bush administration issue a “finding of genocide.”

Clinton won, and there was renewed hope for a U.S. plan of intervention in Bosnia. Yet only in August 1995 – over three years later – did the Clinton administration finally act in Bosnia, when NATO bombed the Serbs for almost three weeks during Operation Deliberate Force.

This action ultimately led to an end to the Croatian and Bosnian wars. America had finally shown its political will and leadership to stop the ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Some 20,000 died in the Croatian war, with hundreds of thousands of refugees. In the Bosnian conflict upwards of 110,000 died and over 2.2 million people were displaced.

Election Year 2012

It’s once again an election year in the U.S. and this time the people of Syria are the victims. This time U.S. President Barack Obama faces the challenge of stopping what can be defined as “genocide.”

Since the uprising began a year ago in Syria, Bashar al-Assad and his military have been conducting a well-coordinated campaign of arrest, imprisonment, detention, torture and killing. The Syrian military is now attacking the northern city of Idlib, just as it did in Homs for four weeks, to destroy another opposition stronghold. The Syrian government is also shelling mosques, schools, playgrounds, and even a hospital, according to the Associated Press.

An estimated 7,500 Syrians have been killed, and upwards of 100,000 Syrians have fled and are now refugees in neighboring Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. An estimated 200, 000 Syrian people have been internally displaced.

In her book, “A Problem from Hell – America and the Age of Genocide,” Samantha Power identifies actions that are considered as genocide. She notes “deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian area.” Such attacks take place “with intent to destroy the lives and existence of citizens.”

Article 2 of the United Nations Resolution 260 – the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as …“causing serious bodily or mental hardship to members of the group,” and … “deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.”

Obama vs. Bush and Clinton

While economic sanctions against Syria have been in place for a while and have hindered Assad’s efforts to squash his own people, a recent UN mission to Syria and a separate Security Council effort to achieve a cease fire have stalled.

Obama has said “no” to the arming of the opposition movement. He has been quoted as ruling out any deployment of U.S. military even while the Syrian National Council and Free Syrian Army have agreed to coordinate their actions.

On the diplomatic front, the Obama administration has been successful in keeping the diplomatic pressure on Syria, in part by isolating China and Russia in their support of Assad.

In October 2011 and again in February 2012, UN Security Council resolutions were vetoed by China and Russia. European countries pushed the first resolution that threatened sanctions against Syria, while in the second one the Arab League put forward a peace plan that called for Assad to step down. The Obama administration threw its weight behind each resolution to broaden the coalition of countries against Syria.

It seemed to work. Following Russia’s election, newly elected once-again president Vladimir Putin hinted that Russia would not tolerate much longer the violent repression by Assad against Syrian people. China followed suit by demanding a halt to the violence and to allow UN and ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) teams to enter Homs to assess the need for humanitarian aid.

Strong, well-timed rhetoric has been a part of this diplomatic pressure. America’s Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said the U.S. “is disgusted” with China and Russia after their first veto. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared of their second veto, “It is just despicable” asking “Whose side are they on?” Answering, “They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people.”

Most recently, Secretary Clinton edged a little closer to recognizing the genocide that is occurring in Syria by labeling Assad’s actions as “war crimes."

Mind, Emotion and Will

The Obama administration has shown sound political thinking in building upon economic sanctions aimed at stopping the violent killing of Syrian citizens. It reacted with proper emotions and strong will when China and Russia vetoed two UN resolutions.

It must continue to think clearly, show emotional support for the lives and human rights of Syrians, and act with a will that reflects the historical values of America in stopping Assad.

Under Article 1 of the UN convention on genocide, once a signatory confirms genocide, it is obligated to take actions “to prevent and punish.”

The first Bush and Clinton administrations avoided use of the term of “genocide.” These two administrations showed no will and did not demonstrate America’s values by acting early enough to prevent genocide in Croatia and Bosnia. Obama must not do the same.

Secretary of State Clinton’s recent use of the term “war crimes” referred to one individual’s actions against that country’s people. Genocide refers to the collective actions taken by the person in power – Assad – and his government forces – the military, to enact decisions to kill Syrians and destroy opposition to his rule.

