Grenada Invasion of October 1983 under Ronald Reagan

Jul 24, 2010 Michael Streich

Reagan's reaction to growing Communist influences in Grenada in late 1983 resulted in a military invasion to protect American lives and restore democracy.

On the morning of Wednesday, October 26, 1983, Americans woke up to the breaking news that U.S. military forces had invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada. President Ronald Reagan addressed the nation on October 27, 1983, justifying the action. Many Americans approved, including Congressional Republicans and Democrats despite not having been consulted. There were, however, critics that labeled Reagan’s action as unilaterism with the purpose of establishing a “quasi-colony.”

Grenada Invasion Linked to Communist Goals

Grenada, once a British colonial possession, had gained independence. In 1979, however, a coup led by Maurice Bishop replaced the legitimately elected government. Although Bishop received support from Cuba and the Soviet Union, his agenda was not perceived as stringent enough. Bishop even traveled to Washington, D.C., encouraging hope in the Reagan administration for warmer relations.

Bishop was arrested and executed in October 1983 and replaced by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard. The real power, however, was with General Hudson Austin. Six to eight hundred Cubans were in Grenada when Austin gained power as head of state. Over six hundred Americans were also on the island, many of them students at St. George’s University.

Another concern involved the Salines Airport which had a 10,000 foot runway. The international airport was built to spur tourism, according to Grenada government officials, but the Reagan administration feared that it could be used to launch Soviet military aircraft. This was the same fear Reagan expressed over a similar runway built by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua who were also supported by the Soviet Union.

Operation Urgent Fury

The military invasion of Grenada was planned quickly and without advising either the media or Congress. Although the War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973, required presidents to notify Congress of American troop deployments, Reagan ignored the proscription. Naval ships carrying marines to the Middle East were diverted to Grenada. The operation ended swiftly, leaving in place a new government led by Governor General Sir Paul Scoon until new elections could be held.

Criticism of Reagan’s Unilateralism in Grenada

The United Nations, Great Britain, and Canada condemned U.S. action in Grenada. Grenada was part of the British Commonwealth; British leaders believed they should have been consulted. The American media was also critical, primarily because no news agency had been briefed until after the events. Some observers suggested that this was a White House lesson taken from Vietnam where reporters had routinely filed stories highly critical of White House military policies and strategies.

Academics and the intelligentsia also faulted the Reagan administration. The American Journal of International Law in January 1984 commented that, “The Reagan administration has not established by means of clear and convincing evidence that there did in fact exist an immediate threat to the safety of U.S. citizens in Grenada.” Speaking on October 27, 1983, President Reagan told Americans that there was a fear those citizens could be used as hostages, and referred to the Iranian hostage crisis that plagued the Carter administration.

The Grenada Invasion Part of a Series of Foreign Adventures

Days before the Grenada crisis, over 200 U.S. marines were killed in Beirut, Lebanon when a suicide truck bomber destroyed a four-story building in which soldiers were sleeping. U.S. troops in Lebanon – numbering 1,600, were part of a multi-national force tasked with ending violence in that nation and stabilizing the region.

On September 1, 1983, Soviet military aircraft shot down the passenger liner Korean Air flight 007, killing 269 people including conservative Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald. The Reagan administration was forced to respond to a number of incidents that had links to the Soviet Union.

In Beirut, unrest was traced to both the Palestinians and to Syria, which was receiving substantial assistance from the Soviet Union. Thus, Reagan, in his October 27 address, concluded that, “The events in Lebanon and Grenada…are closely related.”

Impact of the Grenada Invasion

President Reagan demonstrated that the U.S. was willing to respond to any threats that might imperil American global interests. Grenada was also a message to the Soviet Union and to Cuba. American citizens were delighted that they had a Teddy Roosevelt-type of president, a decisive leader who would send the marines to protect American lives and property. Finally, Operation Urgent Fury enhanced U.S. prestige in the Caribbean, especial with the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

Sources:

• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (NY: Penguin Books, 1997)
• Francis A. Boyle and others, “International Lawlessness in Grenada,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, No. 1, January 1984
• Steven J. Ramold, “The Grenada Invasion,” The Eighties in America, Milton Berman, editor (Salem Press, 2008)
• Ronald Reagan, “Address to the Nation on Events in Lebanon and Grenada,” October 27, 1983

© 2010 Michael Streich

 

George Bush and the Iraq War in Early 2004

Jul 22, 2010 Michael Streich

The Iraq War was going badly in the spring of 2004, forcing the Bush administration to redraw plans designed to promote peace and a democratic government.

