Good News, Finally! from the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Center

At long last, some good news from the much-troubled, nearly-moribund Indianapolis Peace and Justice Center (IPJC): finally, IPJC’s President since April, the consistently and roundly inept David Scott, resigned, and in his stead as interim President steps IPJC’s Vice-president, the able Jennifer Cobb. I’ve known Ms. Cobb for nearly two decades, and it is at last comforting to see a relatively young person (under 40) stepping into a leadership position at IPJC, an organization presently dominated by retirees collecting Social Security, with nary a real youth (someone under 30) in sight. After nearly 30 years of existence, the IPJC, notably under Scott, but earlier as well, under the complacent helm of immediate past Presidents Jim Wolfe and Jane Haldeman, seemed determined to go out “not with a bang, but with a whimper.” Though Cobb will have a very difficult time ahead trying to breathe life back into the IPJC, she does have the ability and, hopefully, the assertiveness to do so, and I offer my full cooperation and support to her in this endeavor.

Because, at bottom, the only good thing I can say at this point about the accession of Jennifer Cobb to the head of IPJC and David Scott’s much-justified resignation is “It’s about time!”

This was made particularly evident by Scott’s last activity as IPJC President, putting out the pathetic Winter 2011 issue of The Movement, IPJC’s putative monthly newspaper that hadn’t published since September, ostensibly for lack of funds, even though the time for publication of the October issue and beyond would’ve coincided with the IPJC’s annual fund drive; but needless to say, no financial information on the success or failure of that drive was granted to IPJC members, or as far as I know, even to its Board of Directors. David Scott simply told the Board that funds were not available, publication of The Movement needed to be suspended indefinitely at the very least, and that was that. Finis. End of discussion. Given the Board’s long-standing tradition of being an acquiescent rubber-stamp for which asking pointed questions of the President would’ve been a serious breach of comfortable cronyism, the Board’s craven collapse on the issue of publishing The Movement—which effectively eliminated IPJC’S voice to the broader Indianapolis community completely—was not at all surprising, even if deplorable. And that’s putting it mildly indeed!

But a very limited edition of The Movement was put out very late in December (I received my copy via mail on the 22nd), a patchwork of articles that had been sitting around gathering dust for the last couple of months, and whose publication now clearly showed their datedness. Bob Baldwin’s article on the Occupy Indianapolis movement referred to the state of that movement as it existed not later than late October or perhaps very early November. Debbie Peddie’s article on the execution of Troy Davis on September 21 was clearly written at that time, and not in the least updated to make it more relevant. Other articles in this issue of The Movement were even less edifying, the quality of writing was so pedestrian it made the average AP or Indianapolis Star news story look like a literary paragon, and the political tenor of the issue (if it can be dignified by calling it that) was confused, disoriented and unfocused. Further, the dearth of content was even more emphasized by that long-standing ploy editors of IPJC newspapers traditionally use when short on content to adequately fill a newspaper—set the whole thing in larger-than-normal type, which makes the paucity of content stand out even more.

Scott, as both Publishing Editor and IPJC President, published in this issue a “Letter from the President” that directly referenced its being written in November 2011, and obviously not updated. It was noticeably silent on his upcoming resignation, although perhaps that was not in the offing when he penned his cliché-ridden “Letter,” filled with vacuous ruminations on celebration and time-of-year change. But one of the things that was in the “Letter” was that Earth House, a supposed “activist organization” housed in a downtown church, and which had rented the IPJC its office there for nearly four years, was now calling on the IPJC to leave. While Scott was noticeably opaque about the reasons why IPJC now had to leave, offering only possible “philosophical differences” and another organization being interested in renting the space as reasons, he’d touted Earth House as a model of activist commitment not long before, and bandied about the notion that 200 activists from Earth House could find a friendly berth in IPJC—if IPJC simply followed along with Scott’s usually grandiose, unfunded visions of what IPJC needed to become. And now this same model of activist commitment was very firmly insisting that the IPJC had to leave!

So IPJC enters 2012 looking for another place to move into, to set up yet another vastly underutilized office that never seems to be able to attract enough volunteers to adequately staff it, and where, to reliable reports, IPJC can barely afford a telephone for such an office, much less provide personnel to answer it. But Scott was always long on vague visions, very much short on implementation; which is why IPJC essentially did nothing during Scott’s tenure as President except listen to his grandiosely vague language. Which seemed to be just the way David Scott wanted it.