To prosecute war crimes, the UN must set up a tribunal under its jurisdiction. This step requires that the UN show a “threat to international peace and security.”

During the Rwanda genocide, the UN Security Council had to prove such a threat to overcome the UN charter ban on interference in a nation’s domestic affairs. It did so by showing that the fleeing of refugees into neighboring countries and related burdens of caring for them was destabilizing neighboring countries, according to Power in her book.

The same destabilizing threat currently exists in Syria as its citizens are fleeing into neighboring countries and fostering increased political tensions in the Middle East. An estimated 83,000 Syrian refugees are now in Jordan, over 7,000 in Lebanon, and upwards of 10,000 in Turkey.

Obama should go to the UN Security Council with a resolution to set up a tribunal to try Assad based on the threat he has created to international peace and security.

He should also be prepared to take a series of actions, including:

- The set up of humanitarian aid zones in those countries hosting Syrian refugees, complete with a UN stabilization force lead by American troops.

If any other parties like Hezbollah or Iran meddle in these safe zones, we must prepared to defend the rights of the refugees to seek humanitarian aid.

- Going back to the UN general assembly and asking for permission to impose an arms embargo on Syria.

Russia and Iran should be included in this embargo because their supplying of weapons to Assad allows him to continue attacks on innocent civilians.

- Sign the treaty banning the use of antipersonnel landmines.

By doing so, the U.S. could further isolate Russia and Syria.

Syria, Russia and the U.S. are three of 37 countries that have not signed this treaty. Syria has been mining areas near the Lebanon and Turkey borders to stop the flow of their citizens out of the country.

True Leadership

While the consequences of such actions are unpredictable, the killing of Syrians by Assad will certainly continue.

The U.S. position on genocide must be decisive… If there is one “pre-emptive” war to fight, and always, it is a war against genocide wherever it is committed and whenever – even in an election year.

The Obama administration must show that America is a democracy with more than a human face, but a country and superpower with a soul. America’s conscience is not based on our nation’s vital interests, but on values associated with human rights and political liberties such as freedom of expression (the rights to speak out, associate with other citizens, and assemble to demonstrate against tyranny).

The U.S. soul and core values stem from it being a nation of immigrants. America pursued and achieved its manifest destiny by allowing immigrants to become American citizens. Immigrants are still coming to overcome economic woes, and find remedy in civil liberties to overcome political prejudice and persecution.

How many Bosnians, for instance, came to American during and after the Bosnian War? How many people from north Africa and the countries of the Arab Spring, including Syria, will immigrate to our country?

Genocide, no matter what the scale, whoever the people, no matter what the timing, requires immediate and decisive steps as part of a willful effort to end it.

Building a coalition to stop genocide requires time to overcome different geopolitical positions, and the diverse historical and cultural values of peoples and nations around the world.

Continuing with decisive actions to stop Assad’s genocide in Syria will not hurt President Obama's chances for being re-elected. Rather, such actions will show the leadership that Americans expect of their president not only for domestic concerns, but foreign policy matters, too.

Home Place

Mom grew up Hungarian during the 1920s and 1930s in rural Merrill, Michigan.

Hungarian church. Hungarian cuisine. Hungarian school through sixth grade. And Hungarian spoken at home until she went off to college.

First generation American.

The Great Depression struck her family. Like so many others then (and now), the Toths lost their family farm to foreclosure. They called it “home place.” It was their homestead: all of the children were born in that kitchen.

Mom’s family also lost all of their “collateral” in the foreclosure. Animals. Tractors. Plows. Car. Furniture. Mom still dreams of the bank official chasing their cattle down the road to auction. Their rights to being part of the American dream seemingly vanished.

But like so many immigrants who still come to America, Mom’s family never gave up on their dream. They rented one farm. Then another, and a third. Saving scarce dollars, they eventually bought a second farm. They showed mettle.

They also received help from other families – sharing plows and tractors, and tending crops together. They became a community of immigrants – Americans determined to participate in society and make a difference.