In late spring 2004 the Bush administration was trying to redefine U.S. policy in Iraq. 2004 was a presidential election year, insurgent attacks were increasing in Iraq, the American public had been shocked by vivid pictures of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq, and a May 2004 CBS national poll showed that less than 50% of Americans surveyed approved of President Bush’s performance. The goal of bringing Democracy to the Middle East was in peril and the administration had to move swiftly to restore eroding support from the electorate.

Deteriorating Conditions in Iraq in Early 2004

A May 25, 2004 New York Times editorial addressed the, “nearly 14 months of policy failures, none of them acknowledged by the president…” Although President Bush, in a May 24, 2004 speech at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania outlined new steps designed to swiftly move Iraq toward the formation of a sovereign government, both Democrats in Congress and the media pointed to growing violence and American casualties in Iraq, long after the President declared “mission accomplished.”

Violence stemmed from an insurgency fighting clandestinely as well as suicide bombings. At the same time, disclosure of torture methods, which the President referred to as “abhorrent,” (The Economist, May 6, 2004), weakened U.S. credibility in Iraq and among other Muslim nations. In the U.S., Americans had spent March and April watching the 9/11 Commission, which produced its final report in July, 2004. The Department of Defense Detention Operations report, also known as the Taguba Report, was released in August, 2004.

American Support for the War in Iraq in 2004

Support for the war was waning in 2004. No weapons of mass destruction had been found and there was no plausible link between 9/11 and the regime of Saddam Hussein. President Bush was preparing the nation for further troop deployments to Iraq. In Congress, Democrats like Senator Joe Biden, currently the Vice President, stated, “I’m extremely disappointed…I don’t think he [Bush] leveled with the American people.” (Washington Post, May 25, 2004) Democrats hoped that the November election would become a referendum on the war.

Predicting the Future of Iraq in 2004 and the Realities of 2010

Writing in The New York Review of Books (May 13, 2004, Volume 51, Number 8), Peter Galbraith reminded readers that as of that date, more U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq than died during the actual war. $150 billion “had already been spent on Iraq…” Galbraith also suggested that, “The greatest danger comes from rogue states that acquire and disseminate nuclear weapons technology.” Galbraith further predicted that, “Civil war and the breakup of Iraq are more likely outcomes than a successful transition to a pluralistic Western-style democracy.”

Today, as U.S. combat troops prepare to depart Iraq by the summer of 2010, Iraq does not have a functional government and violence in the form of suicide bombs is again increasing. Galbraith’s “rogue” states have succeeded with nuclear technology: North Korea possesses such weapons and Iran is racing to produce them.

The Bush Plan of Democracy in Iraq

In their book Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East (W.W. Norton & Company, 2008) Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac point out that, “The war’s architects had evidently conjured an unreal posthistorical vision of an Iraq gratefully embracing the triad deemed globally essential for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.” As visionary as the goal was, in the late spring of 2004 Iraq was a quagmire of chaos.

George Bush won reelection in November 2004 with 50.7% of the popular vote, defeating Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran. Americans have never turned out a president seeking reelection during a war. Further, Bush’s changes in policies in May 2004 were viewed as a positive step toward ending the war and leaving Iraq with a stable and democratic government. That goal, however, has not yet been fully realized.

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 The Other Ship: Carpathia Rescues Titanic Passengers

 Michael Streich June 3, 2011

 

Built in 1903 for the British Cunard line and used to service Mediterranean ports, the Carpathia was steaming to Trieste when her wireless operator Harold Cottam received an urgent distress call from the RMS Titanic at 12:35 AM on the morning of April 15, 1912. Carpathia’s captain Arthur H. Rostron immediately changed course to assist the stricken liner, arriving too late but rescuing over 700 survivors from lifeboats. In 1918, the famous rescue ship would herself be sunk off the Irish coast by German torpedoes as World War I was drawing to a close.

