With the primaries on the horizon and the general election not far behind, with the balance of power in Congress is in play. The conservative leadership is putting itself on the cross, so to speak, and once more cheapening religion by manipulating believers into supporting wedge issues. Being blessed as peacemakers is not what the Republican leadership is after.
What's coming?
It appears we are going to get a couple of really conservative judges. Some of thee will be from the former Starr team who worked so hard to reduce the power of the presidency when Bill Clinton held it and now work hard to enhance that same power now that George Bush holds it. Like the God they insist wrote the Bible, word for word (a notion that was only developed about 400 years ago), the US Constitution is not really the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Apparently the Constitution's meaning varies with which person is in power.
This judge issue is one of my personal favorites. The Republicans blocked judge after judge on ideological grounds during the Clinton years and now they howl about how the president should be entitled to pick anyone he pleases. The Republican long run strategy is to name enough federal judges--who sit for life--so as to create a conservative judiciary that will be legislating their ideology long after the current conservative majority is cast out of office by the normal cycle of American politics.
This is a total lack of integrity on the part of Republicans who, having blocked on ideological grounds, now moan that it's unfair for anyone to ask any questions about a judge's ideology. The whole system is twisted, now, by partisanship and who knows when, or if, that can be fixed.
Aside from litmus tested judges we are also in for some flashy votes in Congress. Gay marriage, broadcast decency, a 10 commandments act, cloning ban, "protecting" in God we trust on the money and in the pledge of allegiance. These are the kinds of things that make the base go wild but that most centerist voters just tune out. These trivial issues do not mobilize, one way or the other, most voters who have their minds on serious questions (like health care, the deficit, our bankrupt transportation system, the structure of the tax system, etc). So "legislating" on these will be viewed by the center as more background noise to be ignored and will stoke the base at the same time.
We won't be seeing legislation about abortion or stem cell research which would awaken the voters in the center. The majority of Americans, including those in the center, who will hold the key the upcoming elections, do not agree with Bush and his base on these issues. Attention drawn to these issues will show that a lot of senators and representatives that go to Congress in their name don't agree with them on these kinds of issues that have great impact on how we live.
So, the Bush administration and Congress will give Dr. Dobson and the like something to chew on. They will not move on the issues that really have effect on the day to day lives of Americans because the Bush position on such issues, while drawing cheers from the base, are unpopular with the swing voters.
It's after the election, of course, that we are going to hear more about the things the administration is currently doing to prepare us for war with Iran...
The Democrats are not without fault in all of this and a number of them will be playing along with this strategy so as to fend off challanges from conservatives who have been picked and funded by the Republican National Committee to try to knock off members considered "vulnerable."
That's what we are in for from now until election day. It's not even "business as usual." It's politics as always.
Timothy Travis
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
just no end to it...
More on the same Supreme Court case discussed below...
Justice Scalia openly discussed the legal principals underlying this case and, before hearing arguments that were held today, he summed up the appellant's side of things by saying "Give me a break."
A judge, like a juror, who has his/her mind made up before hearing the case is not allowed to sit. In the case of a judge, though, and in the case of a justice, no one can enforce this ethical duty. It's up to the integrity of the judge, or justice, involved.
Awarding two "Lilies" in one day. It really is hard to keep up.
Justice Scalia openly discussed the legal principals underlying this case and, before hearing arguments that were held today, he summed up the appellant's side of things by saying "Give me a break."
A judge, like a juror, who has his/her mind made up before hearing the case is not allowed to sit. In the case of a judge, though, and in the case of a justice, no one can enforce this ethical duty. It's up to the integrity of the judge, or justice, involved.
Awarding two "Lilies" in one day. It really is hard to keep up.
taking the Lily Tomlin prize
"No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
Lily Tomlin
I'm going to call it "The Keeping Up" Prize and if I ever get around to creating a statue for winners I'll call them "Lilies."
And todays winners are two US Senators: Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. They filed a brief in a Supreme Court case to which they were not parties, a "friend of the court brief." In this brief they argued that a certain law applied to a case before the court. They claimed that an exchange they had on the floor of the Senate, at the time the bill was passed, made clear to all who would vote on it that this law was meant to apply. Therefore, their brief tells the Supreme Court, the law should apply.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/
The problem is that this exchange, that supposedly told all Senator what they were voting on, never happened on the floor of Senate. It was inserted in the Congressional Record (as most anything can be). It was a made up conversation (complete with made up interruptions and statements alluding the fact that the speaker's time was expiring). No one on the Senate floor heard it and so the argument that it shows that the intent of people who voted in favor of it was that it was meant to apply to this case before the Supreme Court today shows a complete lack of integrity on the part of the two US Senators involved.