“Home place” – it was the first time I had ever heard my mother use the term. It isn’t so much like homeland in homeland security, but “native land” as in “firm may she ever stand.”

“Home place” for a family and any individual is a sense that you belong. You feel that you have rights and opportunity. You sense the need to exercise those rights in order to pursue your dream and achieve self-actualization.

When I went to Hungary for the second time in April 1990, it was my first attempt at trying to help a controlled press break free of government censorship and controls. The Party and government controlled editorial personnel and content, printing, distribution, and finances. There were no such things as marketing or the marketplace of ideas.

Hungarians working in the controlled press felt hapless. The government held the power, rather than members of the press watching over government. Government said “no” to free and independent thinking. It squashed the exploring of new ideas. It said “no” to self-actualization for journalists and media managers alike. It controlled their destiny.

I began day one of the workshop dressed in my double-breasted Valentino suit and Zegna tie, polished black dress shoes, and slicked back hair. Some 25 participants from 15 “samizdat” (underground) journals and a weekly magazine published by the government’s chamber of commerce showed up.

This Westerner and the participants started out separated by two opposing political systems. During four sessions each day for the first five days, I slogged through my pre-planned lessons. They didn’t work. The conversation was one way. I was lecturing sullen faces that said “no” to everything.

“No” to developing an image and marketing position.

“No” to readership research.

“No” to alternative distribution.

“No” to subscription promotions, incentives and rebates.

“No” to strategic thinking – whether for marketing or self.

The participants did not feel empowered by the transitioning political system. Each individual seemed unsure about the right to communicate using freedom of speech. As a group that had assembled voluntarily, they did not assume their rights to openly explore solutions for dismantling controls over the press. It was as if there was a government official sitting in the room wagging a threatening finger. Fortunately, the participants were not giving up. By the end of week one, they began airing frustrations.

The following Monday the suit had found its proper place in my garment bag. Now, it was rolled up sleeves and blue jeans. I probed the participants’ indignation about being controlled, and tried to build awareness for speaking freely. Instead of lecturing participants about marketing in a free market system, I worked through each  “no” and tested every idea. Interchange emerged, and participants began talking energetically at the same time.

The closed mind and the theoretical were slowly being replaced by a can-do spirit and hands-on problem solving. Participants took up the challenge to individually express ideas and to collectively seek doable, strategic applications.

On the final day, we reviewed the two weeks. Straight faces of doubt showed some relief. Faint smiles and hope peaked out of tight faces. And we had a new participant.

The next morning an editorial appeared in Magyar Nemzet, one of the four government-run, national daily newspapers. The new participant had been a reporter.

The headline read, “The Disposition of a Smile.”

The editorial began, “It was a dramatic contrast.”

It described the potential for transformation of Hungary from a closed political system to an open society. The writer offered a challenge to journalists, media managers, and the general public alike to move from a closed “no” mindset to one marked by a daily quest for self-determination. It would be necessary to build momentum step by step for developing a free and independent press, and a democracy.

The editorial ended with the question, Es mi? “And Us?” (When will we join him?) The reporter was demanding Hungarians to openly challenge the old system.

He was in a way equating my mother’s “home place” with every citizen’s franchise in a democratic society. Don’t foreclose or deprive yourself of the right to your personal sovereignty. A key tool in claiming one’s franchise is the collateral that you can use to ensure self-actualization. An individual’s right to practice freedom of expression is that collateral.

This “collateral” had been implied during the workshop. It meant feeling free enough as participants to try new ideas upon leaving the confines of the workshop – whether the government liked them or not. If one doesn’t speak up, he’s not heard. If people don’t assemble and work toward the common good, progress on issues of public interest will be limited. Finding that “home place” could be accomplished, but it required mettle.

Today in Hungary the new prime minister and his party’s majority in Parliament have been rolling back the country’s democracy. The media face new censorship and intimidation.

I want to go back and ask, “Es Mi?”

This second post of R.A.P.P.S. is dedicated to my mother, Clara J. Mitchell.