Nov. 22, 1963: A Turning Point for America

    

 (Today marks the 60th anniversary of  one of the nation's darkest days, the day President John F. Kennedy was murdered by government actors in Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was a young president who was growing in the job and who aimed to end the Cold War with Russia and create a more peaceful world. But he was cut down before being allowed to finish his program. To this day the government still refuses to follow the law and release all the CIA files that would shed light on who was responsible for this notorious crime. Why is that? The following is the piece I wrote 10 years ago on the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination).

By Reginald Johnson

                For a long time, I  believed 9-11 was worst thing that ever happened to the United States. It was awful. Nearly 3,000 people killed in those terror attacks and so many families left grief-stricken.

      And 9-11 set the stage for the brutal (and in one case misguided) wars that followed, in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

          But in the last few weeks, I’ve changed my mind.  When I saw the 50^th anniversary shows on John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and saw the old footage, it all came back. As bad as Sept. 11 was, I don’t think anything shook this country as much as the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. I don’t know what it is, but it doesn’t seem like this country has ever been the same since that day.

     I’ve heard phrases thrown around recently to describe the meaning of that day: “The day we lost our innocence,”  and another, (the title of a blog by Ira Chernus) “The day truth died.”  These are both right. It was such a shattering event.

    Maybe it’s because I was a naive 16-year-old private school student when this happened. Very idealistic, and, like a lot of  people my age at the time, a great fan of JFK. Here was this dashing young president who was both bright and witty and inspiring. He seemed to say and do all the right things: urging young people to get involved,  helping their country and the world with efforts like the Peace Corps; working to help the movement for integration; backing legislation that would eventually become Medicare; signing the nuclear test ban treaty; promoting the space program and sending men into space.

   In those days, we were in a Cold War with Russia, and we were proud when Kennedy stood up to the Soviets over the placement of missiles in Cuba and spoke out for freedom while visiting the Berlin Wall.

   And he came to be president  at a time when the country was booming economically and was the most admired country in the world. Our standard of living was tops and there were plenty of jobs --- particularly manufacturing jobs.

   It seemed like America and our young president could do no wrong.

   It was in that cocoon of innocence that I returned from lunch on Nov. 22, set to go to another class, when I overheard someone say, ‘Kennedy was shot.’   Feeling stunned, I rushed over to this small building where students could socialize and smoke cigarettes. Some of my friends were there listening to the radio. I lit up a cigarette as  the news came over. Minutes later, there was silence. Then a somber voice announced, ‘The president is dead.’ The Star Spangled Banner began playing. I couldn’t believe it.  Just total disbelief.  I was also pissed. I threw down my cigarette, stomped on it and left. I didn’t want to talk with anyone.

   The next several days, I was glum and kept to myself. I missed the 24-7 television coverage, missed alleged perpetrator Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot, missed new President Lyndon Johnson’s announcements and much of Kennedy’s funeral. How could this happen here? The United States?  It took months for me to get over the shock.

 I was able to get over it in part because I was reassured by Johnson’s statements and actions. He pledged to follow the Kennedy program, particularly with civil rights. When the following fall came around, Johnson seemed downright saintly compared to the crackpot Republican candidate for president that year, Barry Goldwater, who had talked about dropping an atomic bomb on Vietnam!  Johnson, meanwhile, said he would not send U.S. troops to Vietnam. Seemed like a good guy.

  But within months, it was clear Johnson was lying. In early ’65,  the U.S. had started bombing North Vietnam. By the spring, the first troops were sent. Within a few years, we had hundreds of thousands of troops there, all in the name of “stopping communism.” Many of our soldiers died. But many, many more Vietnamese died. We pulverized that country with bombing and poisoned it with napalm and Agent Orange. When all was said and done, we had lost 55,000 people; the Vietnamese had lost 3 million.

   And during the Vietnam era, a lot of ugly divisions in our society began to surface, between hawks and doves, liberals and conservatives, hippies and hard hats, religious versus non-religious. A lot of that divisiveness is still out there today.