 

Titanic Strikes an Iceberg

 

Unlike the great British and German liners competing for the cross-Atlantic trade, the Carpathia was not built for speed and did not reflect the luxurious accommodations associated with the White Star Line. Her first class passengers were prominent members of American society, like Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mansfield Ogden, but attracted no aristocrats. The April 1912 voyage to Trieste would take fourteen days.

 

Although the CQD and SOS calls from Titanic came as a shock, Captain Rostron prepared his ship to take on potentially over 2,000 survivors. Titanic had struck an iceberg but it was inconceivable that she would founder: she was deemed “unsinkable.” Rostron poured on the speed, ordering that all hot water be turned off and redirected to steam. As his passengers slept, Carpathia was readied for a massive rescue operation.

 

Rostron arrived at the site approximately four hours later but Titanic had already sunk. Too few lifeboats signaled a death sentence for the many still aboard. Three quarters of her crew were lost. The White Star Line, part of a conglomerate owned by American financier J.P. Morgan, stopped paying the crew once the liner sunk. The company reversed itself once the surviving crew members returned to Southampton.

 

Rescue of Survivors On board the Carpathia

 

The Carpathia took 709 survivors on board. In her memoirs, surviving stewardess Violet Jessup recalls being served brandy to counteract the fierce cold the lifeboat occupants endured. Survivors were separated by class, although every effort was made to make all Titanic survivors comfortable. Carpathia’s passengers gave up their rooms and dug through belongings to share toiletries. Others provided clothing and make-shift blankets.

 

Titanic historian Daniel A. Butler comments that, “passengers and crew alike understood that they were suddenly part of an extraordinary event, which required extraordinary conduct.” This included Mrs. Ogden, a “great favorite in society,” according to an October 31, 1898 New York Times announcement. Serving hot coffee, Mrs. Ogden and her husband knew some of the surviving first class passengers. Mr. Ogden owned a family lumber business, was a graduate of the New York Columbia Law School, and a board member of the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine.

 

Class Distinctions on the Carpathia

 

Working closely with Carpathia’s passengers and crew in their efforts to relieve the suffering and trauma was Titanic survivor Mrs. J.J. Brown, known in history as the “unsinkable Molly Brown.” Margaret Brown, as she was known, formed a relief committee before Carpathia reached New York, determined to assist Titanic’s steerage passengers. She had befriended three Irish girls and became acutely concerned with their future. Steerage passengers had lost everything.

 

Would steerage passengers be forced to undergo rigid immigration policies associated with Ellis Island? Would they be returned to Europe for lack of funds? Did they have family support in New York? Such questions plagued Mrs. Brown and other concerned first class passengers. Once Carpathia docked in New York, however, regulations were relaxed.

 

Carpathia’s Arrival in New York Harbor

 

Captain Rostron refused to answer any wireless inquiries as his ship returned to New York, even from the USS Chester, an American naval vessel dispatched by President Taft. Marconi wireless messages tapped out the names of survivors, ignoring press questions. Once in New York, Rostron was the first important official to be questioned by the hastily convened Congressional sub-committee led by Michigan Junior Senator William Alden Smith. Smith wanted to determine how it was possible so many lives were lost, including powerful men like John Astor.

 

Rostron continued his voyage to Trieste after testifying. In later years, he commanded numerous Cunard ships including the Mauritania. Retiring with the rank of commodore, he died at the age of 71. The Carpathia continued her trans-Atlantic passages throughout World War I, chartered toward the end of the conflict by the U.S. government to transport troops.

 

The Final Voyage of the Carpathia

 

On a sunny July morning in 1918, just after breakfast off the west coast of Ireland, Carpathia received three torpedoes which sank her. There was no loss of life as “perfect discipline” enabled the 218 on board to survive. According to the New York Times (July 20, 1918), she went under at 11 AM and would be forever remembered as the Titanic rescue ship.