There is plenty of stuff in the record of the actual debate on the Senate floor indicating that many Senators expressed their view that the bill was not intended to apply to this Supreme Court case. In fact, the entire record on the Senate floor indicates that the law as not intended to apply to this case. That's the exact opposite of what Graham and Kyl argue in their brief to the Court, based on their made up conversation that never happened. Since the legislative history of the law was clear that it was not intended to apply to this particular case something had to be made up to argue that it should.
You don't have to be a Quaker to be concerned at this kind of thing. You just have to know right from wrong.
Lily Tomlin
I'm going to call it "The Keeping Up" Prize and if I ever get around to creating a statue for winners I'll call them "Lilies."
And todays winners are two US Senators: Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. They filed a brief in a Supreme Court case to which they were not parties, a "friend of the court brief." In this brief they argued that a certain law applied to a case before the court. They claimed that an exchange they had on the floor of the Senate, at the time the bill was passed, made clear to all who would vote on it that this law was meant to apply. Therefore, their brief tells the Supreme Court, the law should apply.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/
The problem is that this exchange, that supposedly told all Senator what they were voting on, never happened on the floor of Senate. It was inserted in the Congressional Record (as most anything can be). It was a made up conversation (complete with made up interruptions and statements alluding the fact that the speaker's time was expiring). No one on the Senate floor heard it and so the argument that it shows that the intent of people who voted in favor of it was that it was meant to apply to this case before the Supreme Court today shows a complete lack of integrity on the part of the two US Senators involved.
There is plenty of stuff in the record of the actual debate on the Senate floor indicating that many Senators expressed their view that the bill was not intended to apply to this Supreme Court case. In fact, the entire record on the Senate floor indicates that the law as not intended to apply to this case. That's the exact opposite of what Graham and Kyl argue in their brief to the Court, based on their made up conversation that never happened. Since the legislative history of the law was clear that it was not intended to apply to this particular case something had to be made up to argue that it should.
You don't have to be a Quaker to be concerned at this kind of thing. You just have to know right from wrong.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Am I the only person who gets this?
WASHINGTON - Iran may yet end up on the docket of the United Nations Security Council for restarting its nuclear-fuel program. But even if the international community can agree to punish it with economic sanctions, will those actions succeed in stopping Tehran's pursuit of nuclear technology - and possibly a bomb?
so says the Christian Science Monitor, January 18, 2006
Why is the international community thinking about punishing Iran for restarting its nuclear weapons program? Why isn't the international commuity thinking of punishing the countries that currently have nuclear weapons for encouraging other countries to get them?
Iran is hot to get nuclear weapons because George Bush has clearly shown, in his disparate treatments of Iraq and North Korea, that if one has nuclear weapons one survives even if one's action do not please Washington DC. No one has pulled down any statues of Kim what's his name and the reason for that is that he has nukes. Saddam is on trial for crimes against humanity because he did not have nukes.
When I hear western leaders talking about the dangers of nuclear proliferation I just stand in dumbfounded awe of what is either clossal arrogance or most remarkable lack of insight the world has ever seen.
No one should have nukes. But the last people on earth to be objecting to their spread, with integrity, that is, are those who have them. Any country that has nuclear weapons today, and objects to other countries getting them, has adopted a policy of hypocrisy that will no doubt lead to the spread of nuclear weapons and, eventually, to a catasprophe of as yet unexperienced proportions.
so says the Christian Science Monitor, January 18, 2006
Why is the international community thinking about punishing Iran for restarting its nuclear weapons program? Why isn't the international commuity thinking of punishing the countries that currently have nuclear weapons for encouraging other countries to get them?
Iran is hot to get nuclear weapons because George Bush has clearly shown, in his disparate treatments of Iraq and North Korea, that if one has nuclear weapons one survives even if one's action do not please Washington DC. No one has pulled down any statues of Kim what's his name and the reason for that is that he has nukes. Saddam is on trial for crimes against humanity because he did not have nukes.
