|
|
|
| |
| |
Monday, March 27, 2006
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. --- Mark Twain
That was the slogan on a poster at Saturday's Immigration March in Los Angeles. And why not? It was a Republican who declared that illegal immigration was the greatest crisis facing our country. It was a Republican who introduced a bill that would criminalize any act of human feeling directed toward an illegal immigrant. And it's a Republican president whose idea of a solution to the problem of illegal immigration is a "guest worker" approach that has only led to problems where it's been tried. I've often wondered what it would take to get people out of their homes in large numbers. Correction: huge numbers. Well, we learned what it is. According to The Associated Press, 500,000 marched in Los Angeles, 50,000 in Denver, 20,000 in Phoenix, and 10,000 in Milwaukee. The New York Times buried the story on page 31, but the Times can perhaps be excused--its editors are busily making amends for the paper's pre-war regurgitation of the government's lies. Everyone with any common sense understands that illegal immigration is a real problem, if not the looming crisis some would have us believe. On the reasonable assumption that anything this President proposes is a bad idea, I reflexively condemn Bush's idea of a two-tier, licensed-worker program. Given all the urgent issues our do-nothing White House and Congress aren't dealing with, my view is that immigration can wait until '09, when--please God--we will have some smart professionals in office again. One point is, I think, worth making: Once again, a tone-deaf administration and the clueless Congresspeople and Senators who represent the Republican "base" have chosen to gang up on the weakest segment of our society. I remember when we had a country house in Westchester. "Need day labor?" a neighbor said. "Go to the train station in the morning." I did. And had my pick of South American men. They worked hard clearly brush all day and seemed glad I didn't try to screw them when it came time to pay up. I didn't pay into their health plan (they didn't have one) and they didn't pay taxes (they were, after all, illegal), but as transactions go these days, it was fairly honorable. Saturday's marches were thrilling because they were, at bottom, honorable. The marchers understood that this debate is about "protecting" America's borders against "dark" people--in direct violation of the Christian commitment to help the weak, the sick, the poor. The marchers and Jesus were in complete harmony--each step brought society's losers and winners closer together. I would bet most of the white people who marched believe in a few simple precepts: education for all, medical care for those in need, food for the hungry. Yeah, they like their lawns cut for less and their shirts laundered for cheap, but this is a minor hypocrisy. In the crunch, they're human. The "Christians" now making noises in Congress and the cable channels--there's a name for such people: "Chinos." That is: "Christians in name only." Last weekend, at long last, these folks discovered that this is America 2006, not Europe in the Dark Ages. And Spanish-speaking voters in New York and Miami just possibly learned that Republicans loathe more Hispanics than just Fidel Castro. "Immigration" is in the news because some very cynical people thought it would make a lovely election issue--a nifty way to disguise racism as a "security" problem. In fact, Republicans love cheap labor; they'd have us all working for the minimum wage if they could. But brown illegals sucking our services....it's the "Welfare Queen" in the Cadillac all over again. Looks like it backfired. Well, three cheers for democracy. To everyone who marched and every minister who urged people to march--God bless. For a brief shining moment, you made us proud to be American.
If you've been following the media conversation, you may have figured out why there's not more Good News coming out of Iraq--there isn't any! Good school stories? Hey, did you hear about the teacher who was beheaded in his classroom while his students watched in horror? And we're all still waiting to hear about one full day of water, gas and electricity in Baghdad. While our government quibbles over what a Civil War might look like, there's a pretty good example for the world to observe--Iraq. May I suggest a good site to go for unvarnished war news: Today in Iraq. As I write (on Monday afternoon), tensions are running higher than ever, thanks to a bloodbath at or outside a mosque. What's the difference? Check this out: Iraqi police and residents said a U.S. raid on a Shiite mosque in the Shaab district of east Baghdad sparked fierce clashes with militiamen of the Mehdi Army loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. A medical source at Yarmouk hospital said he saw 18 bodies of Iraqis killed in the operation. Police sources said 20 Mehdi Army fighters were killed in the fighting, close to Sadr's stronghold in the Sadr City slum, and five vehicles belonging to the militia were burned. A senior aide to Sadr, in comments capable of inflaming passions among the radical cleric's supporters, accused US troops of shooting dead more than 20 unarmed worshippers at the Mustapha mosque after tying them up. The mosque's faithful follow Sadr but the aide denied they were Mehdi Army gunmen." The American forces went into Mustapha mosque at prayers and killed more than 20 worshippers," Hazin al-Araji said. "They tied them up and shot them." Naturally, we say this didn't happen. But the thing is, the only people who listen to what we say are the wingnut pundits back home who dare not criticize our leaders. The Iraqis believe the worst. And act on it. I've said it before. I'll say it again now. Bush's line that withdrawal from Iraq will be a decision for the next president is whistling in the dark. This is Vietnam all over again. We may keep our troops on the sidelines--except for the occasional massacre, I guess--but in the end, these people will stop butchering each other just long enough to turn their guns on us. And then, as we did in '75, we'll have choppers rescuing our people from the Green Zone and platoons fighting their way to the airport. The light at the end of the tunnel? The tail light on the last plane out. I wish it were otherwise--but then, I wish we'd never started this stupid war.