 

Sources:

 

Daniel Allen Butler, The Other Side Of The Night: The Carpathia, the Californian, and the Night the Titanic Was Lost (Casemate, 2009)

Daniel Allen Butler, “Unsinkable” The Full Story (Stackpole Books, 1998)

Kristen Iversen, Molly Brown: Unraveling the Myth (Johnson Books, 1999)

Violet Jessop, Titanic Survivor, John Maxtone-Graham, editor (Sheridan House, 1997)

New York Times, various articles from 1912.

Originally published in Suite101. Any republishing in any form including digital or print must have written permission from the author.

 

St. Nicholas Day December 6th

The Birth of Santa Claus in the Eleventh Century

Dec 1, 2009 Michael Streich

The modern image of Santa Claus is a hybrid of old Germanic pagan beliefs and the Medieval Cult of St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra in Asia Minor.

Demre in Southern Turkey on the Mediterranean seacoast is a sleepy, nondescript city. Shops selling icons and other religious paraphernalia line the square. In ancient times, Demre was the seaport Myra, known for over 700 years as the home of St. Nicholas, an early 4th Century bishop imprisoned during the last great persecution under the Emperor Diocletian. His remains were removed, however, in 1087 BCE in an act of piracy and carried to Bari,Italy. The subsequent prosperity of Bari added to the already growing Cult of St. Nicholas throughout Europe and is still celebrated on December 6th by Catholics and Protestants.

Nicholas as Bishop of Myra

Nicholas was born in Patara. When his wealthy parents died, Nicholas used the money to help the poor. Eventually, as Bishop of Myra, several miracles were attributed to him. In one celebrated story, a destitute father of three sisters was going to give them over to a life of prostitution because he could not afford a dowry for a wedding. Three separate times, Nicholas secretly flung bags of gold into their home, saving them from a life of sin.

Another miracle relates the story of three murdered boys that were brought back to life by Nicholas. He also appeared in a dream to Emperor Constantine, appealing for the lives of three condemned men about to be executed. The innocent men were set free by the emperor. Nicholas was also present at the First Council at Nicaea where he denounced the Arian heresy

.

The many legends surrounding Nicholas made him the protector of children. His cult helped shape the season of giving as well as the eventual relationship between children and Santa Claus. Medievalists Rosalind and Christopher Brooke point out that the Cult of St. Nicholas was already expanding in Europe before the theft of his remains from Myra and that the act of piracy may well have been a consequence of the growth of the cult.

Death and Legacy of St. Nicholas

The body of Nicholas was placed in a monastery in Myra where it remained until the latter 11th Century. The 1071 battle of Manzikert, however, left the city deserted as Muslims ravaged the Byzantine countryside. The monks living in the monastery fled, returning after the Muslims had left. When the merchants of Bari forcibly took the body of Nicholas, they told the monks that the saint had revealed in a dream his desire to be moved, citing the cowardice of the monks. The subsequent prosperity of Bari served as proof that the saint approved of the change

.

In England, the Cult of St. Nicholas signaled the annual election of boy-bishops on December 6th. These youths officiated as bishops until December 28th. The practice was eventually abolished during the reign of Elizabeth I but continued in Germany until the end of the 18th-Century. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Sint Klaes gave way to Santa Claus and it was the Dutch that richly embellished the legend, turning the saint into the familiar figure wearing red and carrying a sack of toys to give to children.

John Delaney writes that the Santa Claus image may have been a merging of the St. Nicholas legend as well as old Germanic pagan folklore. In this belief, the god Thor, associated with winter and other Christmas symbols like the Yule log, rode in a chariot drawn by goats. As the Cult of Nicholas grew, Christian traditions and legends blended with more ancient beliefs, ultimately creating the modern image of Santa Claus.