When I hear western leaders talking about the dangers of nuclear proliferation I just stand in dumbfounded awe of what is either clossal arrogance or most remarkable lack of insight the world has ever seen.
No one should have nukes. But the last people on earth to be objecting to their spread, with integrity, that is, are those who have them. Any country that has nuclear weapons today, and objects to other countries getting them, has adopted a policy of hypocrisy that will no doubt lead to the spread of nuclear weapons and, eventually, to a catasprophe of as yet unexperienced proportions.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
sometimes one just has to shake one's head...
Washington Times reports:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members...
Judge Alito's "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the need for full equality in this country," Mr. Kennedy said Wednesday.
Kennedy spokeswoman Laura Capps said there is "absolutely no comparison" between the Owl Club, a social group, and an organized effort to "exclude women from getting an education" at Princeton.
"It's a social club. It's like a fraternity," she said. "He has been fighting to break down barriers for decades."
This Quaker's take is that there is no reason for social clubs to erect barriers along sex lines. Excluding women (or men) from a club or a function or a conference really says that there is something about women (or men) that makes them unsuitable for the company of the other sex in that context or for some activity that the other sex wants to engage in.
And if that's the case what is the activity in which the one sex wants to engage that is so unsuitable for the other that a rule, rather than natural inclination or lack ability, is enough to preserve the integrity of that activity? Perhaps the desire to exclude the other sex is an indication that it's really an unsuitable pursuit for either sex.
Excluding either sex from any activity by rule only proves that those who want the rule believe in sex stereotypes that do damage to the other sex and to their own understanding of themselves. People who harbor misconceptions about the other sex also harbor misconceptions about their own. One cannot believe foolish ideas about the opposite sex without believing in foolish ideas about their own.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members...
Judge Alito's "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the need for full equality in this country," Mr. Kennedy said Wednesday.
Kennedy spokeswoman Laura Capps said there is "absolutely no comparison" between the Owl Club, a social group, and an organized effort to "exclude women from getting an education" at Princeton.
"It's a social club. It's like a fraternity," she said. "He has been fighting to break down barriers for decades."
This Quaker's take is that there is no reason for social clubs to erect barriers along sex lines. Excluding women (or men) from a club or a function or a conference really says that there is something about women (or men) that makes them unsuitable for the company of the other sex in that context or for some activity that the other sex wants to engage in.
And if that's the case what is the activity in which the one sex wants to engage that is so unsuitable for the other that a rule, rather than natural inclination or lack ability, is enough to preserve the integrity of that activity? Perhaps the desire to exclude the other sex is an indication that it's really an unsuitable pursuit for either sex.
Excluding either sex from any activity by rule only proves that those who want the rule believe in sex stereotypes that do damage to the other sex and to their own understanding of themselves. People who harbor misconceptions about the other sex also harbor misconceptions about their own. One cannot believe foolish ideas about the opposite sex without believing in foolish ideas about their own.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Privacy --why do I really value it?
from
http://dailykos.com/
January 8, 2006
"In a nutshell, the Chicago Sun-Times ran a story two days ago about a Web site that sells phone records, for cells and land-lines, for $110 a pop. The company boasts on its own Web site:
"Give us the cell phone number and we will send you the calls made from the cell phone number.
"So I went to their site, plopped down $110, and within a day I had a list of every single phone number that called my cell, or that I called from my cell, for the month of November. I even had the dates the calls were made, and for a premium I could find out how long the calls were."
So, is this a scary thought?
It was to me when I read it and then I wondered why it was.
I recognize that someone could do me harm with this informaton but they wouldn't need this information to do me harm. Someone who really wanted to do me harm could do it without this information.
I can see how I would be concerned if I were making calls that would indicate that I was doing things that I would rather not have other people know about because I was acting "in the dark," and I didn't want want that behavior brought into the light. If I were cheating on my spouse, for example, or doing criminal stuff, or making personal calls on work time and such.
So my take on this is that I would rather that this information were not available like this and I would love to know how they are doing this. It seems to me that I expected that this information would be confidential but I cannot point to some specific assurance I have ever received, at least not in regard to cell phones. I thought that after some Congressmen were embarrassed that some of their cell phone calls were inadvertantly overheard on other phones that a federal law was passed about intercepting cell phone calls but I'm not sure about that.