But enough grousing about David Scott, who will certainly not be sorely missed, if missed at all. IPJC has many other problems, many of which existed yet remained unaddressed even before Scott took office. David Scott merely compounded many festering problems that had long remained buried and hidden within the IPJC’s good ol’ boys network of tired churchgoing pacifists and their satraps, the vast majority of whom are well over 60, and anyone who is obviously under 35 a real rarity.

This, then, is the IPJC now dumped into Jennifer Cobb’s lap. As I mentioned above, I’ve known her for nearly two decades, and regard her as an able person. But she won’t be able to turn IPJC around on her own, and will find most of the Board members, as well as those precious few in the Indianapolis community who identify in any way with the IPJC, unwilling to commit or to act, preferring instead to just sit back and let Jennifer do it. But she will need to push, prod, cajole and otherwise agitate those persons despite this if she wishes to accomplish anything, if she wishes to be effective as the interim President and establish some sort of firm ground on which IPJC can stand when it elects a President at its annual April meeting. Although her e-mail address contains as first part “BlessedtheMeek,” she dare not be meek, but must be assertive and proactive, if IPJC is in fact to even have another year of existence other than as an empty shell. (Indianapolis has a way of generating do-nothing organizations that somehow manage to meet, even if accomplishing nothing; and, simply by meeting regularly, thus perpetuate themselves long beyond their useful lives.) As I also indicated above, I extend my offer of active cooperation to her, and as a first step, offer the following as strong suggestions on what must be done (obviously, not all at once):

• First, prod IPJC’s octogenarian Treasurer, Garnett Day, to provide a full, complete report on the state of IPJC’s current finances and fund-raising.

• Second, revitalize IPJC’s monthly newspaper, The Movement, as an ongoing publication committed to journalistic excellence as its mainstay in presenting itself to the broader community, complemented and supplemented by its organizational webpage and blogging site, both of which exist in sadly moribund states. Despite one of David Scott’s friends filling the post of web moderator, neither the webpage nor the blogging site have been kept up-to-date, let alone becoming sources of timely information and discussion that can actually generate interest in the IPJC. While the IPJC’s webpage has been partially updated, its blogging site has remained unchanged and unmoderated since October 31, 2011, and both are amateurish in content and layout. The interested reader can see for him/herself; the webpage address is www.indypeaceandjustice.org, and the blog site address is http://indypeaceandjustice.wordpress.com. On this latter I posted a “comment” that’s still “awaiting moderation” since December 1, 2011!

• Third, to revitalize The Movement will require making it both writer-friendly and under the editorship of high-quality editors and staff who will work with writers and guide them in constructive ways, not simply putting in articles because they arrived via e-mail close to the time of editorial preparation, and thus filled space, or because they fit in with the IPJC President’s predilections, regardless of merit. The Movement, and its predecessor, the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Journal, did have such a person involved who excelled on both counts, and I’m glad to say I had the honor of working under him: Managing Editor Jack Kaufman-McKivigan, who hopefully will become more involved in 2012 after stepping away from The Movement in late 2011.

• Fourth, the editor of The Movement must not be the IPJC President, or beholden to him/her for the position, but be staffed independently, and, while ultimately answerable to the President and the Board of Directors, needs to be regarded as an independent professional who makes editorial decisions on sound journalistic practice, and who must be given sufficient leeway to do so; all too often the editorial functions of IPJC publications have been undermined because of petty political gripes, or because someone who was an officer of the IPJC, or sat on the Board, or both, had an ax to grind. The same goes for the moderator of the webpage and the blog site.

• Fifth, editor and writers must work together in a constructive partnership; this is best assured by a proactive promotion of journalistic excellence on both sides. Both editors and writers for IPJC publications and webs must be committed to professionalism and professional standards, even though they will probably not serve as paid professionals. Further, while the editorial decisions of editors and moderators should be regarded as essentially final, there needs also be an effective ombudsman who can hear appeals and render fair decisions that will be regarded as such, even by the losing parties. IPJC publications and webs have been plagued by censorship in the past; in the interests of providing a true free speech forum, this must not be allowed to happen again.

• Sixth, the IPJC President must be accountable to the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors must be accountable to the President and officers, and ultimately, Board members and officers must be accountable to the membership. Recall and referendum on the part of the membership should be provided for; also, more extensive use of online and mail voting, so that decisions are made that reflect the membership as a whole, not simply those who show up at meetings.