John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago. Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. In their article, "The Israel Lobby," they write what some people think but dare not say. Here's a sample: Saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the U.S. gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Do read the whole thing.
Bad as the Patriot Act is, the reality is even worse. From The Boston Globe: When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers. The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates. Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . " He means, of course, unconstitutional authority.
You won't believe--well, maybe you will--this story of the challenge of teaching science to children of Christians Who Know Better. From an Arkansas Times article about a geologist who teaches in Arkansas public schools: Teachers at his facility are forbidden to use the “e-word” (evolution) with the kids. They are permitted to use the word “adaptation” but only to refer to a current characteristic of an organism, not as a product of evolutionary change via natural selection. They cannot even use the term “natural selection.”
But Bob’s personal issue was more specific, and the prohibition more insidious. In his words, “I am instructed NOT to use hard numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD ... but I am NOT to say that these rocks are thought to be about 300 million years old.”
Easter's coming, and Christ is on my mind this week. I'm thinking of the extraordinary horizontal painting by Mantegna. And of a book about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ --literally. This time around, He is Jose Francisco Lorcan Kennedy--known as Jay. He's an immigrant's son from the Bronx. He wears a hooded sweatshirt. He's not handsome in any conventional way. His story, this time around, is told by an unbeliever, Johnny Greco. Back in the day, Johnny won the Pulitzer Prize; now he's a tabloid hack on the lookout for a good story about a freak. And in America in the not-so-distant future, the Second Coming could be Johnny's ticket to ride. Consider: America is now a full-blown theocracy. There's a "Chaplain-in-Chief" of the Armed Forces. The second "L" has been removed from the Hollywood sign, and the country's most successful evangelist hosts the Academy Awards. Here's a hit movie: "Sophie's Free Choice," in which "a young mother pregnant with twins, is told by her (feminist) doctor that she must abort one of them or die." (Luckily, she finds Jesus and "becomes an instrument of divine retribution.") Sex is for child creation only, Gay sex is a felony--TV sports no longer shows close-ups of the snap in pro football. BMW makes a car called the Babylon. There is a Great Wall of Trump Towers. In this mindlessly happy culture, who cares--really cares--about the poor? Jay. He uses the language of the street, but in every other way, this is the Gospel we know. And the same mission: "to reveal the God in humanity and the humanity in God, by teaching, healing, and, if necessary, dying." Needless to say, Jay is not exactly on the same page as the American Church, which endorses all wars, is excited by the death penalty and has long forgotten that every soul is equally precious to God. As Jay says, "I come, first and foremost, for the losers." How does it play out? You know. But you'll read to the last page of The Messiah of Morris Avenue.
