Dissent Decree

Thank You For Your Service

November 11th, 2009 · Editorial, Politics and Social Issues, photography

In 1968, at the age of 18, I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. Four years later I was honorably discharged at the rank of Sergeant. I did not serve in combat but I did serve overseas. I am proud to have been a Marine.

Occasionally I meet people who, upon learning I was a Marine, tell me, “thank you for your service.” This is meant well, although their thank you is always tinged with guilt. People learned after the Vietnam War not to visit their dislike of America’s misguided politics and wasted wars upon the veterans who had to fight them.

I am conflicted about being thanked for my military service. Should I be gracious and accept it? Or should I tell the person to study the history of America’s war and politics and ask themselves some hard questions? Should I point out that the Vietnam War is now recognized to have been folly—that the 51,895 names etched on the wall in Washington D.C. testifies to their sacrifice in service of too many lying and dithering politicians who played war games from the comfort of their desks? Should I point out that our current “all volunteer” military is for many a last resort employment program led by career professionals—that in effect it is a mercenary force used to extend America’s influence by means of threat and violence. Should I point out that for all the deaths and maiming suffered by the United States, its allies, and the Iraqi and Afghan peoples that Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice, and that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq—although they certainly exist in arsenals throughout the United States?

Recently, while in New Mexico, a place I love for its stark contrasts, I photographed the roadside marker at the entry to Trinity Site.

Trinity Site Marker, near San Antonio, NM

Trinity Site Marker, near San Antonio, NM

It was at Trinity site, not far from San Antonio, NM in Socorro County, on 16 July 1945 that the equivalent of 20 kilotons of TNT was released with the detonation of the first atomic bomb. It was here that the biblical promise of Armageddon was made possible by science, engineering and American ingenuity. It was here in the desert, south of the Valley of Fires, that 45 mile stretch of malpais, and west of the Three Rivers Petroglyphs site with it 21,000 drawings carved in the rocks by nameless and faceless people more than 1,100 years ago that the objectivity of science was irretrievably surrendered to the service of politics.

Valley of Fires, Malpais, near Carrizozo, NM

Valley of Fires, Malpais, near Carrizozo, NM

Petroglyphs, Three Rivers, NM

Petroglyphs, Three Rivers, NM

We know the rest of the story. The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all that was living below perished or suffered. The bombs could not distinguish between combatant and non-combatant, the innocent or evil. They cooked the young and old, babies, dogs, cats and birds without discrimination.

Of course, the destruction and horrors of Little Boy and Fat Man were no greater than those caused by the fire bombings of Tokyo on the 9th of March 1945, when more than 100,000 people died that night and more than a million were wounded!

On 5 August 1945 the bomb bay doors of the Enola Gay opened and America gained the distinction of being the first nation to drop an atomic bomb (Little Boy) on a living population. Later, on 9 August 1945, Fat Man fell on Nagasaki.

It is argued that hundreds of thousands of allied troops would have died invading Japan had the bombs not been dropped. This is likely so. Yet the fact remains that the single most horrific and powerful weapon ever made was used, in spite of the pleas by many of the scientists who developed it. They said it should not be used until it had been first demonstrated to the Japanese thus giving them the option of immediate surrender. President Truman, ignored those pleas and ordered the bombings. Science was now an arm of politics. Realizing what he had done  J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoted from the Bhagavad Gita, saying, “Now, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

Thus far we have avoided another war on the scale of World War Two and have settled for exercising our military skill in a succession of mini-wars—tactical adventures that increasingly resemble video games except for the real carnage they exact. This way we continue to produce a steady stream of new veterans—veterans of our political policy wars—of our wars to extend corporate influence in the guise of spreading Democracy (mostly to those who haven’t asked for it).

As a nation we seem to have lost our stomach for wholesale slaughter and subscribe to the unfounded belief that war can be waged clinically using missiles, drones, and robots, remotely controlled by operators sitting in front of computer monitors in air-conditioned command centers. We believe, or want to believe, that we can kill only the bad guys while avoiding “collateral” damage. It doesn’t seem to be working. We seem resigned to winning the immediate engagement but not the war. In fact we can’t seem to define the war—to decide whether we are at war, conducting a police action, doing peace keeping or nation building.

