Silicon vs Carbon

Media love to point to tech as causing Tunisian and Egyptian Uprisings. It was more the carbon of the people, and in particular those who set themselves afire. 

Twenty Years Ago Today -- Immolation Revolutions Now; And the Ones to Come

Let a man in a garret but burn with enough intensity and he will set fire to the world.

 -- Antoine de Saint Exupéry (best know as the author of The Little Prince)


Perhaps it was just a coincidence that he used newspapers to do it. 

But I don't think so.

From what I know of Greg, he had a sense of symbolism. I don't know a thing about the other two Americans from that year. 

I do know some about Mohamed. Much of the world does. That's because when he set himself ablaze, his town, nation and people followed.  

But Greg was not so lucky.

Twenty years ago today -- as the U.S. bombing of Iraq in the Gulf War entered its fifth week -- a few minutes before 2, Gregory Levey walked to the Amherst, Massachusetts town common with newspapers stuffed under his clothing. He doused himself with paint thinner. The first match went out. With the second, he lit himself afire. 

You probably haven't heard of him; he doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. In all the stories last month about self-immolations, none I could find mentioned him. Instead they all focused on self-immolation cases from the Vietnam War. This was partly because the sociologist many turned to, Michael Biggs at Oxford, who wrote the paper "Dying Without Killing: Self-Immolations, 1963-2002," emailed me that he didn't know about Levey. A New York Times article shortly after Levey's death refers to two others who killed themselves protesting the Gulf War 20 years ago -- I've as yet been unable to find anything about them, not even their names. 

Levey had a placard with the word "PEACE" written on it and his drivers licence attached. 

Jennifer Cannon recently wrote me: "I was one of the first people on the Amherst Common after Greg's self-immolation. I was a UMass undergraduate student at the time. A group of us formed -- anti-war students, local community members, Buddhist monks from the Leverett Peace Pagoda -- and we held vigil 24 hours a day until the town forced us to leave about two weeks later. It was a profound and deeply moving experience. Everyone involved with the vigil knew that Greg chose to end his life in order to make a statement about how wrong the war was. ... Maintaining the vigil in 'liberal' Amherst was not easy. We were harassed every day and night -- often with trucks driving by with the American flag, honking their horns and people yelling and swearing at us. We were seen as anti-war and therefore as unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. ... It is devastating that the war continues."

It's an interesting phrase by Jennifer. Few public conversations consider that fundamentally, it's all been one long war since 1990 that has manifested itself in different ways. The 20th "anniversary" of the Gulf War has gone virtually unmentioned I think in large part because, to acknowledge it in a meaningful way, the U.S. would have to stop pretending that it was just minding its own business when the 9/11 attacks happened. 

Two memorial journals were filled during the vigil following Greg's death. One page read: "It's raining now, the day after your courageous, determined, peace-filled death. It snowed last night and now there's a circle of stars surrounding snow flows of every color ... It's beautiful. We continue to live in hope that your action and our actions will stop this war, this madness, the killings and that as we approach the 3rd millennium, we will truly live in peace. Wherever you are, you will be in my heart forever. Peace and love to you." Whoever wrote that was trying to give Levey's being life. 

In contrast: On February 4, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said: "And as we recall, a fruit vendor in Tunisia had his fruit stolen and lit himself on fire." Gibbs kills. He kills because he tries to deceive about death, about someone's sacrifice for others. Gibbs doesn't want people to know that Mohamed Bouaziz, whose self-immolation sparked the uprising in Tunisia, was slapped around not by robbers, but by Tunisian government forces. He doesn't want people to know that Bouaziz set himself on fire in front of the municipal building in his town of Sidibouzid, literally taking his grievance to the government's doorstep. 

The columnist James Carroll recently wrote: "But, for all the desperation that might motivate self-immolation -- born perhaps of nobility, but also perhaps of crushing mental illness -- it is urgently important to decry such violence. That it is inflicted against the self makes it different from assault against others, but it is still violence. All cults of martyrdom are inhumane -- including self-martyrdom. ... In the face of death in all its forms, choose life." 