• Seventh, the IPJC must declare itself a membership organization of individuals open to all who support its principles and commitments and who pay the annual dues, with one vote per member. It must stop the charade, long a dead letter, of somehow also having organizations as members, when none such have participated for as long as I’ve been involved in the IPJC, which goes back to just a few years after its founding in 1982.

• Eighth, the present Mission Statement and statement of editorial policy for The Movement must be scrapped; these pitiful inadequacies are the creatures of David Scott, and were passively accepted because no one had the spine to challenge Scott (except perhaps me, but I’ve always been regarded as “contentious,” even when my “contentiousness” has been proven both right and necessary!), but simply went along with him in “lazy-faire” fashion, as befits a good ol’ boys network of incestuous cronies that has been at the helm of IPJC far too long, and which has led to its present crisis.

• Ninth, while certainly IPJC should be inclusive and embracing to those in the Indianapolis area who are truly for peace with social justice, (both meaningfully defined) it simply cannot be all things to all persons, so “inclusive and open-minded” (as the statement of editorial policy for The Movement puts it) so that it includes both socialists and activists in the Indiana Tea Party, and where it opens its doors so wide that anybody who proclaims being for “peace and justice” can enter and be a part of IPJC, even Tea Party reactionaries, Blue Dog Democrats, and John Boehner/Eric Cantor Republicans! Such an all-embracing inclusiveness is absurd and unworkable for an organization that actually wishes to do something to achieve peace with justice.

• Tenth, while IPJC should continue to uphold its commitment to nonviolence, it should not conflate this, as it has done so many times in the past, with pacifism, or worse, become beholden to those approaches that have defined (and limited) the traditional “peace churches.” Quakerism especially has been far too uncritically embraced by the IPJC, with a chilling effect on peace with social justice activists who questioned the applicability of consensus in all situations; or who rejected the notion that some sort of “natural harmony” in human affairs existed, or could be brought into existence, despite the palpable conflicts of race, gender, sexual orientation and socio-economic class that have proven to be endemic, and stem more from oppression and inequality than from “disharmony.” Furthermore, IPJC has been far too beholden to theistic perspectives on peace and social justice, also with a chilling effect on those who support peace with social justice but who are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Marxists, consider themselves not religious, or who question certain religious beliefs and dogmas. What this all means is that IPJC needs to strive to become what its goals and principles actually tend toward, a secular organization of an inclusive center-left that is not just pro-peace and antiwar, but actually strives for, tries to put into societal practice, a vision of social justice that encompasses economic equality, respect for cultural and political differences, is democratic and participatory in decision-making, and is proactively supportive of the aims, aspirations and struggles of the 99% against the 1%, to express this last in Occupy movement terms.

As a useful guide to what this might entail, especially in regards to the ninth and tenth points, I refer the reader to my article, “Slandering Nonviolence,” which was originally published in the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Journal of October 2008, and was later revised and published on the New Politics website on September 15, 2011, accessed at http://newpol.org/node/510. I think it, and the ensuing discussion of the article posted below it, will be found not only interesting, but also highly valuable, relevant and appropriate in understanding why I make a crucial yet necessary distinction between nonviolence and pacifism, and why one can be nonviolent without necessarily being a pacifist.

This is a very good place to stop, and to wish Jennifer Cobb all the luck and pluck she will need in her job as IPJC interim President. She certainly has the ability to do excellent work, and I am glad to extend my hand to her in cooperation. I hope the rest of those who consider themselves a part of IPJC, or sympathetic to it, will do likewise.

Guest Blog from my friend John Williams: The Woman You Thought You Knew

THE WOMAN YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW
by John Williams

A true story about real people written in the form of a short story

CAST OF CHARACTERS AND THE REAL PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT

Renee Folger—representing real person Jane the H. of blog entry "Dregs"
Ben Folger—representing real person Ron the H. of "Dregs"
Both influential leaders among Indianapolis "progressives" and "socialists"
Glen Fowler—representing real person George Fish
All long-time activists among Indianapolis "progressives" and "socialists"

Disclaimer: Although a story based on real people and real events, it is still a short story, and should not be taken as a completely true-to-life documentary; however, it is substantively based on the facts and psychologies of the personages as the author knew them, and he’s known each personage depicted for decades.

The story of Renee Folger needs to be told. Through this uncovering of her life, you’ll get to know her and the secrets that were found out. Many of these previously-unknown secrets were expressed only after her passing. Be on guard, read carefully and see what happened, lest it happen to you.