There was clarity about World War Two. Neither the Axis or Allied powers deluded themselves believing limited war was possible. It was a fight to the finish. It was freedom versus the forces of oppression. Hitler and the Imperial Japanese had to be stopped. And it was over in four years.

The bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagaski, London and Dresden were not surgical raids on military targets only. Instead both sides aimed at inflicting so much pain and suffering on the respective enemy populations that they would be compelled to capitulate or wiped out. War then was understood as total. Whether you were a civilian or served in uniform you were involved and vulnerable. It was inescapable.

Today, in the United States, there is no compulsory national service, military or otherwise. Consequently the conflicts we are involved in, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq are executed by volunteer troops, commanded by university educated and professional officers. Thus our civilian population is free to support, dismiss or totally ignore the American soldier and the military in general. Instead of military service being an obligation, or perceived as a duty it is now considered just another job or career choice. New recruits are given signing bonuses and in some cases permitted to take holiday leaves during boot camp! All of the military services now use branding and marketing agencies to sell themselves, promising to turn the young recruit into an invincible high tech warrior—off to see foreign lands, seek thrills and find adventure.

So, as a veteran how do I feel about being thanked for my service? I feel unsettled, embarrassed and somewhat grateful. I appreciate that my service is acknowledged. Yet I know I did not enlist out of patriotism. I enlisted because the G.I Bill promised me an opportunity for an education, if I survived—a way out of a dead end situation. And I got that education and opportunity at a price.

During and after my service I came to know that my nation lied to me about Vietnam. I began to realize that the pay and benefits I’d received as a Marine had come at a cost in blood for many innocent people, both American and Vietnamese. So how can I be proud of this? Why should I be?

The veterans of World War Two can be proud of their service, knowing it was truly necessary and noble. And those of us who served during Korea and Vietnam can take a measure of solace in knowing that we had few choices—we would likely have been drafted if we hadn’t enlisted. Drafted or enlisted most of us went in with our eyes open and aware of the calculations.

So I will graciously accept the thank you for my service. However, anyone who would truly honor me as a veteran must pledge to rise above the words of politicians, professors and religious leaders and search for the real truth—the truth one must recognize in their heart—the truth that tells them that “blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

War should never be the political solution. It should only be entered into in defense of the innocent and helpless, and then only as an absolute and unavoidable last resort.

The best way to thank veterans is by not creating the conditions that produce them.

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009

→ 1 CommentTags:··················

What is Socialism?

November 9th, 2009 · Editorial, Politics and Social Issues, crime

From where Kate and I were sitting we couldn’t help hearing their conversation. The two couples, like us, were in the railcar at Clara’s Depot restaurant, for a late Sunday afternoon dinner. One of the men asked the other couple, “What do you think about this health care thing?” One of the women replied. “It sounds like Socialism to me.”

This past week Nidal Hasan was alleged to have  killed 13 people and wounded 29 at Fort Hood in Texas. Presumably those victims who are active duty military will have their medical expenses paid for by the United States Government. Should their wounds force them out of the service they will likely be eligible for continuing benefits through the Veterans Administration. Likewise, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, the civilian police officer employed by Fort Hood, who shot Hasan and was herself wounded, will probably have her medical care and expenses covered by the United States Government—the American taxpayer. But if the U.S. government uses tax money to pay these expenses isn’t that socialist?

The fact is no one is drafted anymore. Soldiers choose to be soldiers. And police officers choose their career. If they deserve special consideration so do teachers, construction workers, train engineers, pilots, doctors, nurses, bus drivers, bridge inspectors, ranch hands, and plumbers. And so do our children, the elderly and the poor.

The fact is any government program, service or project that uses taxpayer’s money can be deemed Socialism by its detractors—and that includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the bank bailouts.

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009

→ 2 CommentsTags:····

Another September 11

September 19th, 2009 · Design and Communication, Editorial, Owosso, Politics and Social Issues, black and white photography, crime, media

September 11, 2009 began much like that terrible morning eight years ago. I rode my bicycle along Lansing’s River Walk to my wife’s office. The sky was blue and the air crisp, just like it had been when the Twin Towers were struck. On that day I had not known the planes had crashed into the Word Trade Center until I walked into Kate’s office and she and Stacy told me, “we (the United States) are under attack.”  I was stunned.