I do know that people have wierd notions about privacy--notions that are not supported by law. For example, video cameras in public places designed to detect and deter crime are perfectly legal because in public places one has, legally, no reasable expectation of privacy. But, given the state of technology, today, where does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
I remember when photo radar was debated in the Oregon legislature it was obvious that some members were uncomfortable about where a car (and its driver) might be photographed and with whom. They were obviously concerned about photographed drivers being in more trouble than a mere traffic ticket.
Although I do agree that people should not be allowed to get a list of all phone calls made from a specific number I also wonder about why this is such an odious idea to us. There are, no doubt, real threats to us posed by such access, but I think, too, that some of our fears in this regard have to do with the fact that we are too often up to things that, if revealed, would compromise us in the eyes of our employers, our families and our communities. In other words, whatever else such revelation would do, it might also reveal the corruption within our whitewashed sepulchers.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
More 21st Century Integrity
"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system."
Is it Senator Ted Kennedy complaining about President Bush ignoring the laws governing government tapping of phones and "mining" e mails?
No...
It's Tom Delay (currently under indictment) urging that President Clinton be punished for having an affair with an intern.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=45006#comment
Is it Senator Ted Kennedy complaining about President Bush ignoring the laws governing government tapping of phones and "mining" e mails?
No...
It's Tom Delay (currently under indictment) urging that President Clinton be punished for having an affair with an intern.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=45006#comment
Friday, December 23, 2005
why do they hate us?
It's not our freedom they hate ... it's that of the United States that is personified by our United Nations ambassador, Mr. Bolton. He' s just the epitome...
Los Angeles Times latimes.com
"It was always expected he would be controversial. Bolton came to the post by the political back door: President Bush appointed him during a congressional recess after it became clear that the battle over his confirmation was going to be a long one.
"The ambassador clearly relishes a fight. He recalled that when he was applying at law firms for a summer job back when he was a young man, one lawyer told him to rethink his desire to be a litigator, saying that most of his interactions every day would be with people who wanted to "rip your clients' lungs out."
'"He asked me, 'Is that really what you want to do?' And I thought about it and I said, 'Yeah, that is exactly what I want to do.' " '
A Quakerly take on this might be that someone who wants to do the work of peace making (ostensively the mission of the United Nations) might wish to have just such an attitude: where else would one dedicated to the values of the Sermon on the Mount want to be, as Jesus wanted to be with the sinners? One who wanted to reconcile differences with other nations and build enduring structures for peace would, of course, want to work among those who hate the United States.
But that is not, of course, why Bolton wants to be with people who dislike the United States. He's not interested in peace making. The United Nations to him, and to the current administration, is really just one more weapon in the global war for American hegemony, it's one more front in the war to keep the Great American Party going. This war has been going on for so long, now, that we are acclimated to it and we don't call it a war, at all. We call it "The American Way of Life.."
And that is why they hate us.
Los Angeles Times latimes.com
"It was always expected he would be controversial. Bolton came to the post by the political back door: President Bush appointed him during a congressional recess after it became clear that the battle over his confirmation was going to be a long one.
"The ambassador clearly relishes a fight. He recalled that when he was applying at law firms for a summer job back when he was a young man, one lawyer told him to rethink his desire to be a litigator, saying that most of his interactions every day would be with people who wanted to "rip your clients' lungs out."
'"He asked me, 'Is that really what you want to do?' And I thought about it and I said, 'Yeah, that is exactly what I want to do.' " '
A Quakerly take on this might be that someone who wants to do the work of peace making (ostensively the mission of the United Nations) might wish to have just such an attitude: where else would one dedicated to the values of the Sermon on the Mount want to be, as Jesus wanted to be with the sinners? One who wanted to reconcile differences with other nations and build enduring structures for peace would, of course, want to work among those who hate the United States.
But that is not, of course, why Bolton wants to be with people who dislike the United States. He's not interested in peace making. The United Nations to him, and to the current administration, is really just one more weapon in the global war for American hegemony, it's one more front in the war to keep the Great American Party going. This war has been going on for so long, now, that we are acclimated to it and we don't call it a war, at all. We call it "The American Way of Life.."