Monday, March 20, 2006
The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others. ---Bertrand Russell
Sainted Editor asked for commentary on the war as it enters its third year: "Is this a just or an unjust war? How do the war's rationale, its methods, and its consequences jibe with your religious/moral outlook?" Never let it be said she lacks a sense of humor. Just war? Moral code? Thanks, boss, for my first giggle in days. Fortunately, there's no need to bloviate--two events last week said it all. One was "Operation Swarmer," billed as the greatest air attack since "Shock and Awe." 1,500 U.S. and Iraqi troops were ferried in 50 choppers to an area that was--according to Iraqi intelligence--rife with insurgents. And the outcome? According to Time Magazine, the "success" of the operation was anything but major: But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders. One wonders: Were there ever "insurgents" in the area? Was this just an engineered photo-op for journalists hungry for a story--journalists who might not live for five minutes if they walked outside Baghdad's Green Zone? Or were real "insurgents" there once but, thanks to leaks in the Iraqi Army, long gone before the choppers showed up? Incident #2: The President is itching to do something, anything, to Iran, which may explain the persistent rumors that the U.S.--I almost said "we"--will, this Spring, send bombers and missiles to eliminate its "nuclear" plants. So, last week, Bush announced that Iran is supplying parts for Iraqi insurgents for their improvised roadside bombs: "Some of the most powerful IED's that we are seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran." Soon after, a reporter questioned Gen. Peter Pace--head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--about the President's statement. Reporter: Do you have proof that they are indeed behind this, the Government
of Iran?
Pace: I do not sir. (Jon Stewart has both clips, neatly juxtaposed: Bush and Pace video) What happened there? Not much, by current standards-- in recent polls: The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." Except this: Bush lied, his own people called him on it--and nothing happened. Because nothing ever does in this White House. The President's approval rating can barely go lower, but that doesn't matter. For the President's political safety--if Democrats do well in the fall elections, you'd better believe we'll see some investigations of this administration's criminality--we will, if he deems it necessary, bomb Iran. If terrorists strike us, we will, if he deems it necessary, see more warrantless searches, arrests without charges, detention without indictments, and--hey, why not?--something that looks a lot like martial law. (Because these are the things that keep us "safe.") So, to the questions of a just war and morality, I ask the obvious: How many times does a guy have to lie to you before you stop listening? How many crimes does he have to commit before you stop cutting him slack? Indeed, was it not our President who said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...." We can, therefore, pass over the laundry list of horrors that the U.S.--oops, almost said "we" again--has inflicted on the Iraqi people in three years: less water service and electrical power in Baghdad today than there was in Saddam's rule, torture, corruption, incompetence, etc. If you've read me for the past 18 months, you know I've chronicled our failed policy fairly consistently. If you haven't, feel free to wander in the archives. But don't, please, expect me to review the sorry litany of this monstrous, illegal war all over again, as if, three years in, the idea that this is our greatest shame since Vietnam is somehow a new idea. Everything that has come to pass was predicted. Nothing is a surprise--except to our leaders. Let's take the long view (unlike the administration). What's happened because of our invasion of Iraq, though global in effect, is actually quite small: Everything good and decent about America, everything sane and reasonable, has been done for the political benefit of one man and his narrow vision of a complex world. We--this time, the proper use of "we"--may be paying the bills, but we're just along for the ride. George Bush--like any number of middle-aged guys you know who exercise madly and never pass a mirror without checking themselves out--is obsessed only with himself. Which is understandable. He doesn't have the brainpower, the compassion, or the imagination to care about other people. Or about his job. At some level, he must know that he is "handled" and spoon-fed by his staff. He's not the President, he just plays one on TV. Yes, it's enough to make you despair. Three more years of Bush means--if we're not routed in Iraq--three more years of war. It's terrible to contemplate. Think of how hated we've become in the eyes of the world, and then multiply it by three. If you feel ashamed, congratulations--you are still in touch with reality. The people who come here, week after week, are already abashed, disgusted, depressed. We look to the Democrats for an opposition, and find mostly....cowards. Unless someone gets hit by thunder, we're on our own. Since that's the case, let's talk about the important moral issue: how to keep the lights on--the lights of intelligence and compassion and honor--while our leaders and the right-wing evangelicals try to legislate us into the Dark Ages. Activism is called for, oh yes. But I feel a lot of what we can do for our country is simply to be examples of Enlightened Beings--to weep at beautiful music, stare in awe at great art, lose ourselves in books, be kind to our neighbors and civil to our enemies. In short, to live our faith. Our faith in intelligence, diversity, freedom. This will not be easy. It is entirely possible that our leaders will scapegoat "liberals" and "free thinkers" and others who don't conform. It's happened before. And it's never been a pretty process. To those who know the difference between a just war and what we're doing in Iraq, I say: God bless. Do your exercises, run your laps. Make money and save it. Look for beauty wherever you can find it. Kiss your partner, hug your kid. And hope to God that our collective goodness--our faith and our deeds--will somehow balance the hell that our leaders have created for Iraq and the U.S. alike.