This is directly contradictory to the view of the Jesuit priest Daniel Berrigan: "I think in Christianity that something very great has been lost. Jesus' death, I think, in a very deep sense can be called a self-immolation. I mean that He went consciously to death, choosing that death for the sake of others, reasonably and thoughtfully." Berrigan argues that people who burned themselves protesting the Vietnam War should not be said to have committed "suicide" since "suicide proceeds from despair and from the loss of hope and I felt that [Roger Laporte, a Catholic Worker self-immolator] did not die in that spirit."

Thich Nhat Hant, a Buddhist monk says of self-immolation: "I think we must try to understand those who have sacrificed themselves. We do not intent to say that self-immolation is good, or that it is bad. ... When you say something is good, you say that you should do that. But nobody can urge another to do such a thing. ... It is done to wake us up." He relates the story of a young Vietnamese woman, Nhat Chi Mai, who immolated herself -- and was so joyous the month before that people thought she was planning on getting married. He also argues that others are burning themselves but [quoting another monk] "in a slower way. I am burning myself with austerity, with active resistance against the war." (See chapter on self-immolation in The Raft is not the Shore -- conversations between Berrigan and Nhat Hanh). In some ways, self immolation is an attempt at a life of service all at once. We are all oxidizing slowly, they chose it all at once. 

At least two other people in the U.S. have immolated themselves since the Gulf War (see list of political self-immolations). In 1996, Kathy Change immolated herself in Philadelphia, craving some attention for her desire to remake society. She wrote: "I want to protest the present government and economic system and the cynicism and passivity of the people ... as emphatically as I can. But primarily, I want to get publicity in order to draw attention to my proposal for immediate social transformation. To do this I plan to end my own life. The attention of the media is only caught by acts of violence. My moral principles prevent me from doing harm to anyone else or their property, so I must perform this act of violence against myself." 

In November 2006 Malachi Ritscher immolated himself in Chicago. "Maybe some will be scared enough to wake from their walking dream state" he wrote. "When I hear about our young men and women who are sent off to war in the name of God and Country, and who give up their lives for no rational cause at all, my heart is crushed. ... Half the population is taking medication because they cannot face the daily stress of living in the richest nation in the world.... The violent turmoil initiated by the United States military invasion of Iraq will beget future centuries of slaughter, if the human race lasts that long. ... Wouldn't it be better to stand for something or make a statement, rather than a fiery collision with some drunk driver? Are not smokers choosing death by lung cancer? Where is the dignity there?" I recall being appalled by the lack of media coverage of Ritscher's death. Even programs like Democracy Now wouldn't mention it. 

Aaron Glantz reported late last year: "In the six years after Reuben Paul Santos returned to Daly City from a combat tour in Iraq, he battled depression with poetry, violent video games and, finally, psychiatric treatment. His struggle ended last October, when he hung himself from a stairwell. He was 27. ... An analysis of official death certificates on file at the State Department of Public Health reveals that more than 1,000 California veterans under 35 died between 2005 and 2008. That figure is three times higher than the number of California service members who were killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts over the same period." This didn't count the reckless deaths. Glantz found ten times as many motorcycle deaths by veterans over non-veterans. 

Bouazizi wrote on his Facebook page before immolating himself: "Traveling, o Mom. Forgive me. No blame is beneficial. Lost in a path that is out of your hands. Forgive me, if I disobeyed the word of my mother. Blame the time and not me. Leaving but not returning. For much I cried and tears streamed from my eyes. No blame can benefit in a time that is treacherous in the land of people. I am tired and all that passed left my mind. Traveling and asking what can make you forget."

Mohamed Bouaziz, Greg Levey and the others who immolated themselves recently in Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Mauritania -- whom we know little about so far -- seem to represent neither the lonely despair of veteran suicide, nor the near joyous embrace of the Vietnamese woman Mai. They represent a desire to leave an oppressive life, but to leave it in such a way that might benefit others. A refusal to live in permanent subjugation -- a liberty though death -- and a hope that by exiting that subjugation though death, a dignified life might be achieved for others who one loves.

Shortly after Bouazizi's death (he lived for several weeks after his December 17 immolation) the Tunisian activist Fares Mabrouk said to Democracy Now: "The lesson from the Tunisian people is a lesson of dignity. I have a video of two days ago. Two days ago, from the balcony of downtown Tunisia, people were shooting from the window, 'Dignity! Dignity!' at 2 in the morning." 

