The Middle East has never been what any rational observer would call stable, and I do mean never (read the Bible because that goes pretty much back to the beginning). Conventional foreign policy since the creation of the nation state of Israel has generally been to support monarchs, dictators and other autocracies that would rule with an iron fist and keep the supply of oil flowing. This worked out okay for the most part, except for those occasions where we were forced to recognize the reality that most Arabs hate our guts, including the autocrats that we helped establish. Empire building is such tricky business!
And so, you get what we had here last week... which is the way he wants it... well he gets it!
Sorry, I just lapsed into the warden from Cool Hand Luke, it happens sometimes.
So, now we have Benghazi, and a whole bunch of other places where chaos, fueled by anger and fear, breaks out. Most of the talking heads on the idiot box have no idea how to process a situation with such deep historical roots, and such intractable animosities. I find that Tom Friedman, NY Times columnist and author of From Beirut to Jerusalem (an absolute must read, if you even want to pretend to understand the Israeli-Palestinian slice of the general ME chaos), is a good source, and luckily, even my questionable local paper carries his editorial columns.
Yesterday's paper, which probably means the Wednesday edition of the Times, talks about the "Backlash to Backlash." It is THE most hopeful thing that I have read concerning the situation in the Arab world at least since the hopeful days of the Arab Spring, which now seems like it happened years ago. Friedman notes that moderate voices in the Arab/Islamic world are beginning to speak up, and in Benghazi particularly, take to the streets to challenge the extremists. Friedman writes that a group of men stormed the headquarters of Ansar al Sharia, the group that claimed responsibility for killing American Ambassador Chris Stevens; their message? Knock it off!
Not surprisingly, this counter-riot has not received the kind of attention that the earlier riots were given. Partially because, in our rather shallow understanding of the Arab world, we do not realize that there are many people who do not particularly like Al Qaida. There are, in fact, many Muslims who do not support the imposition of Sharia law. There are, in fact, great levels of complexity and nuance involved in the situation in the Middle East, which is at least partly why it so regularly gives us the fear.
The twenty four hour news cycle, which could be absolutely well suited to providing the sort of in depth analysis needed to understand the fact that not all Muslims hate America and not all Arabs are ready to blow themselves up, spend most of their time chasing headlines and trying to keep up with the "latest news." The Tom Friedmans of the world are left to inhabit the stodgy old world of print journalism and make the occasional appearance on those news programs that cling to the older and less exciting forms of journalism.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the mighty western empires are never going to master the Arab world, we've been trying since before Jesus was born, but we never achieved more than a temporary hold. It seems to me that the only hope is for the people in that culture, who actually understand their own world, who actually understand their own people, who actually realize that, while the west may have done a little too much monkeying around with their lives, they can't blame everything on us for too long and not end up destroying themselves. The Arab spring is going to need to grow up pretty fast, because there is enough fear and loathing to go around and some of those fearful people have nuclear weapons. We may not be able to fix the middle east, but we can permanently turn large parts of it into glass and ashes. That's not a threat, that is a terrifying fear that I have about what might happen if Islam doesn't get its house in order.
Christianity has gone through some violent, irrational phases in its history. I'm not claiming any sort of high ground here. The difference was, during the crusades, the inquisition and the wars of religion that tore across Europe, none of our external enemies had their finger on a button that could fry millions of people to a cinder in a matter of seconds. Sure we burned some witches and heretics, but we had to do it one at a time.
Netanyahu is a pretty serious man, with some pretty serious weaponry at his disposal, when he starts talking about red lines, you should really listen. The fact that there are certain people who don't seem to listen to each other let alone their adversaries, gives me the fear, big fear.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Let Them Eat Cake! (Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that.)
What do Marie Antoinette and Mitt Romney have in common (besides big hair)?
A massive case of foot in mouth disease.
Luckily for the Mittster, we're not likely to set up the guillotine on the Mall in D.C. anytime soon (though sometimes...)
Mitt was talking to a group of rich people, trying to get his hands on some of their money, and he delivered a Mr. Burns-like indictment of "those people," you know the ones who are on the dole, the ones who feel "entitled to healthcare and food," imagine that. The now infamous 47% who support Obama because they like to be victims of society, who pay no income tax, who are there mainly because they're not smart and hard working enough to pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like Mitt Romney... or, um, well just like his George Romney anyway.
Mitt doesn't want to backpedal too fast because, for the first time, the Rush Limbaughs of the world are giving him props for being a "true conservative," which if I read it right means someone who doesn't give a hoot about the middle class, let alone the poor, because they're not the ones who really matter. This is a dangerous way to structure a society, ask Marie.
Karl Marx may have gone too far when he started talking about abolishing religion, families and private enterprise, but he at least diagnosed one of the fundamental divisions in modern society: Bourgeois from Proletariat. Mitt is the prototype of the Bourgeois, rich (because he was born that way), power-hungry and rather disdainful of all those who don't fit into his caste. Obama, on the other hand, is a rather stunning example of the Proletariat dream, a man of the people who worked his way up through community organizing and public service. The funny thing is that the Proletariat, as Marx portrays them before he goes off on his "let's throw our entire cultural system out the window because it's just too corrupt" rampage, is actually much closer to the "American Dream," than the sort of aristocratic nepotism that Romney embodies.