This one's for the folks on the message boards who have trouble remembering anything un-American this administration has done: -- FBI Took Photos of Antiwar Activists in 2002, from the Washington Post. An FBI agent in Pittsburgh photographed members of an antiwar activist group in 2002, according to documents released yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the disclosure marks the latest incident in which the FBI has monitored left-leaning groups. An FBI report from November 2002 indicates that an agent photographed members of the Thomas Merton Center as they handed out leaflets opposing the impending war in Iraq. The report called the group a "left-wing organization advocating, among many political causes, pacifism." Wow, the Thomas Merton Center--those guys must be as dangerous as...oh...Quakers. -- Freedom of Speech, anyone?Olean resident Brenda Snyder went to Canandaigua on Tuesday to talk to President Bush about health care. What she got was a lesson in message control. Mrs. Snyder said no one at the meeting was given an opportunity to speak to the President and many, including herself, were prevented by security at the event from talking to the press after the President’s town meeting. Mrs. Snyder said after the meeting a group of television reporters at the back of the room asked her a question. When she tried to reply, she says she was herded out of the room. “We were answering questions and this big guy in a suit came along and said, ‘move along,’ ” she said. I said, ‘Why can’t we answer questions?’ And he said, ‘I have been given my orders.' He kept saying ‘move along’ and kept blocking my way and I kept saying, ‘I’m a U.S. citizen I have a right to answer some questions,’” she said. “It felt like if you were out of order at all, someone was going to take you away. It was very threatening.” --A picture says a thousand words? What if it's on TV? And it makes accusations about a heel-clicking administration? Can't happen. Watch this clip from "Boston Legal." [Background: a secretary at the law firm has been charged with tax evasion.] Here's James Spader. --It's dangerous being a judge in our country. The Associated Press reports: Three quarters of the nation's 2,200 federal judges have asked for government-paid home security systems, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this week. --You don't need to be secure. And don't ask again because we don't care. Congress voted against: – $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports. – $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors. – $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast. Meanwhile, the Bush budget–which most of the members who voted against this bill will likely support–contains an increase of $1.7 billion for missile defense, a program that doesn’t even work. --Abortion? Just the first target. Next comes contraception. From the Kansas City Star: An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles. Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003. But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics. The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending. "If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview. --To be gay is to be insecure. From the Associated Press: The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.
It's like doing the Wave. Yes, time for another episode of Get Your War On.
Brushes on the drum. A delicate acoustic guitar figure. And then these broken-hearted lyrics: Come rolling into town unaware Of the power that you have over me And what am I to do With hello how are you Nothing’s ever said that should be And I don’t care about you If you don’t care about me We can go our separate ways If you want to The ties of love are strong But they can be undone And we’ll go our separate ways If you want to I’m turning into me, not you I can change my mind not my blood And not all who love are blind Some of us are just too kind We forgive too much And never speak our minds There's more like that. Much more. It's an open vein of a song. Not to hear it--not to have it as a reminder of those moments when your life was like that--is to go through your days slightly blinkered. One sure way to avoid that: Teddy Thompson.