A short time later Egyptian activist Asmaa Mahfouz recorded a YouTube video calling for protests on January 25. It began: "Four Egyptians have set themselves on fire, thinking maybe we can have a revolution like Tunisia ... maybe we can have freedom, justice, honour and human dignity. Today, one of these four has died, and I saw people commenting and saying: 'May God forgive him, he committed a sin, and killed himself for nothing.' People, have some shame. ..."

A lengthy piece about Levey by Pippin Ross in Boston magazine [June 1991] tells us "[Robert] Levey says that his son was both outraged and amused by how the established press does little more than swallow the government line. 'I think American foreign policy is central to why he is dead,' says Robert Levey." Both Greg's father, Robert, and his step mother, the columnist Ellen Goodman, were in the newspaper business. The Boston magazine piece gives a chronology of Levey's last days. It doesn't state it, but from the chronology, one can extrapolate that Levey seems to have been stunned by the February 13 bombing of the Amariyah Shelter, which killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians. I recall being devastated by it -- and by the incredibly callous media coverage of it. So of course, Levey and the others were victims of media in death as well as in life.  

Life is burned and demeaned by ignoring what sacrifice someone has made, and why. And life is honored by hearing those who immolate themselves, for no one knows what might rise from their ashes.

Many of Sam Husseini's writing are at husseini.posterous.com. Thanks to the activist community of Amherst and the staff at the Jones Library for material on Greg Levey's life.

Already Forgetting the Martyrs of Egypt

In his news conference yesterday, Obama appeared to suggest that hundreds of protesters were not killed by the Mubarak regime in the last several weeks. Obama said, "what has been true in Egypt is -- should be true in Iran, which is that people should be able to express their opinions and their grievances and seek a more responsive government. What's been different is the Iranian government's response, which is to shoot people and beat people and arrest people. And, you know, my hope and expectation is, is that we're going to continue to see the people of Iran have the courage to be able to express their yearning for greater freedoms and a more representative government." Transcript from CNN; Video excerpt from Democracy Now.

This closely paralleled what I heard McCain say on Sunday. As he stepped out of the CBS studios, I was set to question him. Another reporter asked about Iran, and McCain said that in contrast to Egypt, Iran is a “more oppressive, repressive police state that knows no restrictions. We saw last time, they don’t hesitate to shoot and kill people in the streets. Obviously, the Egyptian military was not ready to do that.”

I corrected McCain in the course of asking him my question -- "There were hundreds of killings at the hands of the police over the last two weeks, sir" -- but he didn't correct himself or apologize. See the video:

The facts are rather stark: In Iran, during the protests in 2009, Human Rights Watch documented about 10 people killed. In Egypt, since Janurary 25, there have been over 300.

I did ask McCain: “Do we owe the Egyptian people an apology for having backed a tyrant for 30 years?”

He replied: “Hindsight is 20/20. … There’s many ways this government has been helpful to us ... I can’t apologize for what happened in Indonesia, for what happened in the Philippines, for what happened Romania.” Too bad, because apologizing might be the first step to bringing the dictator backing to a halt.

Obama claims: "But there are certain universal principles that we adhere to. One of them is, we don't believe in violence as a way of -- and coercion as a way of maintaining control." Think for a moment about how that sounds to an Afghan who has had a loved one killed by a U.S. drone attack. Or a Palestinian who has been wounded by U.S.-backed Israeli occupiers. Or, for that matter, an Egyptian who knows the U.S. backed the Mubarak regime for decades.

Obama's "universal values" have a way of not being universal. He loves talking about how bad Iran is, but he was asked twice about Saudi Arabia in his news conference yesterday -- ie: "what concerns do you have about instability, especially in Saudi Arabia, as the demonstrations spread?" -- and he didn't mention the country. Compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a Jeffersonian paradise.

The dismissal of cheap blood is commonplace. Also yesterday, Obama gave George H W Bush the "Medal of Freedom." Exactly twenty years ago, the elder Bush launched the Gulf War, leading to the direct killing of thousands, the devastating sanctions on Iraq for over a decade and a series of disasters that are still causing great suffering. Just this past weekend marks the 20 years since the US bombed the Amariyah Shelter. The voiceover in the White House ceremony that honored Bush said he "built a broad international coalition to expel a dictator from Kuwait" as well as how his "humility and his decency reflects the very best of the American spirit."