  After Johnson, we got the corruption of Richard Nixon and Watergate.  A few years later, the downward curve continued with the coming of Ronald Reagan, and his backwards notion that “government is the problem.”  Reagan began the process of chipping away at the safety net and the New Deal, and undermining unions --- more trends we’re still dealing with today.

  More recently we’ve had George W. Bush and his disastrous war on Iraq and two vacillating small ‘d’  democrat presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Their vision of government is almost as limited as the Republicans.

   Maybe I am idealizing the Kennedy years, but things were better then. Since that period there’s been progress only in few areas. Women’s rights are certainly better today than they were in the early ‘60s. Legal and political rights for blacks are better, though the economic struggle for most blacks still goes on.

  But what else? Our middle class has sunk, quality jobs have evaporated, and our nation is constantly at war.

  I think if Jack Kennedy lived, I think the late 1960s would have been better, and that would have provided a good foundation for the future. It is a fact that he signed a memorandum a month before he died that he intended to pull all U.S. advisors out of Vietnam by 1965. Supposing there had been no Vietnam War? And supposing Kennedy had followed up on feelers to bring a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, and end the insane arms race?

   It should be said Kennedy had his failings, and there are certainly a lot of skeptics out there who downplay what he would have done if he had lived. He was a philanderer and dishonest to his wife; though publicly pushing integration he was friendly with southern segregationists for political purposes; and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 was a boneheaded move.

   But I believe if Kennedy had lived, there would have been no Vietnam War, and he would have achieved lot at home, in the end compiling a domestic record that would have rivaled FDR’s.

   I think it’s definitely fair to say if JFK, his brother Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King had lived, America would be a much better place today.

******************************************************************************  

I’ve always felt there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.  Lee Harvey Oswald may well have been part of it, but he did not act alone. Too many people heard too many shots that day in Dallas, and eyewitnesses saw some shots come from the front of Kennedy’s motorcade, something the Warren Commission denied happening. (The Warren Commission, charged with investigating the assassination, concluded Oswald acted alone, and shot Kennedy from the rear, firing a rifle from a 6^th-floor window).

 While Kennedy was quite popular in general,  he was hated by some, including right-wingers and anti-Castro Cubans. He also had a lot of detractors in the military and the intelligence agencies, who thought Kennedy was ‘too soft on communism.’  I believe people from the intelligence sector and the military, as well as some anti-communist Cubans, were part of the conspiracy. Oswald was on the fringes. Jack Ruby was sent to shut Oswald up. The fact that Ruby, a nobody, could waltz into the Dallas police station while the most important criminal suspect in American history was being transported, then walk up and shoot Oswald dead, tells you all you need to know about this case. It’s been a total cover-up.

On Thanksgiving and the Dispossessed

 

  I have often thought that the plight of the Palestinians and Native-Americans is very similar.­ Both groups have had their land taken away by force and trickery, with settlers claiming they had some special or divine right to the land. In both cases, large numbers of their people have been killed off or pushed into containment areas, refugee camps or reservations. In both cases observers believe that what has happened to the indigenous people of North America and what is happening to the Palestinians qualifies as genocide. In 2012, shortly after Thanksgiving, I wrote about the bitterness that so many Native people have about this day, since they feel they have nothing to be thankful for. I also wrote about the parallel experiences of the Palestinians, who were being attacked then just as they are today.

By Reginald Johnson
Dec. 11, 2012


Like most Americans, I’ve always loved Thanksgiving. It’s a day to share good times with family and friends, have a wonderful meal and yes, be thankful for what we have.

I must say that now, however, I have different perspective, after having attended an event put on by American Indians in Plymouth, Mass. called “The National Day of Mourning” on Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 22. I had heard about this event for years, but never got around to going. It was an eye-opener.