And that is why they hate us.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
in case you missed it...
only a lawyer would enjoy reading someting like the intelligent design decision but there is some interesting stuff in there about how far people will go to try to force others to accept their religion. For example, the case relates this interesting incident:
In the midst of this panoply, there arose the astonishing story of an evolution mural that was taken from a classroom and destroyed in 2002 by Larry Reeser, the head of buildings and grounds for the DASD. At the June 2004 meeting, Spahr asked Buckingham where he had received a picture of the evolution mural that had been torn down and incinerated. Jen Miller testified that Buckingham responded:
“I gleefully watched it burn.” (12:118 (J. Miller)). Buckingham disliked the mural because he thought it advocated the theory of evolution, particularly common ancestry. (26:120 (Baksa)). Burning the evolutionary mural apparently was insufficient for Buckingham, however. Instead, he demanded that the teachers agree that there would never again be a mural depicting evolution in any of the classrooms and in exchange, Buckingham would agree to support the purchase of the biology textbook in need by the students. (36:56-57 (Baksa) (emphasis added)).
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 108 of 139
Buckingham was a school board member and one of the major supporters of the intelligent design program.
In the midst of this panoply, there arose the astonishing story of an evolution mural that was taken from a classroom and destroyed in 2002 by Larry Reeser, the head of buildings and grounds for the DASD. At the June 2004 meeting, Spahr asked Buckingham where he had received a picture of the evolution mural that had been torn down and incinerated. Jen Miller testified that Buckingham responded:
“I gleefully watched it burn.” (12:118 (J. Miller)). Buckingham disliked the mural because he thought it advocated the theory of evolution, particularly common ancestry. (26:120 (Baksa)). Burning the evolutionary mural apparently was insufficient for Buckingham, however. Instead, he demanded that the teachers agree that there would never again be a mural depicting evolution in any of the classrooms and in exchange, Buckingham would agree to support the purchase of the biology textbook in need by the students. (36:56-57 (Baksa) (emphasis added)).
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 108 of 139
Buckingham was a school board member and one of the major supporters of the intelligent design program.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
putting a few pieces together...
Mona Charon writes:
"...Iraqis once again demonstrated their eagerness for democratic practice by standing in long lines at voting places around the nation. How can the United States possibly leave this job unfinished? To leave is to fail."
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2005/12/16/179494.html
"President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.
This Quaker's take: The lack of integrity snowballs as people gradually lose sight of the Truth, mesmerized by the ventriloquist voice of gods they have created to serve as the benefactors in their fertility cults.
9 "Therefore I bring charges against you again,"
declares the LORD.
"And I will bring charges against your children's children.
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall."
Bob Dylan
Merry Christmas for Christ/The Spirit is born...and dies...and is reborn...in the hearts of all people every day.
"...the Quaker conviction that covenantal participation is based not on doctrinal confession but on hearng and following God's voice."
Douglas Gwyn
Covenant Crucified
(Quakers and the Rise of Capitalism)
p. 193
"...Iraqis once again demonstrated their eagerness for democratic practice by standing in long lines at voting places around the nation. How can the United States possibly leave this job unfinished? To leave is to fail."
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2005/12/16/179494.html
"President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.
"The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war."
This Quaker's take: The lack of integrity snowballs as people gradually lose sight of the Truth, mesmerized by the ventriloquist voice of gods they have created to serve as the benefactors in their fertility cults.
9 "Therefore I bring charges against you again,"
declares the LORD.
"And I will bring charges against your children's children.
10 Cross over to the coasts of Kittim and look,
send to Kedar and observe closely;
see if there has ever been anything like this:
11 Has a nation ever changed its gods?
(Yet they are not gods at all.)
But my people have exchanged my/their Glory
for worthless idols.
12 Be appalled at this, O heavens,
and shudder with great horror,"
declares the LORD.
Jeremiah 2
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall."
Bob Dylan
Merry Christmas for Christ/The Spirit is born...and dies...and is reborn...in the hearts of all people every day.
"...the Quaker conviction that covenantal participation is based not on doctrinal confession but on hearng and following God's voice."
Douglas Gwyn
Covenant Crucified
(Quakers and the Rise of Capitalism)
p. 193
Friday, December 16, 2005
Oh, that we really were so dangerous...
from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
"WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.
“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.
“This is incredible,” adds group member Rich Hersh. “It's an example of paranoia by our government,” he says. “We're not doing anything illegal.”
My take on this is that it's too bad we're not actually dangerous...
It's not hard to understand how a peaceful, education oriented group is considered to be a threat. The Jesus movement, a peaceful educatonally oriented group, was a threat to the Jewish establishment of its day for the same reason that Quakers, another peaceful educationally oriented group, was a threat to the Puritan establishment of its day--both worked, in essence, to unite the practices of the society in which they lived with the vision of the covenants with God that they espoused.