Obama and McCain's comments are just a symptom. Let's hear the stories of the people who were killed by Mubarak's thugs, not just the stories of a few U.S. journalists, or a Google executive who was in detention virtually the entire time.

I've also felt ill at ease with pictures of Egyptians, perhaps at the behest of the military now running the country, "cleaning" the blood of those killed in the protests. Seems to me it should be memorialized, not "cleaned."

Certain victims are routinely invisible. It's remarkable that the victims of Mubark's thugs over the last several weeks -- even while occasionally rhetorically celebrated -- are among them.

Sam Husseini is founder of WashingtonStakeout, his latest personal writings are at http://husseini.posterous.com

Egypt, Camp David, Iraq War and February 15 -- Peace Is a Lie -- #jan25 #Sidibouzid

Part of our being the United States of Amnesia (Gore Vidal) is not remembering important dates. One important date is today, February 15. It was on this date in 2003 that millions around the world protested against the imminent invasion of Iraq. I've written some about it. Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque recently wrote an interesting piece.

Another important date is the weeks that we're in. Twenty years ago, George H W Bush launched the Gulf War. This past weekend marks the 20 years since the US bombed the Amariyah Shelter. Obama today gave Bush 41 the "Medal of Freedom" in a White House ceremony that honored Bush, noting he "built a broad international coalition to expel a dictator from Kuwait" as well as how his "humility and his decency reflects the very best of the American spirit."

There's much concern of late regarding the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel, since a new Democratic! Egypt might not abide by them. Of course, much of Egypt's groveling before Israel and the United States the last several decades is not directly attributable to Camp David, most obviously, the Mubarak regime's cooperation in the siege against Gaza.

However, shortly before the Gulf War, Eqbal Ahmad pointed to the Camp David accords as having paved the way for the Gulf War. I hope to be writing more about other ramifications, but for now, here's what Ahmad had to say:

First, there has been nothing (that I have seen) in the media about what compels Saddam
Hussein's extraordinary ambitions. This fellow is being described as Hitler. As a dictator.
As a tyrant. As a dangerous guy in that region. And nobody is asking why. Because this
dictator has been around for fifteen years. What has suddenly in 1990 compelled his
ambition, that requires three hundred and fifty thousand American troops to control? That
did it?

No one has named the Camp David Accords. And Saddam Hussein's ambitions are
directly attributable to the Camp David Accords.

Remember the following. Since the decline of the Ottoman Empire (in other words,
since the beginning of the nineteenth century), Egypt has played the role of the regional
influential in the Arab world. Politically, culturally, even militarily, Egypt has led the
Arab world (and ideologically). The Camp David Accords' supreme achievement was to
isolate Egypt from its Arab milieu.

When Anwar Sadat signed that piece of paper, his hope had been that this would lead
to the return of Egyptian territory to Egypt... which he did get. And two, a modicum of
justice for the Palestinians. So that, over time, his isolation will be ameliorated. And that
minimum that was promised to Sadat in the Camp David Accords was not honored. In
fact, the maximum was dishonored.

To remind you of one reality alone, Carter, and [Harold] Saunders, and William B.
Quandt-the three American negotiators from top to the bottom (with Carter at the top,
Saunders in the middle, and Quandt at the bottom)have testified and recorded in their
books that in the last three days of the Camp David negotiations, the negotiations

had broken down on one issue. And the issue was Sadat's insistence that there should
be written in the Camp David Accords that Israel will put up no more settlements in
the West Bank and Gaza. And [Menachem] Begin would say, "I am willing to agree
on it informally, but won't do it in writing." And Carter weighs in and says, "You
must understand Begin's difficult position. I give you guarantee that there will be no
settlements."

And then that day they signed the piece of paper in front of the television camera,
on prime time television. And Anwar Sadat and Begin and Carter kissed each other.
(Sadat was particularly fond of kissing.) And then he went down and kissed his friend,
Barbara Walters. And told Barbara Walters that there will be peace and comprehensive
peace-in the Middle East. This was confirmed by Carter and Begin. And the next day,
around afternoon, Israel announced the setting up of new settlements. And Carter called
poppycock.