Sources:

• Rosalind and Christopher Brooke, Popular Religion in the Middle Ages: Western Europe 1000-1300 (Thames and Hudson, 1984)
• John J. Delaney, Dictionary of the Saints (Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1980)
• Anna G. Edmonds, Turkey’s Religious Sites (Istanbul: Damko Publications, 1998)
• Jonathan Sumption, Pilgrimage: An Image of Mediaeval Religion (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1975) 
• [Author's Visit to tomb in 2007]

DONATE

The copyright of the article St. Nicholas Day December 6th in Medieval History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish St. Nicholas Day December 6th in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Causes of the Great Depression

Overproduction Led to Inflated Stock and Corporate Valuation

Dec 4, 2009 Michael Streich

The laissez faire policies of Calvin Coolidge and Treasury Secretary Mellon led to a cycle of catastrophic economic failures resulting in the Great Depression.

Herbert Hoover was inaugurated President of the United States in 1929, the same year of the great stock market crash that served as the catalyst for the coming Great Depression. Although Hoover won election largely because “Coolidge Prosperity” defined a prosperous economy, the causes of catastrophic economic failure were not readily apparent or were ignored. The growing wave of bank failures as well as other key financial institutions resulted in widespread loss of confidence and set into motion unprecedented unemployment figures. Yet the overall causes of the Great Depression predated the fateful events of late 1929

The Coolidge Years and the Façade of Wealth

The expansion of consumer credit in the years following World War I enabled a spectacular increase in American consumerism. This encouraged overproduction as new technologies in manufacturing allowed businesses to produce more goods. The consequence of this was an inflated value of industrial capitalization. Stock prices, which kept rising, inflated the real value of corporations. In 1929 a share of Montgomery Ward stock sold at $439.00 – far higher than the actual value of the retailer.

World War I left many other nations facing depression. Many of these nations were tied to American financial investments and potential customers of American products. High tariffs, however, exacerbated a smooth flow of trade, creating an imbalance. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff, for example – coming after the 1929 crash, featured the highest tariff rate in U.S. history. American foreign interests were also jeopardized by social and political unrest in some of the most lucrative and important foreign markets.

The Coolidge years represented unfettered laissez faire for American business. Without federal regulation and oversight, financial institutions and banks were left to their own devices, even if that represented potential threats to the stability of the economy. Neither the Federal Trade Commission nor the Interstate Commerce Committee exercised enforcement. Even the Supreme Court, led by arch-conservative William Howard Taft, ruled against minimum wage laws, child labor, and government regulation of utility companies.

Failure to Address the Needs of Farmers

President Coolidge was not a friend of the American farmer. His response to victims of flooding was, “the government is not an insurer of its citizens against the hazards of the elements.” He also vetoed the McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Act which was presented three times during the Coolidge presidency. The administration’s failure to address the needs of farmers led to the resurgence of the Progressive Party in 1924, led by Bob La Follette of Wisconsin and Burton Wheeler of Montana. The stock market crash and resulting depression fell particularly hard on farmers who saw agricultural prices drop dramatically. Wheat, which had sold for $1.05 a bushel, fell to 35 cents.

The Snowball Effect of the Stock Market Crash

One of the more important causes of the Great Depression was psychological. The widespread loss of confidence led to a cycle of steps that worsened the overall impact of financial collapse. The October 29th crash erased 90 billion dollars and caused the market to lose 75% of its value. Financial institutions immediately tightened credit and stopped making loans.

Despite pleas from President Hoover to maintain wages and workforce numbers, American businesses began to lay-off employees. By 1933 one third of the work force was unemployed representing 15 million people. As people lost jobs, consumerism evaporated. Without consumer spending, manufacturers and retailers were forced to cut inventories and laborers.

Causes of the Great Depression were Many

The federal government’s initial failure to step in and stimulate the economy heightened the growing economic disaster. Hoover and the Republican Party agreed with Calvin Coolidge that “business should be unhampered and free.” Many of the root causes could have been seen before 1929 but were ignored. A popular contemporary phrase refers to “connecting the dots.” This was not done in the 1920s and Americans were destined to over a decade of depression.

Sources:

• Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s (New York: Harper & Row, 1931)
• Anthony J. Badger, FDR The First Hundred Days (New York: Hill and Wang, 2008

This article is under copyright to Mike Streich. Any attempt at reproduction whether digital or print is strict prohibited and requires written permission from the write/author

 

Vietnam and Containment

Fear of Communism and French Pressure in Southeast Asia

Dec 9, 2009 Michael Streich

America's longest war began after World War II when France reasserted colonial pretensions in Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh began a war of liberation based on Communist ideals.