But that is not what our current "peace" movement is doing. What Rich Hersh says, above, is true: what we're up to is not "illegal"--it's not even dangerous to anyone except the particular leadership of the moment. We do not pose the kind of danger to our culture that Jesus and George Fox did. Our peace movement is an "anti a particular war" movement. When the war in Iraq is over, when George Bush is gone from the White House, our peace movement will fade back into the woodwork of history, its lasting influence negligible. Not really dangerous, at all.
The Jesus movement and the Quaker movement (the "Lambs War") both sought a fundamental reordering of society from the grassroots. Each sought to turn its culture away from the hollow forms of its day, and from the frustrating, alienating social and spiritual practices and relationships that divided people and made them prey upon one another, rather than praying with one another. Each sought to turn its culture away from materialism and the other "doctrines" that lead people to shove everything except God into that God shaped hole in their heart. Each sought to turn people away from the things they pursued to satisfy themselves which were actually the very things that were making them crazy (Both John the Baptist and James Nayler, if they walked around downtown Portland long enough to acclimate themselves to the cultural trappings, would understand perfectly well what was going on and what the antidote is).
Our current peace movement is not dangerous in this way. Our current peace movement speaks little of the dynamics of our society that make war the natural outcome, not an irrational abberation, of the pursuit of its values. Our current peace movement speaks little to the kind of cultural conditioning that includes things like two national holidays a year that amount to little more than info-mmercials to sell/condition us on the idea that killing people is the way to establish peace and to find security.
Yes, there is a part of this peace movement that is not animated by the simple belief that it's just the war in Iraq that is wrong but, rather, that war is a logical and necessary manifestation of a system that humans have developed to rely upon for their "security" instead of God, who have placed creaturely well being above spiritual well being, who have, to paraphrase Isaiah (and Jeremiah and...), gone over to the dark side.
If the day ever comes that the vision of this element in the peace movement grows into a significant presence then it will be as dangerous to our fallen culture as a whole as the current peace movement seems to be to the current administration.
For the moment, however, the peace movement is not concerned with spirituality and is content to leave the culture of the SUV in place. For the most part the peace movement is as spiritually disoriented as the Bush Administration and for so long as it is will have a similar, transitory impact on the unfolding of events.
"WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.
“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.
“This is incredible,” adds group member Rich Hersh. “It's an example of paranoia by our government,” he says. “We're not doing anything illegal.”
My take on this is that it's too bad we're not actually dangerous...
It's not hard to understand how a peaceful, education oriented group is considered to be a threat. The Jesus movement, a peaceful educatonally oriented group, was a threat to the Jewish establishment of its day for the same reason that Quakers, another peaceful educationally oriented group, was a threat to the Puritan establishment of its day--both worked, in essence, to unite the practices of the society in which they lived with the vision of the covenants with God that they espoused.
But that is not what our current "peace" movement is doing. What Rich Hersh says, above, is true: what we're up to is not "illegal"--it's not even dangerous to anyone except the particular leadership of the moment. We do not pose the kind of danger to our culture that Jesus and George Fox did. Our peace movement is an "anti a particular war" movement. When the war in Iraq is over, when George Bush is gone from the White House, our peace movement will fade back into the woodwork of history, its lasting influence negligible. Not really dangerous, at all.
The Jesus movement and the Quaker movement (the "Lambs War") both sought a fundamental reordering of society from the grassroots. Each sought to turn its culture away from the hollow forms of its day, and from the frustrating, alienating social and spiritual practices and relationships that divided people and made them prey upon one another, rather than praying with one another. Each sought to turn its culture away from materialism and the other "doctrines" that lead people to shove everything except God into that God shaped hole in their heart. Each sought to turn people away from the things they pursued to satisfy themselves which were actually the very things that were making them crazy (Both John the Baptist and James Nayler, if they walked around downtown Portland long enough to acclimate themselves to the cultural trappings, would understand perfectly well what was going on and what the antidote is).
Our current peace movement is not dangerous in this way. Our current peace movement speaks little of the dynamics of our society that make war the natural outcome, not an irrational abberation, of the pursuit of its values. Our current peace movement speaks little to the kind of cultural conditioning that includes things like two national holidays a year that amount to little more than info-mmercials to sell/condition us on the idea that killing people is the way to establish peace and to find security.