But much more than that. It is after Camp David that the settlement process escalated. It
is after Camp David that 60 percent of Palestinian lands were expropriated in the West
Bank. It is after Camp David that nearly 80 percent of Palestinian water came under the
Israeli occupying authority's control. And it was after Camp David that nearly eighteen
thousand books were banned in the West Bank and Gaza. And it is after Camp David that
Palestinian local leaders began to be deported (in violation of the Geneva Conventions).

Have you noticed what I have just said? It is after Camp David that the four elements
of life, without which no community can survive, came under organized assault by the
Israeli military occupation authorities. Those are: land, water, culture, and leaders. What
underlies this extraordinary event called the Intifada is not merely Palestinian heroism,
or its will to liberation. It is Palestinian desperation, and its will to survival. Literally, I
mean, survival.

Now, obviously, Camp David meant moral, ideological, political isolation of Egypt
from its Arab milieu. There would be a political vacuum in the Middle East after Camp
David. And smaller players-like Syria and Iraq-would love, would aim at, would have the
ambition, to fill that vacuum.

PDF source.

More from dad -- Mubarak's funds #Egypt #jan25

1- When PM Shafiq was asked if his govt had asked other govts like UK and others, for  the blockage of of any moneys in Mubarak's name; he answered that they have not done that yet, and they will do it when the need for that arises in the future. Only Switzerland volunteered such blocking on Mubarak's deposits.
2- He did declare that ex minister of information and others were restricted from travel outside Egypt, until outstanding submitted complains of their deeds is fully investigated.
3- UK  deputy minister of foreign affairs declared, upon being asked, that he cannot lay any blockage on Mubarak's deposits/funds unless asked to do that by the Egyptian authorities.
4- I am convinced ,as has been reported, that Mubarak's delay in stepping down , was to buy time to buy real estate and other property which could be harder to trace than usual bank funds.
5- It makes great sense if you can nudge and persuade  some of the Egyptian revolutionaries you know and you reference in you releases, or their connections, that they should IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT COMPLAINS TO EGYPTIAN AUTHORITIES DEMANDING THAT THE GOVT START IMMEDIATE REQUEST TO ALL POTENTIAL COUNTRIES TO TRACE AND BLOCK ANY FUNDS AND PROPERTIES IN MUBARAK'S NAME ,HIS FAMILY'S AND HIS COTERIES' AND RESTRICTING HIM FROM LEAVING EGYPTIAN SOIL.. Thus holding the govt responsible to do that, until investigations re claims of theft and illegal gain are resolved. That would not be any different from what the govt did to the ex minister of information and others of lower rank.

Dad -- Latest in Arabic media #Egypt #Jan25 - Suleiman to get "important post"?

From my dad who monitors lots of Arabic and English language stations from Amman:

Follow up to understated email:
At last, in an attempt to appease the revolutionaries , the High Council of the Armed forced dissolved the Peoples' Council and the Shura Council.
Also suspended the application of the constitution and formed a committee to review amendable items.
So far has resisted dissolving the Mubarak appointed govt, is refusing to annul the Emergency law in effect,.and is refusing to free political prisoners.
General feeling I get from Egyptian Satellites is an attempt to quench the euphoria and accompanying celebrations.egs:
1- We should respect the persona of the outgoing President, after all he has been our president and we should see that he stays on Egyptian soil for his remaining years; let us grant him dignity!!
2- They are full of praises to the current PM Ahmad Shafiq for his fairness. frankness and good intentions and his fulfillment of justice
3- The govt called for closing all banks under the pretext that because of demonstrations they cannot secure the safety of the banks. It is clear that they are using that fake justification to force dispersant.

Multi satellited are reporting that the High Council of Armed Forces is preparing to appoint Omar Suleiman the ousted VP to an "important post"

Questioning Shoukry, McCain and Gingrich on Egypt

Asking Egyptian Regime Ambassador: “Mubarakism without Mubarak?”

Shortly before questioning Egyptian regime’s ambassador to the U.S., Sameh Shoukry, we received the following email from Aida Seif El Dawla (with the Nadeem Center for Victims of Torture) in Cairo:

Mubarak has fallen. The regime didn’t. We still have the same cabinet appointed by [Mubarak]. The emergency state is still enforced. Old detainees are still in detentions and new ones since the 25th of January remain missing. There is no public apology for the killing. We hear several executives are being prosecuted, including minister of Interior Habib El Adly. Process not transparent. Parliament has not been dissolved. Nor has the Shura council. etc.