As the story begins, we learn that Renee’s husband, Ben, has a good-paying job in a local government office. He buys champagne and roses for Renee, and provides a good living. Renee rejoices in her husband’s good position, and provides support for him in any way she can. From a distance, it seems their life is good, and that the goodness will never stop.

Ironically, Renee was doing quite well herself financially. She was a nutritionist for a large hospital complex, and her decisions were final, no questions asked. Good money, authority over others, and a husband with a good-paying job. Wow! What else could she want?

For reasons unknown, Renee was the money handler for her family of two; the couple never had any children. As such, she wrote the checks, paid the bills, and made all the financial decisions. Her husband took the backseat completely. This was so obvious that some said the husband didn’t even know how to write a check, even a little one.

Renee needed control over everything, and she got it. She controlled the finances, and developed into what might be called a “helper.” Her life’s mission was to help others and make a beautiful, happy world where she and her friends could live.

But even in this make-believe world some problems seeped in. There was a political shift at work, and her husband’s job situation changed dramatically. Over time, he was maneuvered out of his job. He soon needed help, and Renee was more than happy to step in.

Renee and Ben were of the Quaker faith. Over the course of many years, they regularly attended church services and made many close friends. Renee, of course, was the center of attention, and soon her friends considered her a type of angel. She could do no wrong! She was the perfect example of goodness and correctness—or so it seemed on the surface. This surface appearance of goodness and correctness was so strong that, in fact, had she been a member of a different religion, she would have been up for canonization as a saint.

Ben, now unemployed, gained employment as a Quaker minister. Gee, imagine that! As time went on, the members of the congregation became unhappy with the new minister. It seems he wanted to take his faith-driven purpose in life to the streets. The higher-ups decided that Ben would have to go. Quite frankly, he wasn’t following the rules of Quaker orthodoxy, and was considered somewhat too radical for official purposes and decorum.

Being very close to Ben and his situation, naturally, Renee once again found another place where she could “help.” She did have friends and money, and Ben certainly had a need. Renee, however, didn’t look to Ben to decide what he wanted, but instead decided for Ben that he needed a new direction. Perhaps his message could be better expressed, and his mission better accomplished, as an editor and typesetter who also worked other ancillary journalistic occupations. At least, she thought, here he could have freedom of expression and perhaps make some money.

Next, we find Ben being the editor of a small political newspaper. The title of “editor” is used loosely here, as Ben was editor in name only. Renee knew the finances of the paper and, through knowing such, had control of what was published and by whom. Once again, her decisions were final and not to be disputed, even by Ben.

As time went on, Renee’s helpfulness found a new outlet. She embraced the less fortunate, those people on the street who needed direction and hope. Sometimes she blended politics and religion quite nicely, as they both fit together quite well. Or--at least it appeared that way!

Social issues abounded, and help was needed. Renee and Ben attended meetings and protests to add their input—and their impotence in matters of power to really effect change—to various causes. Dues were paid and contributions were forthcoming. A new cause, a new day. Renee was happy, prosperous, and boy, could she help!

But during this felicitous time something else happened. Something unexpected, something that would have a substantial effect on Renee and Ben for years to come: Glen Fowler entered their lives. He met Renee and Ben at one of the political meetings they attended. For whatever reason, there was an attraction by Glen to what seemed to be a very nice couple. Or so he thought!

Glen Fowler’s background was complex, troubled, and unknown to Renee and Ben. The experiences of his life that he revealed, however, fit in quite nicely into Renee’s notion of the type of person she could really help. Really help! And what did Glen really need? In a word, everything.

For too many years, Glen had been trapped by the circumstances of his life. As a youth, Glen had been forced to accept the dictates of his parents and family. He had no choice, no alternative, no recourse! His parents were members of an orthodox religion that was very authoritative, very authoritarian, and accepted no dissent or rebuttal. It was either “this way” or “the highway.”

The elements of this faith reinforced his parents’ view of child-rearing, which was also quite authoritarian. As Glen got older, conflicts arose within his family. Questions arose, and were not answered. He soon realized that if he were to survive, he needed to “shut up” and somehow “go away” at the very minimum. He did just that because he had to.

Living as he did in a small town under the rule of unquestioned authority, Glen longed for a way out. It came when he left home for college in the mid-1960s.

The 1960s in America was a time of revolution. It was an era of protests, marches, and discontent with the war in Vietnam. It was an unsettling time of new ideas and challenges. Also, it was a time of new-found freedoms.