The lengthy Vietnam War demonstrated that the United States was not invincible and that “Containment” as a policy had failed. Ultimately, the United States had failed to consider that a western-style democracy was incompatible with Vietnamese culture, tradition, religious beliefs, and an agricultural economy. Vietnam represented a political “domino” that fed into the prevailing model of worldwide Communist domination, yet Ho Chi Minh never fully conformed to the image of a Kremlin puppet. He was a nationalist who also embraced Communism. Had the U.S. taken a more pragmatic view of post-World War Two Indochina, the Vietnam War might have been avoided.

Japanese Occupation and French Colonialism

Southeast Asia had been occupied by Japan throughout the Second World War. During this time, an insurgent movement led by indigenous nationalists and assisted by covert U.S. assistance harassed Japan. Following Japan’s surrender in 1945, the Vietnamese people sought independence, repudiating their former status as a French colonial possession. Initially, the U.S. supported this. Historian George C. Herring describes a victory parade in which the Star Spangled Banner was played, American troops marched, and U.S. planes flew overhead. The first Vietnamese Constitution was modeled on the U.S. Constitution.

The European allies, however, notably France and Britain, were not ready to grant independence to any former colonial possessions and struggled to maintain the veneer of empire. When the United States granted independence to the Philippines, held as a territory since 1898, it hoped that the example would be followed by other European colonial powers. France was determined to reclaim Vietnam and the vast mineral resources in Southeast Asia.

Diplomatic Blackmail and Fears of Communism

Post-war France pressured the U.S. government into supporting its efforts at reclaiming Vietnam. This pressure amounted to a quid pro quo. The United States needed French help and support in rebuilding Europe, especially the implementation of the Marshall Plan. Further, as the Soviet Union consolidated power in Eastern Europe making any atomic threat by the U.S. untenable, French support became even more important.

By the time Ho Chi Minh galvanized the Vietnamese people against French efforts at restoring Vietnam as a colony, the Soviet Union had come to be seen as a global threat, seeking to impose Communist-style puppet regimes throughout the world. In the U.S., Communism took on a new persona, one that was diametrically opposed to democracy and freedom. Communism had to be contained and anti-Communist leaders like Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan and Syngman Rhee in South Korea had to be supported, despite their gross corruption.

Communism was antithetical to the free world and had to be suppressed wherever it appeared in the world. Foreign policies were based on a dualistic assumption of good and evil. It was inconceivable that Ho Chi Minh, for example, could – as a Communist, create a nation that would not be tied to the perceived global ambitions of Kremlin-orchestrated plots to snuff out democracy and freedom. These assumptions helped forge the long path toward the Vietnam War.

Vietnam as the Slough of Despond

Both the Truman and the Eisenhower administrations earmarked millions of dollars to assist the French in Vietnam. But, as William Lederer and Eugene Burdick demonstrated in their 1958 book The Ugly American, neither the French nor the American observers and advisers fully comprehended the strategy of jungle warfare. After the fall of Dienbienphu in 1954, the French withdrew. Vietnam was divided by the Geneva Accords (without significant U.S. participation) and the necessity of keeping the South free of Communist influence became an American priority.

Containment, however, proved to be futile despite massive U.S. financial and military assistance. In contemporary terms, the “hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese people were won by the Communists, not the representatives of democracy. Neither massive bombing, chemical warfare, nor troop surges stopped the inevitable consolidation of Vietnam into a fully Communist state.

Sources:

• George C. Herring, America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam 1950-1975, 2nd Edition (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1986)
• General Bruce Palmer, Jr., The 25-Year War: America’s Military Role in Vietnam (The University Press of Kentucky, 1984)
• Randall Bennett Woods, J. William Fulbright, Vietnam, and the Search for a Cold War Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 1998)

Under copyright: any duplication by digital methods or print must receive written permission by the author Michael Streich