Yes, there is a part of this peace movement that is not animated by the simple belief that it's just the war in Iraq that is wrong but, rather, that war is a logical and necessary manifestation of a system that humans have developed to rely upon for their "security" instead of God, who have placed creaturely well being above spiritual well being, who have, to paraphrase Isaiah (and Jeremiah and...), gone over to the dark side.
If the day ever comes that the vision of this element in the peace movement grows into a significant presence then it will be as dangerous to our fallen culture as a whole as the current peace movement seems to be to the current administration.
For the moment, however, the peace movement is not concerned with spirituality and is content to leave the culture of the SUV in place. For the most part the peace movement is as spiritually disoriented as the Bush Administration and for so long as it is will have a similar, transitory impact on the unfolding of events.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Not Getting the Message...
"In Washington, Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, said the
administration was determined to achieve greenhouse-gas reductions not
through binding limits but through long-term work to develop cleaner
technologies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/international/americas
/10climate.html?th&emc=th
There is, in short, no reason to change the way that our
conditioning/culture keeps people consuming, consuming, consuming to
make some people who control the production wealthier, wealthier and
wealthier...
(the Bush administration sent someone named "Adam" out to give the
world this message. What's funny is that it doesn't strike them as
ironic enough to avoid doing). (I believe, myself, that there are no
coincidences where the Spirit is at work revealing Truth to those
looking for it.)
The message is that we should just rock on, that there is no reason
for us to throw off and repent our worship in the fertility cult of
ever expanding capitalism and development...there is no reason for our
party to ever end. That's what say our high priests of prosperity and
materialism. (we don't pay temple prostitutes to ensure we get a good
harvest, rather we pay investment counselors and brokers and insurance
agents to ensure we get a good return on our investment.
Because technology will save us (this is not really a new message, is
it?)...we don't have to save ourselves from the consequences of our
debauchery...machines will save us--but, of course, even if their plan
works out they will only "save" the earth, not our souls...there's
still the matter of the impact/karma of the debauchery that will work
out in our personal futures.
The Bush administration (and the bi partisan prosperity machine it
whose agenda it pursues) assures us, again, that there is no reason to curtail
the profits by easing off on the ruthless exploitation of the earth and
of other humans. There is no reason to find simpler and healthier ways to
live (finding, for example, things other than SUVs to fill the God
shaped holes in our hearts). We can also make additional profits by
the technical means we will use to keep the party going!!! Machines
will make it possible for us to orgy on while continuing the exploitation of the
earth and other human beings. It's win-win.
Rhetorical question: where is John Woolman when we need him?
Rhetorical answer: we all have to be John Woolman, ourselves.
"In all our cares about worldly treasures, let us steadily bear in
mind that riches possessed by children who do not truly serve God are
likely to prove snares that may more grievously entangle them in that
spirit of selfishness and exaltation which stands in opposition to
real peace and happiness, and renders those who submit to the
influence of it enemies to the cross of Christ."
John Woolman's Diary
administration was determined to achieve greenhouse-gas reductions not
through binding limits but through long-term work to develop cleaner
technologies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/international/americas
/10climate.html?th&emc=th
There is, in short, no reason to change the way that our
conditioning/culture keeps people consuming, consuming, consuming to
make some people who control the production wealthier, wealthier and
wealthier...
(the Bush administration sent someone named "Adam" out to give the
world this message. What's funny is that it doesn't strike them as
ironic enough to avoid doing). (I believe, myself, that there are no
coincidences where the Spirit is at work revealing Truth to those
looking for it.)
The message is that we should just rock on, that there is no reason
for us to throw off and repent our worship in the fertility cult of
ever expanding capitalism and development...there is no reason for our
party to ever end. That's what say our high priests of prosperity and
materialism. (we don't pay temple prostitutes to ensure we get a good
harvest, rather we pay investment counselors and brokers and insurance
agents to ensure we get a good return on our investment.
Because technology will save us (this is not really a new message, is
it?)...we don't have to save ourselves from the consequences of our
debauchery...machines will save us--but, of course, even if their plan
works out they will only "save" the earth, not our souls...there's
still the matter of the impact/karma of the debauchery that will work
out in our personal futures.