We saw in the 20th century that communism was not the way that the proletariat, the common man, was going to rise up and cast off the chains of oppression and stand on his own two feet. In fact, it seemed to have the opposite effect, creating more oppressive, soul-crushing circumstances for the majority of people. Now, we're finding out that unhindered capitalism is not really any better. Oh it works for some people, it works for Mitt Romney, but it definitely does not work for everyone.
I am a perfect example, for nearly 15 years, I have had zero or close to zero federal income tax liability. First, it was because I was a Divinity student who made no money. Then it was because I was a Pastor starting out near the minimum salary of around $30,000/year. Then I had a couple of kids, my wife stayed home to be a mother (of all the silly, lazy things to do), so I got a deduction that more than kept pace with the growing tax liability. Now I have two kids and, thanks to taking on what amounts to a second job (adding another church to my charge), I make nearly $50,000/year and still pay almost no Federal Income tax. I work, I'm a Pastor, a community leader, I have a Masters degree, I am not a leech on society, but I am part of the 47%.
When my kids started school, they were eligible for reduced lunches and we were glad they were, it helped and every little bit helps for those on the lower end of the middle class. Do I believe that the government ought to take care of my every need? No, but I do believe that they ought to do what they can to help out those who are working hard and barely making ends meet. I do believe that they ought to help out those who are born into poverty instead of the governor's mansion (I'm talking to you Romney).
Society is measured by how it treats its weakest members, a sentiment that has been trotted out by many wise folk, from Dostoevsky to Pope JPII, is thoroughly resonant with Christian theology, but not with the current dialogue coming from the Republican party.
Just so you know, I've got issues with Obama and the Dems too, but that's for another day.
A massive case of foot in mouth disease.
Luckily for the Mittster, we're not likely to set up the guillotine on the Mall in D.C. anytime soon (though sometimes...)
Mitt was talking to a group of rich people, trying to get his hands on some of their money, and he delivered a Mr. Burns-like indictment of "those people," you know the ones who are on the dole, the ones who feel "entitled to healthcare and food," imagine that. The now infamous 47% who support Obama because they like to be victims of society, who pay no income tax, who are there mainly because they're not smart and hard working enough to pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like Mitt Romney... or, um, well just like his George Romney anyway.
Mitt doesn't want to backpedal too fast because, for the first time, the Rush Limbaughs of the world are giving him props for being a "true conservative," which if I read it right means someone who doesn't give a hoot about the middle class, let alone the poor, because they're not the ones who really matter. This is a dangerous way to structure a society, ask Marie.
Karl Marx may have gone too far when he started talking about abolishing religion, families and private enterprise, but he at least diagnosed one of the fundamental divisions in modern society: Bourgeois from Proletariat. Mitt is the prototype of the Bourgeois, rich (because he was born that way), power-hungry and rather disdainful of all those who don't fit into his caste. Obama, on the other hand, is a rather stunning example of the Proletariat dream, a man of the people who worked his way up through community organizing and public service. The funny thing is that the Proletariat, as Marx portrays them before he goes off on his "let's throw our entire cultural system out the window because it's just too corrupt" rampage, is actually much closer to the "American Dream," than the sort of aristocratic nepotism that Romney embodies.
We saw in the 20th century that communism was not the way that the proletariat, the common man, was going to rise up and cast off the chains of oppression and stand on his own two feet. In fact, it seemed to have the opposite effect, creating more oppressive, soul-crushing circumstances for the majority of people. Now, we're finding out that unhindered capitalism is not really any better. Oh it works for some people, it works for Mitt Romney, but it definitely does not work for everyone.
I am a perfect example, for nearly 15 years, I have had zero or close to zero federal income tax liability. First, it was because I was a Divinity student who made no money. Then it was because I was a Pastor starting out near the minimum salary of around $30,000/year. Then I had a couple of kids, my wife stayed home to be a mother (of all the silly, lazy things to do), so I got a deduction that more than kept pace with the growing tax liability. Now I have two kids and, thanks to taking on what amounts to a second job (adding another church to my charge), I make nearly $50,000/year and still pay almost no Federal Income tax. I work, I'm a Pastor, a community leader, I have a Masters degree, I am not a leech on society, but I am part of the 47%.
When my kids started school, they were eligible for reduced lunches and we were glad they were, it helped and every little bit helps for those on the lower end of the middle class. Do I believe that the government ought to take care of my every need? No, but I do believe that they ought to do what they can to help out those who are working hard and barely making ends meet. I do believe that they ought to help out those who are born into poverty instead of the governor's mansion (I'm talking to you Romney).
Society is measured by how it treats its weakest members, a sentiment that has been trotted out by many wise folk, from Dostoevsky to Pope JPII, is thoroughly resonant with Christian theology, but not with the current dialogue coming from the Republican party.