This September 11th I was stunned when I arrived home and checked my email. A message from my sister tersely read, “somebody killed the sign guy.” The “sign guy” was a fixture in Owosso, Michigan. He often stood on street corners, hooked to his oxygen tank while  holding up graphic anti-abortion signs and shouting slogans at passers by.

At 7:30 a.m., across the street from the Owosso high school and in front of several students, James Pouillon, the 63 year old anti-abortion activist was gunned down by a man shooting from a passing truck. The shooter was Harlan James Drake.

After killing Mr. Pouillon, Drake then drove to a nearby gravel business where he shot and killed the owner, Mr. Mike Fouss. Shortly after this and before he could reach James Howe, his intended third victim, Drake was apprehended by the police. According to media reports Drake has confessed to the murders.

I did not know the victims personally. However, I grew up in Owosso and graduated from Owosso High School. I attended school with Mr. Pouillon’s younger brother Don and was acquainted with Mr. Fouss’s younger brother Jim.

Knowing Owosso as I do it is disturbing to witness this tragedy being exploited by the media and those groups greedy for anything they can turn to their profit and purpose.

Thus far no specific motive for the murders has been made public although the police say that Mr. Drake held grudges against Mr. Fouss and Mr. Howe. As for Mr. Pouillon, Drake claimed he was offended by the graphic images of aborted fetuses displayed on Pouillon’s signs. It has also been mentioned  that Drake’s mother had worked for both Fouss and Howe, and that this might have something to do with the motive.

The day after his arrest Drake was admitted to the hospital for a “serious gash” to his arm after cutting himself with broken glass from a television set in an apparent suicide attempt. He was treated and returned to jail.

Little else has been made publicly known about the killer, although in a statement in the Owosso Argus Press his family claims he was a “gentle giant.” It has also been said he had been taking anti-depressants because of his involvement in an accident in which two people were killed when they pulled in front of the semi-truck he was driving. It is speculated this may have contributed to his recent actions.

Drake had no criminal record, seemingly nothing that would indicate he might do what he did. Yet, after he was taken into custody his truck was searched and it contained 10,000 rounds of ammunition and 8 guns, including both 22 and 45 caliber pistols. Clearly this man was on a mission.

All of this would have been just another case of a disturbed man committing murder—a regrettable occurrence but not that unusual in our times. However, this particular tragedy has taken on a prominence that is disturbing.

Anti-abortion activists immediately latched onto Mr. Pouillon’s murder, making him into a martyr for their cause, yet comments submitted to the Owosso Argus Press website, allegedly written by his own son, Dr. James Pouillon, suggest that the senior Mr. Pouillon was no saint and that he had been an irresponsible father. Other comments by writers claiming to be relatives suggested he had a pathological anger toward women.

To be fair, comments posted on websites are difficult to verify and there are many sides to every story. However, this story has gained national attention based upon many unconfirmed and possibly specious facts.

On 15 September 2009, at 6:49 p.m. EDT Reuters reported on its website that president Obama had condemned Mr. Pouillon’s murder. No mention was made of whether or not the president mentioned, Mr. Fouss, the other victim. Every major news and media organization across the nation has reported Mr. Pouillon’s death and his connection to the anti-abortion cause. Mention of Mr. Fouss, the second victim, has been minimal.

Why Mr. Pouillon was killed has not been conclusively established. It may not have been because of his anti-abortion activism. He may simply have been a convenient target for a deranged killer. It has been reported that Harlan Drake will undergo psychiatric evaluation.

But facts do not stand in the way of those who will churn any set of events to make their own brand of butter. The anti-abortionists have seized upon this tragedy to advance their cause. They assume they know the killer’s mind and reasons. And they largely ignore the other victim Mr. Fouss, and the intended victim, Mr. Howe, because it appears these two men had no connection to anti-abortion activities. Their victimization is apparently less worthy of note because they are not politically useful. Glaringly apparent in all this is the nearly complete disregard for the lost life of Mr. Fouss and the suffering of the Fouss and Howe families. The death of Mr. Fouss and the threat to Mr. Howe have been treated as insignificant principally because they don’t fit the right-to-lifer’s political agenda. The media has focused on Pouillon’s murder because of his connection to the right-to-life movement. The attendant sensationalism drives ratings and ratings drive profit.