Plymouth, of course, is where English Pilgrims arrived aboard the Mayflower in 1620 and began a settlement that many Americans associate with the start of the United States. The first Thanksgiving, at least according to legend, took place a year later and saw the Pilgrims partaking in a meal with Indians, “giving thanks” for a bountiful harvest and for having successfully lived their first year in the “New World.”

Most Americans, I think, see this history in a pretty positive way. The Pilgrims, fleeing religious persecution in England, made a settlement that laid the groundwork for what later would become America, a democratic society where people could practice their religion freely and speak and write as they wished. Many Americans are aware that at the same time, the evolution of our country was not all smooth, that Native people (not to mention Africans, who were held in bondage as slaves) were treated terribly, there was a lot of killing and the English and other Europeans broke agreements and stole Indian land.

But the mythology surrounding the Mayflower, the Pilgrim settlement, the march westward and “the birth of a nation” is so strong that the Indian side of the story, and just how bad the Indians got treated, tends to get lost. Also, in the view of many present-day Natives, there hasn’t been enough teaching in the schools about the Native American history so people will better know what indigenous people have gone through.

“The National Day of Mourning” is an effort to educate people about the Indian narrative of what actually took place in those early years of the country as well as to “honor Native ancestors and the struggles of Native people to survive today,” in the words of a statement by the United American Indians of New England, which holds the event.

A plaque put up on Cole’s Hill ---- overlooking the bay where a replica of the Mayflower is docked and above the fabled “Plymouth Rock,” where the Pilgrims allegedly first stepped on shore ---- captures the harsh view that many Indians have about the beginnings of this country. It reads in part: “Many Native Americans do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims and other European settlers. To them, Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of their people, the theft of their lands, and the relentless assault on their culture.”

Moonanum James, a Wampanoag Indian whose ancestors greeted the Pilgrims when they arrived, talked of the many distortions in history about what occurred in the early days and the Pilgrims themselves.

“When they arrived, they didn’t find an empty land. Every inch of this land was Indian land,” he said in a speech before about 400 people on Cole’s Hill.

James said that by the written account of one of the Pilgrims themselves, in the first year settlers went out and robbed Indian graves, stole crops, kidnapped Natives and sold them into slavery for 220 shillings apiece.

James, co-leader of the UAINE organization, also said that the legend of Thanksgiving beginning with a peaceful dinner in 1621 with the Indians was erroneous. He maintained that the first official Thanksgiving Day took place in 1637, when the head of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Gov. John Winthrop, proclaimed a “Day of Thanksgiving,” celebrating the safe return of 200 volunteers who had gone to Mystic, Connecticut and slaughtered 700 women, children and men of the Pequot tribe.

Some historical accounts hold that in the area of eastern Massachusetts there was relative peace for a number of decades between the colonists and Indians. But by the 1670s, trouble was brewing, with the Indians fed up with mistreatment by the colonists and constant land encroachments. Metacomet, the son of the Wampanoag leader Massasoit, who had greeted the Pilgrims, decided to unite all the Indian tribes and drive the English back.

For two years, Metacomet, also known as King Philip, led Native warriors in battles over much of southern New England. Thousands were killed in the conflict. Eventually, the English forces proved too strong, and King Philip was captured and killed, and the war all but ended.

The victors weren’t satisfied with killing the Indian leader and subduing Native forces. They mutilated Metacomet’s body, decapitated him and put his head on a pole for public observation in a Plymouth square. The skull remained there for 20 years.

Moonanum called Plymouth Rock “a monument to racism and oppression” which he and Indian activists had covered with sand on two occasions.

In their suffering, Moonanum said, Natives had a lot in common with African-Americans, who were kidnapped and brought here from Africa to be slaves on cotton plantations.

He recalled black leader Malcolm X’s quote about Plymouth Rock. “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us.”

James and others said conditions for Native people today --- who represent about 1.5 percent of the country’s population --- are very difficult. A large proportion of Indians live on reservations, and the poverty rampant. Alcoholism and suicide rates are high.