Monday, March 13, 2006
We should be kind to each other. Be civil. And appreciate the good moments by saying "If this isn’t nice, what is?" --- Kurt Vonnegut, in answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
There's no reason why someone can't go down there [New Orleans] who's supposed to be the leader of the free world ... and say: "I'm giving you a job to do, and I'm not leaving here until it's done. And you're held accountable, and you're held accountable, and you're held accountable. This is what I've given you to do, and if it's not done by the time I get back on my plane, then you're fired and someone else will be in your place." --- country singer Tim McGraw, criticizing President Bush at a press conference
I was reading Nicholas Kristof's column in The New York Times yesterday, getting mightily upset at the latest in Chad-Sudan--death squads systematically "cleansing" villages. And there, in the middle of the column, was a modest request: Please go to Million Voices for Darfur and send President Bush a postcard urging him to do something. I went to the site. I filled in my name, address, and e-mail address. But I didn't hit SEND. I was too scared. Oh, I couched my fear in practical terms: Does anyone seriously think that President Bush gives a damn about the Sudan? (Or, for that matter, any place where the people are poor or black or have no lobbyist?) So what's the point of sending him a virtual postcard? Then I got to my real fear: Isn't all you're doing putting your name on a list--not of Americans who care about human rights, but Liberals to round up if/when the time comes? The question of the season: Is the time coming? Ridiculous, you say. A dictatorship in America? Swamster, you really should cut out the heavy-metal-and-hashish evenings. I hear you. Being afraid of soldiers in the streets and muzzled broadcasters and a citizenry stunned into silence is sooooo 1968. Okay, smarties, consider this: The President has a 34% approval rating. The conventional media point out that's like...dead in the water. By the standards of conventional media, there ought to be a lynch mob in Congress chasing Bush with a rope. But conventional media have been wrong about everything. In fact, though Republicans swear they are not pawns of the party, each time there's a vote they line up and support their President. They don't care that he has broken the law--and admitted it. Thirty-four percent might as well be 80%. Russ Feingold's motion for censure, a no-brainer if ever there was one, can't even get much traction in his own party, to say nothing of Republicans running for re-election this fall. It gets worse. Large portions of our Constitution have already been suspended. As we speak, there's not much keeping the government from doing what its minions do in Iraq --show up at your door and take you away...forever. Now....what if there were another terror attack? (I know. There can't be. George Bush has kept us safe since 9/11, right?) Don't you think--in the interest of "protecting" us, of course--the White House might decide to declare....martial law? Not forever. Just...indefinitely. And what if the terror attack came...oh...say...just a few weeks before an election? Might make it advisable to....oh...postpone the balloting. And the people who speak up against this abridgement of personal freedom? You know, the people who write for blogs....and sign petitions...and give money to "liberal" causes. Would you really miss them if they weren't around? I thought about all this as my screen waited. I walked into our daughter's room and looked down at her face as if to memorize it, as if I'd never see her again. I considered whether it might be better for our family to leave the country before The Worst happened and have a fair assurance I'd live to see her graduate from school, or whether it might be more important for Little Uptown to know her father stuck around to try and get the truth out. I closed my eyes and revisited some scenes from V for Vendetta (which opens on Friday, the 17th). And some stirring images of courageous men and women--Jews and Buddhists and Christians and, yes, Muslims, among many others--came to mind. And then I hit SEND. Will you?
By now you all surely know about the new death-to-abortion law in South Dakota. From The New York Times: The law makes it a felony to perform any abortion except in a case of a pregnant woman's life being in jeopardy. Though the law is not scheduled to go into effect until July, officials working at the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, where about 800 abortions take place each year, said they spent much of the day consoling women. Consoling women? Why? As far as I can tell, the penalty for participating in an abortion--a Class V felony, punishable by five years in jail--only applies to the doctor. But what about the expectant mother who aborts? She initiated the crime, she's a con-conspirator. Why is there no penalty under South Dakota law for her? Let's not weaken our resolve here. The law's the law. If we're going to criminalize abortion, shouldn't we send women to jail too? Eight hundred a year in South Dakota--well, that's a start, isn't it? Not enough cells? Build more. Prison bonds sell briskly on Wall Street; seems that jails never go out of business. And Halliburton could build them--it would give the company something to do after we get kicked out of Iraq. (We've already got more people in jail than any country in the world. Here's a chance--a rare chance--to increase our lead. Gooooo, America!) What do you think: Does equal justice in South Dakota mean punishing women who abort along with the doctors who perform the abortion?
They found Tom Fox's body last week. Tortured, then killed--the new Iraqi way. (They're quick studies. And we're great teachers.) Here's something the Christian peacemaker wrote the day before he was abducted: I have read that the word in the Greek Bible that is translated as "love" is the word "agape." Again, I have read that this word is best expressed as a profound respect for all human beings simply for the fact that they are all God's children. I would state that idea in a somewhat different way, as "never thinking or doing anything that would dehumanize one of my fellow
human beings." As I survey the landscape here in Iraq, dehumanization seems to be the operative means of relating to each other. U.S. forces in their quest to hunt down and kill "terrorists" are, as a result of this dehumanizing word, not only killing "terrorists," but also killing innocent Iraqis: men, women and children in the various towns and villages.