On the 16th of September a memorial service for Mr. Pouillon was held at Willman Field, in Owosso. This is the stadium in which the Owosso High Trojans play their football games. It is the property of the Owosso Public Schools. The reasoning was that so many anti-abortionist activists would be arriving from out of town there was no other place large enough to accommodate them all. However, it was requested that this be conducted solely as a memorial service and not as a demonstration. By most accounts it was. Final attendance was estimated to be around 250 people. The Fouss family did not participate.

As of this writing, Harlan Drake remains in jail and the media has found other stories to churn. According to Friday’s (18 September 2009) Owosso Argus Press Jon and Jim, the brothers of Mike Fouss have returned to work at their gravel company. The bloodstained carpet has been removed from the office. Life, though altered, goes on.

(NOTE: Since this piece was written Mr. Harlan Drake, was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. Subsequently that decision was reversed. A recent article about the case, appearing in the Lansing State Journal, 7 November 2009, reports that Mr. Drake’s record, and confession, will be reviewed by mental health experts for a possible defense of insanity.)

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009

→ 3 CommentsTags:··············

In Black and White

September 13th, 2009 · Art, Design and Communication, Images, black and white photography, photography

Backyard Memories

Backyard Memories

Black and white photography is neither inferior or superior to color photography. Each has its merits. However, black and white photography allows the photographer to explore form and light in ways that color prevents or obscures.

A particular quality of the black and white photograph is its ability to immediately confer an aura of nostalgia on its subject—to remove it from and lock it in time, principally by the reduction of local color to a range of grays. The absence of full color eliminates the emotional shading that color brings.

More so than its color counterpart, the black and white photograph is an artifact to be read. Its appeal is to the intellect first and the subject is to be discovered through a reading of the tones, lines, textures, shapes and voids in the picture but without the slippery and burdened emotional associations of color.

In our age of increasing attention deficits the color photograph prevails. Color is everywhere—even for the physically or perceptually color-blind. It soothes, titillates, excites and masks. This extension of color into every facet of our media saturated existence blurs the boundaries between what is real and what we perceive as real. However, the black and white image announces it separateness, its artificiality, and thereby makes itself something other, something removed from the way we see the world outside the rectangle—something to contemplate.

The color photograph appeals directly to the emotions—to the mostly unconscious color associations in the viewers mind. It bypasses the intellect. And no matter what the putative subject of the color photograph may be, its color palette will elicit an immediate visceral response. In this way the color photograph can be insidious. Likewise, it is often a reiteration of the obvious—a pretty packaging of the banal and vacuous.

The picture above was taken in the early 1950s. It shows me in the arms of Nick—one of my step-fathers. My memories of him are few. He and my mother were divorced soon after this picture was taken and I did not live with either of them. I lived with my great-grandmother.

I saw Nick only a few times yet this picture confirms the memories I have of him—as someone I liked, and who liked me. He died several years ago. I never saw him after the late 1950s, but I still have this picture, with its off center geometry—with the two of us looking out to the unknown. And with it I can look back at us wondering what was? There we are in that rectangle united, removed from time and worry, composed and recorded for all time in black and white forever.

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009

→ 3 CommentsTags:········

Photography, Politics and Image

September 7th, 2009 · Art, Design and Communication, Politics and Social Issues, Tony and Carmina, photography

Carmina, Tony and Curran convene at the Bean

Coffee at the Supreme Bean

Coffee at the Supreme Bean

It had been nearly 3 months since the city’s Combined Sewer Overflow project had come to the front of the Supreme Bean and for all this time pedestrian traffic was restricted to narrow paths on either side of the street. Patronage had suffered as a result and even Tony, Carmina and Curran had stopped coming. Finally they decided to meet. So on the last Thursday of August they convened for their usual coffee, pastry and conversation.

Outside the clanks, scrapes, bang and thuds of the heavy equipment, the staccato of jackhammers and the loud voices of the hard-hatted workers went on. Inside three lobbyists were ganged up on a single legislator, with each proclaiming their studied positions. In spite of these distractions Carmina, Tony and Curran got down to the serious business of catching up and speculation. Tony began.