This was the 43rd National Day of Mourning, with the first one being in 1970. James said not much has changed for Indians since then. Just as they did at the first event in 1970, Indians are demanding an end to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a branch of the U.S. Dept. of Interior, which manages the reservations.

James called the BIA “corrupt.” He said Indians should be allowed to manage their reservations on their own.

Others spoke at the rally, including Tiokasin Ghosthorse, a Lakota Sioux who has a radio show called “Indigenous Voices” aired on a number of stations including WBAI in New York and WPKN in Bridgeport, Ct.. Tiokasin spoke of environmental issues and how there had to be more respect for “mother earth.” He said present day American society is “abusing mother earth,” and this will backfire.

Other speakers expressed empathy for the Palestinian people, who in early November had to endure yet another attack by the Israeli military in Gaza. Some 200 people were killed, many of them children.

Speakers said the Palestinians were a “dispossessed people,” much like the Native people here. One UAINE speaker said the Israeli leaders were showing the same callous and racist disregard for human life in Gaza as the U.S. military showed in its wars against the Indians. She said comments by officials to the effect that Gaza should be “flattened” and “bombed back to the Middle Ages” were similar to remarks made by an Indian fighter, Colonel John Chivington.

Chivington led forces which carried out the Sand Creek, Colorado massacre, in which over 200 largely unarmed Indians were killed in 1864.

Two weeks prior to the expedition, Chivington promised a Denver audience that he would kill all Indians he encountered, including children. “Nits make lice,” he said.

A letter of support from imprisoned Indian activist Leonard Peltier was read as well. In a highly-controversial case, Peltier has been locked up in federal prison for over 35 years following a conviction for killing two FBI agents in a gunbattle on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota.

However, considerable information has emerged that casts doubt on the validity of the conviction, and there’s been a decades-long campaign to have Peltier released.

The rally was followed by a march through the quiet streets of Plymouth. (Just days before, leaders of the town, which bills itself as “America’s Hometown,” had a Thanksgiving celebration, featuring a “Pilgrim’s Parade”). The marchers chanted as they walked past picturesque colonial-era homes, churches, the Mayflower and Plymouth Rock. There were a few curious onlookers, although most residents were inside having Thanksgiving dinner or watching a football game.

At the front of the march was a banner which read: “We are not vanishing. We are not conquered. We are as strong as ever.”

CT congress members pass on letter about Israel

 

    By Reginald Johnson  

    All five congress members representing Connecticut have refused to sign a letter endorsed by 55 of their colleagues in the House which calls on the Biden administration to make sure Israel follows international law in its retaliatory attacks on Gaza and urges that a humanitarian corridor be set up to allow the delivery of food and medical supplies into the besieged area.

   While condemning “Hamas’ shocking and horrifying attack on Israel” the letter from the lawmakers expresses concern about an “unfolding humanitarian situation in Gaza.” The signers point to the order to evacuate over 1 million civilians out of northern Gaza in 24 hours “and the devastating humanitarian consequences that would ensue.”

  The letter adds that “we are also deeply concerned by the recent comments from Israel Defense Forces leaders that call for a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip. They said that human rights experts have said “imposing a complete siege on Gaza and depriving 2.3 million Palestinian civilians who have nowhere else to go --- half of them are children --- of food, water and electricity would be a violation of international law.”

   Those who endorsed the letter include many liberal/progressive members of Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Presley, Jan Schakowsky, Hank Johnson and Maxine Waters.

  But not one of the congresspersons representing Connecticut chose to endorse the letter even though they, like the signers, are Democrats.

  The members of Congress from Connecticut are: John Larson, D-1, Joe Courtney D-2, Rosa DeLauro, D-3, Jim Himes, D-4 and Jahana Hayes D-5.

  That lack of support by Connecticut representatives for the comparatively mild letter expressing concern about Israeli actions in the war from other House members --- the signers do not directly criticize Israel and they don’t call for a cease-fire, as some peace groups are demanding --- has drawn criticism from at least one peace activist in Connecticut.