The Bush administration (and the bi partisan prosperity machine it
whose agenda it pursues) assures us, again, that there is no reason to curtail
the profits by easing off on the ruthless exploitation of the earth and
of other humans. There is no reason to find simpler and healthier ways to
live (finding, for example, things other than SUVs to fill the God
shaped holes in our hearts). We can also make additional profits by
the technical means we will use to keep the party going!!! Machines
will make it possible for us to orgy on while continuing the exploitation of the
earth and other human beings. It's win-win.
Rhetorical question: where is John Woolman when we need him?
Rhetorical answer: we all have to be John Woolman, ourselves.
"In all our cares about worldly treasures, let us steadily bear in
mind that riches possessed by children who do not truly serve God are
likely to prove snares that may more grievously entangle them in that
spirit of selfishness and exaltation which stands in opposition to
real peace and happiness, and renders those who submit to the
influence of it enemies to the cross of Christ."
John Woolman's Diary
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
It has to come from the center...
The current struggle between Congress and the Administration over how detainees in the "war" on terror should be treated has come to center on our "torture policy." The Adminsitration is actually splitting over this and Vice President Cheney is becoming more isolated, with even the President now making comments indicating that he does not favor the use of torture.
It's good that so many members of Congress are following Senator John McCain's lead in attempting to control this aspect of the Adminsitration's treatment of detainees. It has many in the adminstration thinking along these lines...
From the Washington Post (Monday, November 7, 2005)
"The other side of the debate (from Mr. Cheney) are those who believe that unconventional measures -- harsh interrogation tactics, prisoner abuse and the "ghosting" and covert detention of CIA-held prisoners -- have so damaged world support for the U.S.-led counterterrorism campaign that they have hurt the U.S. cause. Also, they argue, these measures have tainted core American values such as human rights and the rule of law.
"The debate in the world has become about whether the U.S. complies with its legal obligations. We need to regain the moral high ground," said one senior administration official familiar with internal deliberations on the issue, adding that Rice believes current policy is "hurting the president's agenda and her agenda."
Torture makes us look bad, is what they are saying. The President's handling of detainees, at least in regard to torturing them, has apparently pricked the conscience of a significant number of Americans and that's making the way the Adminsitration is doing business difficult to sustain. If Congress gets puts a stop to torture of detainees who knows what other aspects of Adminstration policy about how these people are treated will come under scrutiny? And if it comes under Congressional scrutiny it's possible that it will, eventually, come under Congressional oversight and control. So far the President has had few limits placed on his discretion and that is how he wants to keep it.
As welcome as is the news that torture is falling out of favor in the Adminsitration, this is not really a victory, at least not from One Quaker's Take. A new incident of terror, a fresh flurry of propaganda, a new media push, some additional spin could very well turn the fickle public back to favoring torture.
Much better would it be to hear something like this from the Presidential Press Secretary:
"We know that there are many who, out of their fear and frustration, want us to torture people to stop terrorism. But our prayer and worship and meditation is leading many of us in the Administration to re-realize that the use of torture violates the most basic tenets of every spiritual tradition that can be called a "World Religion." We have been led by the Spirit moving in our hearts to realize that we have lost our way and are generating karma, for ourselves and for others, that diminishes the domain of God on Earth, that threatens the security of everyone on the planet and that will outlive the current conflict to ignite many more, for decades to come. Therefore, the President has ordered all armed forces and intelligence agencies under his command to cease any current use of torture and will meet with Congressional leaders today to plot a strategy to get an anti-torture bill to his desk as soon as possible."
Wouldn't that be great?
Of course, if the Administration were to become animated by the Spirit in this way it would not be long until our entire orientation toward the rest of the world--and not just our response to 9/11--would look radically different.
We can pray.
"There is a principle which is pure, placed
in the human mind, which in different places
and ages hath had different names. It is,
however, pure and proceeds from God. It is
deep and inward, confined to no forms of
religion, nor excluded from any, where the
heart stands in perfect sincerity. In
whomsoever this takes root and grows,
of what nation soever, they become brethern
in the best sense of the expression."
John Woolman
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Feed the Hungry...this one just speaks for itself...
The food stamp cuts in the House measure would knock nearly 300,000 people off nutritional assistance programs, including 70,000 legal immigrants, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
[...]
About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price
school lunches, the CBO estimated. [...]
[...]
About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price
school lunches, the CBO estimated. [...]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)