It seems as if the first step down the road to violence is taken when I dehumanize a person. That violence might stay within my thoughts or find its way into the outer world and become expressed verbally, psychologically, structurally or physically. As soon as I rob a fellow human being of his or her humanity by sticking a dehumanizing label on them, I begin the process that can have, as an end result, torture, injury and death.
Tom Fox understood the chain of causation so thoroughly he had to put his life where his heart was. That was a missionary. That was a man. Gone to Jesus as this criminal enterprise now enters its third year....
A giant died in his sleep last week. In his native Mali, there are tears for the guitarist who took his country's music and blended it with the American blues of the Deep South to produce CDs of piercing originality and astonishing beauty. He called himself a farmer. He wasn't kidding. His neighbors elected him mayor. He spent his music royalties to dredge the river and irrigate the fields; when pressed, he recorded in a slapped-together studio powered by a portable generator. His 40-acre farm, his 11 children, and his community came first. "If I eat, they eat," he said. "What I drink, they drink. What I wear, they wear. And I live with the river all the time." You can hear the river and the soil in his music, which is at once robust and delicate and, CD after CD, proof that he was one of the greatest guitarists on the planet. I mean, of course, Ali Farka Toure.
One of the President's key "advisers" during Hurricane Katrina resigned to spend "more time with my family." In fact, Claude Allen left the administration because he'd been arrested for a shoplifting/fake return scam that netted him at least $5,000 before he was caught. Allen was a favorite at the White House because he was a black Republican who spoke out for abstinence. Recently, he took his views to a fantastic extreme. From The Nation: In February, a hundred CDC researchers on sexually transmitted diseases were summoned to Washington by HHS deputy secretary Claude Allen for a daylong affair consisting entirely of speakers extolling abstinence until marriage. There were no panels or workshops, just endless testimonials, including one by a young woman calling herself "a born-again virgin." Get that? Researchers--that's scientists--had to fly to Washington for a day of theology. How moronic is that? Can you imagine what they said to one another in the halls? I've got a theory about Claude Allen, one that connects his preaching for abstinence and the crime. I say: The thing you say you hate is something you might otherwise love. Maybe something you do love. More than love: need. In blunt language, I wouldn't be surprised if Claude Allen used that $5,000 to buy sex. You think?
Monday, March 06, 2006
Dear Dr. Dobson: This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period. As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me. I hope that we'll have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future. In the meantime my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how we appreciate all that you have done. Sincerely yours, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, to Focus on the Family founder and president James Dobson
For me, a groaner. Not even Jon Stewart could liven this show up. It was like a conveyor belt, interrupted by clips of films that the studios would never make today. And the music. Was I the only one distracted when winners stepped up to make their remarks and soft music began? Like in a bad restaurant when the waiter comes to tell you the specials and the music is so intrusive you have to cup an ear to hear? Only menacing. I felt if anyone said anything the least bit rude, the violins would turn Wagnerian.... As for the allocation of awards: These Oscars were like the Assembly at the end of 6th grade. The principal made sure everyone got an award. The lingering question: How does the Best Director NOT make the Best Picture? One good thing: George Clooney's remarks: I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy. Proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch. Finally: "Sophie Scholl: The Final Days" was the German nominee for Best Foreign Film. I can't say, 'Oh, you'll love it,' because to see it is like taking a body blow: A German girl and her brother get caught distributing anti-Hitler leaflets in 1943. They are arrested, tried, found guilty, all in a few days. It's an important film, about conscience, loyalty, truth and history--and about the power of faith. It's not playing in many theaters, but if you're within a hundred miles of one:...GO! To encourage you, here is a rave review from The New York Times.
Little Uptown, just 4, and I were playing one of those games that's supposed to make her Harvard-ready by age 6. There was a picture of a fish in a birdcage and a bird in a fish bowl. What was wrong with the picture? LU got that on the first try. What would happen if they didn't get back to their proper homes? LU: "They would die." I was shocked. But then I remembered: There is a death at the start of "Nemo." SU: "What does it mean--to 'die'?" LU: "I don't know. [shrugs] Nothing." SU: "You're probably right."
Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have created a cervical cancer vaccine. Merck's drug seems to be 100% effective--it kills the strain of the virus that causes cervical cancer. Risks seem minimal. So the pharmaceutical companies and some public health advocates have come to a reasonable conclusion: Girls should be inoculated with the vaccine. The Family Research Council and other Religious Right groups oppose any vaccination. Why? Because women usually get the human papilloma virus (HPV)--the virus that causes cervical cancer--from sex. Here's their logic: Virgins don't get cervical cancer. To give girls the vaccine is to discourage their church's abstinence campaign. It is, bluntly, to "encourage" sex. Here's the flaw in that logic: Girls have sex. Yes, even girls raised in homes where the fathers breathe fire and the mothers dress their daughters in the American version of burkas. I don't have the research at hand today, but it shows a 10% or so difference in sexual activity between girls 15 to 25 who have taken a "virginity" pledge and those who haven't. Impressive? If you see the glass as half full. I still see girls having sex. The Religious Right parents are making a big bet that their daughters won't have sex with an infected partner--given the virulence of cervical cancer, they're literally betting these girls' lives. But if course, that's not enough for these parents. They won't be happy until they stop these drugs and risk your daughters' lives as well. And, later, if your kid can't get the vaccine and dies of cervical cancer, well, she deserved it. And to prove that, I guess, your kid goes straight to hell.
A news report last week: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said on Friday that all of its pharmacies would carry morning-after contraceptive pills, bowing to pressure from states seeking to force the world's biggest retailer to do so.
In a statement posted on its Web site, Wal-Mart said all of its pharmacies would begin carrying "Plan B" contraceptives as of March 20, but added that workers who did not feel comfortable dispensing a prescription could refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy. And if there is no other pharmacist at Wal-Mart? Or if Wal-Mart is the only pharmacy for 100 miles? I guess, like King Solomon, the judges would say: "Cut the embryo in half."
Convention holds that commentary on a departing colleague follows the same code as speaking of the dead--say only good. I can do half of that here. I have known Charlotte Hays casually for the better part of two decades. She interviewed me for a book, and, when she misplaced her notes, I happily told her my stories a second time. We share some friends. That she co-authored a charming book is unsurprising--I knew her to be a charming person. Loose Canon--her virtual persona on Beliefnet--was a different person. And unrecognizable to me. LC was as chilly as Charlotte was warm, as charmless as Charlotte was winsome. But that's too polite: LC was devoid of empathy or human feeling. She was an admirer of some of the right's most vile haters. She was no Christian, as I understand the term. I can't assess her singular version of Catholicism. On other matters, I was equally out in the cold. It was simply impossible to be in a dialogue with her. LC was a Terminator. A chip had been installed, and it overrode everything--inconvenient facts as well as other points of view. It was as if she had made a Faustian bargain. She sold her soul to Ann Coulter and Lucianne Goldberg, and in return, she got--ah, this is what I never found out. For those who have missed this 18-month-long feud, I need to say something here about what constitutes a "spiritual" concern. For me, the definition is vast--from your relationship with a Higher Power to your relationship with the least of your brothers and sisters. Faith matters. But I'm one of those amateur Buddhists who believes that works matter much, much more. When LC and I started blogging in 2004, it was clear to me--and, I'd bet, to most of you, and, certainly, to most thinking people who live outside of our borders--that our country was in its greatest spiritual crisis since Vietnam. In an illegal war, we were torturing innocent civilians and lying about it. Billions of dollars were disappearing into private pockets. At home, our government worked energetically for a small, permanent class of the super-rich and against a vast class of people just a few paychecks from ruin. We were losing--or giving up--our rights at a fearsome clip. Especially women and gays. None of this crazyquilt blend of Middle Ages theology and high-tech criminality was of interest to LC. The Catholic blogger walked hand-in-hand with the wingnut cadre of the Religious Right. If soldiers died...well, they volunteered. Women and children--collateral damage to some conservatives--were not even on her moral map. LC mourned for no one, held Arab lives so cheap as to be worthless, didn't care about corruption as a policy or spiritual issue. It was all very simple for her: She defended the war from the start, and nothing--not one thing--made her waver in the slightest. The Pope was not infallible. Bush was. And