We read the quote to Shoukry and asked: “Mubarakism without Mubarak — is that what the Egyptian people are going to have now?”


Among his many claims, Shoukry said that the current cabinet is one of technocrats. This seems to the party line of Mubarak appointed officials. A technocratic government of cabinet ministers? Hardly. The Interior Minister and Minister of Defense are generals and the others were appointed by Mubarak before stepping down.

McCain: Claims Iran More Prone to Violence than Egyptian Regime; Won’t apologize for list of dictators U.S. government has backed


In response to a question from another reporter, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that Iranian government has a “more oppressive, repressive police state that knows no restrictions. We saw last time, they don’t hesitate to shoot and kill people in streets. Obviously, Egyptian military was not ready to do that.”

(Infact, in Iran, during the protests in 2009, Human Rights Watch documented about 10 people killed. In Egypt, there have been over 300.)

We also read Aida Seif El Dawla’s statement to McCain; noting that hundreds of protesters were infact killed by Egyptian regime forces.

He called for a “transition government” inclusive of “pro-democratic” forces.

I asked: “Do we owe the Egyptian people an apology for having backed a tyrant for 30 years?”

McCain: “Hindsight is 20/20. … There’s many ways this government has been helpful to us,” specifically citing Israeli politics toward the Palestinians, like the siege of Gaza that the Mubarak regime coordinated with Israel.

McCain added: “I can’t apologize for what happened in Indonesia, for what happened in the Philippines, for what happened Romania.”

This was a rather remarkable comment. In part because it highlights that McCain recognizes that this backing dictators is a pattern in U.S. policy, that he refuses to apologize for, virtually guaranteeing its continuation.

It also mirrors recent comments by Noam Chomsky: “The United States, so far, is essentially following the usual playbook. I mean, there have been many times when some favored dictator has lost control or is in danger of losing control. There’s a kind of a standard routine—Marcos [Philippines], Duvalier [Haiti], Ceausescu [Romania], strongly supported by the United States and Britain, Suharto [Indonesia]: keep supporting them as long as possible; then, when it becomes unsustainable—typically, say, if the army shifts sides—switch 180 degrees, claim to have been on the side of the people all along, erase the past, and then make whatever moves are possible to restore the old system under new names. That succeeds or fails depending on the circumstances. …”

We challenged McCain’s endorcement of embracing dictators until they are no longer useful, after an exchange, he declined to meaningfully respond, simply saying he “understood your view on it.”

He also stated that for years he’s been aware of the abuses in Egypt, backing a process with Russ Feingold, somewhat contradicting an earlier claim that “hindside is 20/20.”

Gingrich: Do we back dictators like Mubarak so we can attack Iraq and Israel can dominate the Palestinians?


Earlier in the morning, we questioned Newt Gingrich. He had just been interviewed on ABC by Christiane Amanpour, who played a 1995 clip of Gingrich with Mubarak:

Can I just say that we’re very, very glad to have President Mubarak here. He is a very, very important ally, friend, and adviser. And many things that we’ve done, including Desert Shield, would not have been possible without the help of Egypt.

Later in the interview, Gingrich stated: “Egypt has been a staging area for us for a long time now. And Egypt has been vital to Israeli security.”

So, I asked: “We back dictators like Mubarak, who oppress their own people, so that we can attack Iraq and the Israelis can dominate the Palestinians. Why isn’t that a fair summary of what’s happened over the last 30 years?”

Gingrich called this a “fairly grotesque summary.”

Gingrich, initially when asked if he knew Israel had nuclear weapons said “of course.” However, he later backtracked, saying it was a “guess” since the Israeli nuclear weapons program could be a “Potemkin village.” [Addition: a friend comments that perhaps Gingrich would care to join one of the "9/11 Truth" groups.]

Should the U.S. apologize the the Egyptian people for materially backing a tyrant for 30 years? Gingrich: “I don’t think the U.S. has much to apologize for, I think we’ve been a force, basically for good in most of the planet.”

[originally published on Washington Stakeout on Feb. 13, 2011; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]