  Henry Lowendorf, President of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, said “it is a tragedy that CT representatives’ names are not on this letter. It’s important that we insist the five recognize the right of Palestinians as well as Israelis to live. It’s important that they act now to support international law with both words and deeds.”

  He added “It’s up to us to hold their feet to the fire. Please contact your representative and demand that he/she end support for mass murder and genocide. Now.”

   (To contact your member of Congress, call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121)

    

 

 

 

Senator Blumenthal wrong on Ukraine

 

                        

 By Reginald Johnson

       (The Connecticut Post published the following op-ed on Sept 25 which countered a number of false claims made by Senator Richard Blumenthal in an article he wrote justifying continued aid for the war in Ukraine,) 

 

   I have to take issue with a number of comments made by US Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn in his recent op-ed in the Connecticut Post entitled “Zelenskyy doesn’t want or need our troops. But he deeply and desperately needs the tools to win.”

  Blumenthal justifies the United States continuing to send billions of dollars to help Ukraine in its war with Russia by making the sweeping claim that if Russia is allowed to defeat Ukraine, Russian leader Vladimir Putin will be emboldened to invade other countries and then take over Europe.

  “If Putin wins in Ukraine, he’ll roll forward against other nations --- NATO allies that we have a treaty obligation to defend with troops on the ground. Ukraine is at the tip of the spear fighting our fight for independence and freedom,” Blumenthal wrote.

  But the view that Russia is on a march of aggression is based on the idea that Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation and if given a chance, Putin will do the same thing against other countries.

 The fact is that the United States together with its NATO allies did provoke Russia into this invasion. There were two key provocations.

 First, the United States instigated a coup in 2014 against the constitutionally-elected and pro-Russian government in Ukraine led by Viktor Yanukovych. The new regime adopted a belligerent anti-Russian attitude and demanded that all people in Ukraine, including people in the heavily ethnic Russian area in the East, speak the Ukrainian language. A rebellion erupted in the East and the government, using United States military aid, waged a bloody campaign against residents of the area known as Donbas, which is on the Russian border.

 Second, the United States reneged on its promise made to Russian leaders back in the early 1990s that NATO would not be enlarged by granting membership to Eastern European countries which had been part of the old Soviet bloc. The Russians warned that they saw expansion of NATO as a security threat, with their nation becoming encircled.

 Despite Russian objections, the West went ahead and added all the Soviet bloc nations into NATO, except for Ukraine. Russian officials and others urged that at least Ukraine should stay neutral, in order to avoid war. Nonetheless, US and Ukrainian leaders pushed the idea of adding Ukraine to NATO, further heightening tensions with Russia.

  Putin said at the time of the invasion that the expansion of NATO was the reason for Russia’s decision to invade.

Sen. Blumenthal also makes the strange comment in his article that America was helping Ukraine protect “freedom.” But the present Ukrainian government has shut down opposition newspapers, closed Russian orthodox churches and locked up political dissenters. These actions do not comport with a free society.

 Finally, Sen. Blumenthal makes the outrageous statement that Americans “should be satisfied that we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment” because we’ve spent “less than 3 percent” of our military budget in helping Ukraine to “degrade” Russia’s military.

  Actually, the roughly 3 percent figure comes to a very substantial amount. The US has given upwards of $140 billion in aid to Ukraine, much of it being military hardware.  That money could have been better spent on funding human needs here at home --- like building affordable housing, improving health care and revitalizing underfunded local public school systems, such as the one in Bridgeport.

 Instead of continuing to support a highly destructive and deadly war in Ukraine (hundreds of thousands of people have died) Senator Blumenthal should get behind peace efforts to bring this terrible conflict to a close.

 

(Reginald Johnson is a free-lance writer in Bridgeport)

 

 

 

 

A vigil for Nagasaki and a call for peace

   By Reginald Johnson 

 

    NEW HAVEN --- More than 78 years ago this month, the United States committed one of the most heinous acts of violence in human history.