it would have taken something truly awful--say, sex with an intern in the Oval Office--to get LC to change her opinion. The phrase "Good German" comes to mind. People wince when you make the comparison between USA 2006 and Germany in, say, 1934. But consider: If the Patriot Act moved into higher gear and those who opposed the war could be put on trial for "losing" Iraq, I have no doubt that LC would volunteer to testify against me. For such a writer to be published on Beliefnet--the home of intelligent spirituality on the Web--was dazzling to me. There are many thoughtful conservatives. There are articulate, caring fundamentalists. I'm sure there are writers who are pro-life without wanting a raped teen to carry an unwanted child to term. But on Beliefnet, it was as if some crazy switch had been pulled: I--the Jew-Bu--was the goody-goody Christian in this blogging duo, and LC--the Catholic--was the heartless heathen. Weird. Eventually, I stopped reading LC. Occasionally, I would violate my promise to myself, and I would sneak a peak at her blog, and there I would find stuff that sent my blood pressure into the red zone. And not just from the opinions. Even more from the sourcing. LC would link to the furthest reaches of wingnuttery for backup, and those "facts" would be beyond bogus. I would turn into a fact-checker and correct her. And--here's the amazing part--LC, a professional journalist, would blow me off. [Don't believe me? Read us both on Plan B, RU-486 and the controversy over the Wal-Mart pharmacists.] I owe Beliefnet readers an apology: I'm sorry I let LC get under my skin to the point where some of my responses were intemperate. That kind of personal attack will now cease. But there's no need ever to apologize for attacks on the most mendacious, un-American politicians ever to call themselves "Christians"--and on those who know better and yet defend them. In her last column, LC describes what passed between us as "food fights." Maybe to her. To me, the topics that we needed to consider--the topics I tried to focus the conversation on--were (and are) our national spiritual crisis and our future as a people who like to think of ourselves as "moral." That conversation is the furthest thing from a food fight. For LC to reduce it to that--to think it was that--is to look with contempt on all of us. I'll miss Charlotte. But not LC.
1997. London. Sixteen-year-old Evey Hammond, short of cash, walks the grim back streets in search of a man who will pay her for sex. It's her first time. She's scared. And, worse, unlucky. "You don't know what you're doing," a man says, as he grabs her and flashes his badge. "Or you wouldn't have picked a vice detail on stakeout." What's her punishment? "We get to decide what happens to you....You'll do anything we want--and then we'll kill you." A bit extreme, wouldn't you say? But wait! Here comes a man in a long black cape and a big-brimmed, high-peaked black hat. He recites a passage from "Macbeth"--and calmly wastes the cops. And then, almost as an afterthought, he blows up Parliament. Oh....did I say Evey's rescuer--he calls himself "V"--wears a white, full-faced, grinning mask? And that 'V for Vendetta' is a comic book--okay, a graphic novel, 265 pages long? Those in the Know had a tip-off in the author's credit: Alan Moore is the mad genius of the illustrated novel. David Lloyd is his equal at creating images that match the mood of Moore's fantastic stories. This book, written from 1981 to 1988, is their masterpiece--and the inspiration for the movie by the Wachowski brothers creators of the 'Matrix' trilogy.) There are technical reasons why newcomers to this genre can be excited by 'V for Vendetta.' Unlike old-fashioned comics, there are no panels that signal action --- no "Blam!" and "Pow!" and "Oooof!" And there are no "thought bubbles" to take us inside the characters' heads so we can share what passes for thinking. The result is a streamlined book of considerable beauty. More to the point, this format lets Moore tell a story that is long on ideas and short on action--and is still absolutely thrilling. Consider the situation. Because England has managed to convince the United States to remove its nuclear missiles from British soil, the country has been spared the holocaust that seems to have decimated most of the world. But in the chaos that followed the war, fascists have taken over the government. An all-powerful "Leader" has the people under total surveillance. And the government propaganda machine--the "Voice of Fate"--is the only media permitted. There are no dissenters, and yet it seems that citizens are constantly being arrested for "terrorism." For all but the very privileged, England is Hell on earth. Will V take down the government? Who, really, is V? And what destiny does V plan for Evey? It would have been easy to invoke the dystopias of Orwell and Huxley and portray this fascist state as the logical extension of Margaret Thatcher's government. But Moore and Lloyd are playing for higher stakes. Like: Are you free? Do you want to be? Really? The movie opens March 17. Before you see the it, read the book: V for Vendetta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