Glen left home and stepped into a whole new dimension. For the first time in his life, Glen had total freedom, the ability to do whatever he wanted. It was during this time that Glen learned many new ideas, and found out for himself how vastly different the world can be. It was the first time Glen had been exposed to different races, cultures, political beliefs and religions. Here too came his beginning experiences with alcohol, drugs and the opposite sex. Wow, what a beginning of real life!

Life is filled with twists and turns. It seems the great awakening gradually took its toll on Glen. While in college he recognized that something was wrong. He became depressed and somewhat disoriented. Glen sought help at the college infirmary, and this began a most negative and long-term disaster.

For the next several years Glen’s life was literally on hold. He followed instructions from the medical folks. He took his medications, attended his counseling sessions. Little did he know he was on a merry-go-round that was leading him nowhere. But not only that for Glen; Ben wasn’t aware either that he’d fallen into a trap himself—one of answering to authority with no rebuttal allowed. Both had fallen into traps set by Renee by her need to “help” others through controlling them.

Things went from bad to worse. And now Glen was faced with a multitude of unpleasant situations: inadequate housing, unemployment, alcoholism, apathy form family, and many confusing and conflicting feelings.

Ben and Renee, on the other hand, were doing quite well. Ben’s business wasn’t overly successful, but at least he had a private office, regular meals, and a place of his own. And incidentally, he had Renee. Or was it the other way around?

Renee’s need to help soon surrounded Glen. Once again, Glen had accidentally tripped and stumbled into a trap of which he wasn’t aware. He had fallen into the clutches of a most accommodating helper. A trap very similar to living at home but with much more long-lasting and dangerous consequences.

The years passed slowly. Renee’s help came to Glen in various ways. She helped Glen pay his rent and was gracious enough to speak to him and allow him to visit Ben’s office. Wonderful! She even allowed some of his articles to be published.

Glen had learned many things over time. Unable to adequately defend himself against adversity, Glen reluctantly accepted Renee’s help, but suspected that other vital needs and their satisfaction would have to be relinquished in exchange for Renee’s help. His suspicions were soon to be realized, but this was readily dismissed by Renee due to her power and Glen’s lack of influence.

Glen was sounding an alarm. No one listened. He longed to tell everyone about Renee and what she was doing. He wanted others to know of Renee’s pretentious appearance of goodness and “help” she cultivated, while simultaneously treating Glen as unworthy of respect and not worthy of being treated like a human being. His efforts in this regard fell on deaf ears. No one listened or cared. Still Glen persisted, and tried in every conceivable way to tell others.

During all this, Fate stepped in and brought forth an unexpected event—Renee’s health began to wither. She had liver cancer.

As Renee’s health continued to decline, Glen still held on to his message. The timing of Glen’s message and Renee’s failing health didn’t sit well with others. Once again, Glen was asked to be silent and please, go away!

What was Glen’s message? And why was it so important that he felt he needed to write an essay and make it available to mourners after Renee’s demise? Yes, Renee had passed! But now, what of Glen and his message?

What Glen had to say had been learned over a period spanning greater than twenty years. He had paid a dear price for what he’d learned. He hadn’t known that Renee, due to her influence, was socially isolating Glen. He hadn’t known of the criticism of him behind his back to everyone Renee knew. He hadn’t known about the private conversations that had been held to talk about him. He hadn’t even known how phony and obnoxious “helpers” can be. All this he’d found out the hard way.

Additionally, he hadn’t known that when Renee passed she’d saddled her husband with bills for utilities that had been unpaid for the previous three months. Also, that the bulk of her estate had been left for charity, not her husband, who now had next to nothing. Incidentally, he hadn’t even been aware that Ben, Renee’s husband, now widower, didn’t even know how to drive a car.

Glen certainly knew that Renee’s husband was totally controlled by her. But he didn’t know that when Renee died, she’d left Ben as an infant to walk alone now in the woods. In fact, Ben now felt imposed upon when he had to answer the telephone, a small task formerly managed by Renee.

So much to know about someone trying to help!

Glen’s hard-learned message is clear: Let no one control you! Further, his experiences raise certain moral questions that really need to be answered. For instance, is charity always from the heart, or are there “charitable” people who demand repayment for it in insidious, treacherous ways? Can we have good intentions but, in reality, do harm despite them? Lastly, how can we be sure when someone justifies actions such as these that they were, as they state, “directed by God”?

At first glance, Renee appeared to be the personification of goodness. When she passed, however, she left behind a poor child with nothing, and a man who couldn’t forget what she did. Is this the woman you thought you knew?