 Two atomic bombs were dropped by American planes on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, killing over 200,000 people, mostly civilians. Many people were killed instantaneously, while others died slowly over the next few weeks from severe radiation illness.

 The savage bombing was justified by American officials with the claim that it hastened the end of World War II by forcing Japan to surrender quickly and avoided an invasion of Japan, which could have cost a large number of American and Japanese casualties.

 But historians have since the countered that idea, saying that Japan was about to surrender anyway. They maintain that the real reason for the bombing was that the United States wanted to show the Soviet Union it had the bomb, thus giving America a geopolitical edge in the expected rivalry with Russia after the war.

 Memorials have been held every year since 1945 in Japan and around the world to remember the victims of the bombings. The memorials and vigils have also been occasions when people have spoken out against nuclear weapons and urged that all nations join together to ban the bomb once and for all.

 As they have done in recent years, peace activists and city officials here came together for two vigils, one for Hiroshima on New Haven Green last Sunday and the other for Nagasaki at the Amistad Statue on Wednesday.

  The Nagasaki memorial saw a number of speakers, including Joelle Fishman, chairperson of the New Haven Peace Commision (which is part of the city government), Jim Pandaru, of Veterans for Peace, Paula Panzarella, reading poetry and Hank Bolden, a survivor of atomic bomb testing.

        

           

The vigil in New Haven for the victims of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan by the United States on August 9, 1945. Some 60,000 to 80,000 civilians were killed in the bombing. (Photo by Reginald Johnson)

  

    Fishman read a message from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres sent to the peace memorial in Nagasaki. Here are some excerpts:

    “We mourn those killed, whose memory will never fade.

    “We remember the terrible destruction wrought upon the city and Hiroshima.

“We honor the unrelenting strength and resilience of the people of Nagasaki to rebuild.

“We must never again allow such devastation to occur.

“Despite the terrible lessons of 1945, humanity now confronts a new arms race.

“Nuclear weapons are being used as tools of coercion.

“Weapon systems are being upgraded, and placed at the center of national security strategies, making these devices of death faster, more accurate and stealthier.

“All this at a moment when division and mistrust are pulling countries and regions apart.

“The risk of nuclear catastrophe is now at the highest level since the Cold War.

“In the face of these threats, the global community must speak as one.

“Any use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

“We will not sit idly by as nuclear armed states race to create even more dangerous weapons.”

 Bolden, 86, told of his experiences as a soldier who survived the US Army’s atomic bomb testing in Nevada in the 1950s. Bolden said he and his fellow GIs were never told ahead of time that they were going to be put in a location that was within 3 miles of an atomic bomb test.

  Bolden, who is black, said the Army was trying to determine what effect the test would have on soldiers placed near an atomic detonation site.

 “I was a guinea pig. They put us in a predetermined path of what they knew was the direction of the fallout," he said.

Bolden has battled three different types of cancers in his life, which he thinks were caused by radiation fallout. He is now trying to let as many people know as possible what happened to him and emphasize that their government at times can be cruel and cynical in how they treat people when they want to achieve some kind of secret objective.

   Asked his opinion about nuclear weapons, Bolden said simply,  “Nuclear weapons should be shut down because that’s the end for all of us. Nuclear proliferation needs to be shut down because who stands to gain by that? There can be no winners.”

 Henry Lowendorf, president of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which helped organize the vigil, said he and others are going to movie theaters showing the film "Oppenheimer" to hand out leaflets to patrons urging that they call on their congressmembers to end the nuclear arms race and push for a diplomatic settlement to end the Ukraine War.

 The movie tells the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who developed the atomic bomb for the United States.

  "This movie, one, raises the issue of the horror of the atomic bomb, does it in a biographical format of J. Robert Oppenheimer, but it takes that biography and explores what the atomic bomb means and what it does," Lowendorf said.