“You know,” said Tony, “Senator Kennedy’s death has got me thinking a lot about the connection of politics and photographs. I’ve heard it said that every photograph is a political statement—a political inquiry and I believe it. I know mine are—even my snapshots.”

“But Tony, you shoot mostly nature stuff. What’s so political about photographing a spider? Curran asked.

“Well, just aiming the camera is a political act—even if you aren’t consciously ‘thinking politically’ at the time. What you choose to photograph is always a reflection of your values—and your politics. The images we make are mirrors and windows.

Just making a photograph of a spider isn’t likely to identify you as a Republican or a Democrat but it will reveal something about your relationship to the natural world. If you believe spiders are important to the ecosystem you will photograph them with a different attitude, than if you believe they are ugly and expendable. Your photographs are records of what you find meaningful—worthy of notice, preservation and examination—worthy to be shared.

I recently read a fascinating book titled, After Photography, by Fred Ritchen—which I highly recommend. Anyway, Ritchen asks, ‘Did the millions of romanticized and appropriately beautiful images of nature that serve as an image archive, on calendars, in textbooks and magazines, on the Internet and elsewhere, help us to ignore the realities of environmental destruction?’

Well, I think the answer has to be yes—and I am a card-carrying member of the North American Nature Photographers Association. So this got me thinking even more about the politics of what I do, what you do, what we all do as image-makers,” said Tony.

“So Tony, if I understand you, you are saying that even if we think of ourselves as apolitical, our politics, our values and beliefs still manifest in the photographs, paintings and design that we make—that it is impossible for anyone to be truly apolitical. Is that right?” Carmina asked.

“Yep. I am saying that every picture—is a political statement—that it can’t be otherwise, not if it is made by a human,” Tony replied.

“Well I guess that rules out objectivity in Art? Carmina replied.

“Sure does,” said Tony. “But it need not rule out truth.”

Curran was listening intently. As a graphic designer his profession had much in common with those of the lawyers, lobbyists and legislators that frequented the Bean. As a designer for hire, he was expected to champion his clients values rather than his own. He dealt in coercion, illusion, and artistic deception—it was his stock in trade. Of course Tony and Carmina did the same, all artists did, but they did it in service of their personal values and politics. They could use artistic lies to tell truths.

Still Curran wondered if in spite of his best efforts his design revealed his personal politics. He preferred the minimalist ethic—less is more. He favored Helvetica and Bodoni. He advocated for the utmost in clarity, readability and legibility—nothing sentimental or extraneous. And so he sought clients who liked this approach. Was this serving his client or his own political nature? Now he wasn’t sure and that disturbed him.

“So then, all of our work is political speech and has consequences, even if it does no more than add to the noise and confusion that is piled up on our information super highway?” Curran remarked in a tone of thoughtfulness and resignation.

“Yep,” said Tony . “Think about it Curran. You and your designer friends have helped create our super packaged, and branded world. Our lives are lived in a sea of media—mediated reality. Our views of reality are so pre-conditioned that we may already have lost the ability to distinguish the real from the virtual. We are conditioned to expect our world to look like the perfected and manufactured images we see everywhere. With every new image added to the pile our cynicism grows. We can’t trust our senses anymore. Everything is ‘mediated.’

As a photographer I question the validity of what I do. What does it mean to make an authentic and original nature photograph? Is it even possible? Is the species natural if it exists only in a zoo or on a game preserve? Is a tiger a real tiger if it is not free to roam?

Quoting Ritchen again, he says it is estimated that in 2010 nearly a half a trillion photographs will be made in just that year alone. So what’s the point of making another nature photograph? Taking millions of photographs of a threatened species means little if they disappear among the billions—the trillions of photographs being released into media? It means little if the public believes that every picture it sees has been Photoshoped—manipulated or constructed,” said Tony.

“But Tony, there is that satisfaction which comes from making a picture you believe in, a piece that is authentic and original and which reflects your personal values to the best of your abilities. There is that satisfaction and meaning which comes from sharing the work with others who know and trust you. And really Tony, none of us can ask more of ourselves as artists than that,” said Carmina.

“You are right,” Tony replied. “We are artists and artists make art. Politics will take care of itself,” he said.

“So, you all want to try this again next week? Curran asked.

“Sure,” said Carmina.

“Sure,” said Tony.

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009

→ 5 CommentsTags:········