 "And we now live in an era now when that is hidden from everybody, censored and not talked about," he said. "And we're facing right now two nuclear weapons powers that are fighting a war against each other, right. And both of them have said using nuclear weapons is not off the table --- both Russia and the United States."

  He added, "and this war is a prelude to a war on China which the United States is preparing us for. So we have this perpetual war. If we don't explode ourselves with a nuclear blast, there will be another war and this is simply promoting the wealth of the military-industrial complex and the militarized society we live in and face everyday."  

   For more information on the peace council's work, email to grnhpeacecouncil@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    

By Reginald Johnson

    

   NEW HAVEN --- Vigils to honor the more than 200,000 victims of the US atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II will take place here Sunday and Wednesday.

  The first memorial, remembering the victims of the Hiroshima bombing, will be held Sunday at 8 a.m. at the flagpole on the New Haven Green. The second memorial for the victims of the Nagasaki bombing, will take place Wednesday at 11 a.m. at the Amistad Statue, 161 Church Street, next to City Hall.

  Henry Lowendorf, president of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, explained why it is so important to remember the atomic bombings, some 78 years later.

  “We remember the first and only use of these city killers took place in 1945 when the US dropped one atomic bomb each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instantaneously incinerating over 200,000 men, women and children and leveling those cities,” he said.

  Lowendorf added,  “We remind ourselves how horrific these nuclear weapons are, indiscriminate and massive and leaving vast quantities of deadly radioactive fallout to spread far and wide.  We remind our audiences that nine countries possess these WOMD and that there is no such thing as a small nuclear war --- any use of one weapon in conflict would likely lead to an escalation launching all 9,000 nuclear weapons that would destroy human civilization --- first directly killing hundreds of millions, then through mass starvation killing billions.”

   Lowendorf pointed out that Russia, the US, Britain and France are engaged in a war in both Ukraine and Russia that could descend into a nuclear war.

 “The Doomsday Clock is at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it’s been ever, an indication from top nuclear experts of the extreme danger we face. We point out that our US government dismisses talk of avoiding nuclear war and the war danger; and that the major corporate media support the government’s coverup. So we need to speak out and act.”

  Lowendorf said people can sign a petition calling for a ban on nuclear weapons at the CODE Pink website, at www.codepink.org

(For more information, email grnhpeacecouncil@gmail.com)

 

 

 

The state loses a fine leader

   

By Reginald Johnson

 

      Commentary

   The state of Connecticut lost one of its best leaders with the recent passing of Lowell P. Weicker.

The long-time senator and later governor was never afraid to steer an independent course and do what was right.

Weicker, who I covered as a reporter in the 1980s for Fairpress, was the last of an extinct species known as "liberal Republicans." While he was a senator, he was the first Republican to call out former President Nixon for the Watergate abuses and actively took part in the investigation of that scandal. In helping to lead the probe of Watergate, Weicker performed a major service for the country.

Lowell P. Weicker. He served three terms in the U.S. Senate and one term as Connecticut's governor. (Photo Wikimedia Commons)

Later he bucked the conservative drift of the GOP under Ronald Reagan and began to be hated by the Republican right. He even went to Cuba, met with Fidel Castro and praised the communist government. Unfortunately those words came back to haunt him, when Democratic Party senate challenger Joe Lieberman ran a red-baiting campaign, trying to undermine Weicker in pro-defense industry Connecticut. That attack, plus Weicker's lackluster re-election campaign, led to his defeat and loss of his senate seat in 1988.

Weicker jumped back into politics in 1990, winning the state's governorship on an independent slate. There again, he went against the grain and pushed for a long overdue, but highly unpopular, personal income tax. Despite vitriolic opposition, Weicker and his allies were able to push the tax through. Weicker also worked with officials in Bridgeport to help that city climb back from bankruptcy.

Lowell Weicker was not perfect. My understanding was he could be rude at times and a touch arrogant. But if you look at his record on a range of issues, he was really quite good. He left his mark and he will be missed.