Just so you know, I've got issues with Obama and the Dems too, but that's for another day.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Confusion to Pretty Much Everyone
I'm not going to try to be funny about this. I don't understand it enough.
Muslims all over the world are attacking US Embassies; killing people and burning flags because of a video that pretty much no one has seen. This is crazy on so many levels; so what I'm going to try to do here is sanely analyze the reality that I have gleaned from various news outlets. I have tried to read a bit from both sides of the political spectrum and for once Fox News and the Huffington Post pretty much agree: there's enough crazy to go around.
First, let's start with the video: a low budget, anti-Islam propaganda piece produced by an Egyptian Coptic going by the name of Sam Bacile, or some similar alias. The Innocence of Muslims, apparently is a piece designed to disillusion Muslims watching the film by depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a negative, insulting and vulgar light. However, since Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammed to be blasphemy, it probably was not ever going to have the intended effect, which makes it not only an act of poor taste, but an exercise in futility.
The movie was made in America, but its vision, as nearly as we can tell belongs to an Egyptian Coptic Christian, which begins to make a little sense. The Coptic Christians have been hanging around North Africa for a a very long time, being oppressed and persecuted by one empire after another and generally developing a bunker mentality that makes the modern state of Israel look like Switzerland. It's no wonder that an Egyptian Coptic would have an ax to grind with Islam, his people have been getting a royal stomp down from the "peaceful" servants of Allah for centuries.
Enter the American dream, with all our inalienable rights, like free speech. We are allowed to say anything we want (within limits, but I'll get to that presently). If an American wants to be a Nazi, or join the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church, or (until 9-11) be in Al-Qaeda, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. It's one of the things that makes our nation great, we allow everyone to have a voice, even (for the most part) our enemies.
The vast majority of Muslims do not live in a world where that is true. In Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Syria and all over the Islamic world, what you can say and do is strictly limited by the imposition of religious laws like Shariah, it is limited by totalitarian governments and theocracies, it is most limited by the fact that they are poor, uneducated and oppressed by systems of global economics and politics. It's a powder-keg of angry young men, and a hatefully bad movie or some Danish political cartoons can set it off just like that.
I notice a lot of side stories being played out surrounding this whole drama, and it's the side stories that make it really complicated. We have Christians in America and Jews in Israel sounding the alarm of Muslim aggression: "See? We told you this was going to happen again!" We have Republicans criticizing Democrats for offering an apology for the movie in an attempt to diffuse the bomb. We have Democrats (and some other Republicans) criticizing the Republicans who criticized the White House, because they talked before they thought. But mostly what we have is fear, which is becoming really dangerous.
Americans like free speech, but we really hate being afraid. If there's one thing that the last eleven years should have shown the world it's that you really don't want to push us too far. We believe in freedom, but we'll take yours and even give up some of our own if it's necessary to be safe. We believe in peace, diplomacy and democracy, but if we can't reason with you, we have bombs, lots of bombs.
I'm sure Osama Bin Laden felt triumphant on 9-11, I'll bet he thought that Allah had rewarded a faithful servant. I doubt he felt that way when Seal Team Six showed up in the middle of the night. I have no doubt that Ambassador Steven's blood is going to be avenged seven fold in good Biblical fashion, however, this time it's not going to be against a terrorist mastermind, it's going to be against a bunch of poor, angry young Muslims who took to the streets to protest something someone told them was an affront to everything they believe.
Which brings me to the limits that we all need to start taking seriously. First, this sort of violence is not okay, I don't care what you're mad about, storming the walls of an embassy and killing diplomats is not acceptable for any citizen of a civilized species. Islam, the peaceful, just, Islam that I keep hearing exists out there somewhere needs to get its house in order. I don't know how they're going to do it, but I do know that religions are not going to survive for long in the world that is coming, if they don't learn to exhibit simple human decency.
Christians, particularly American Christians, need to understand that we live in a bubble of freedom and security, and that bubble is fragile. Our freedom is maintained not only by military might but by the hope of many civilized people of all races and creeds that somehow this "liberty and justice for all," thing might actually work. We are free to say what we want, to believe what we want, but there are always limits. The famous example of limiting free speech is that you're not allowed to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do that you are putting others in danger. In my humble opinion, given the Arab spring, given the ongoing tension within Islam between moderates and radicals, given the general crushing effect of poverty and desperation felt by so many young Muslims, a movie like The Innocence of Muslims, is EXACTLY like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and therefore does not deserve the protection of our First Amendment.
As a Christian, I believe that one day wars shall cease and the nations will cease their raging, but that day is not today. Until God saves us from ourselves, the best we can do is try to treat each other with Love and Justice. Surely, all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, atheist, whatever, we can do better than this.
Muslims all over the world are attacking US Embassies; killing people and burning flags because of a video that pretty much no one has seen. This is crazy on so many levels; so what I'm going to try to do here is sanely analyze the reality that I have gleaned from various news outlets. I have tried to read a bit from both sides of the political spectrum and for once Fox News and the Huffington Post pretty much agree: there's enough crazy to go around.
First, let's start with the video: a low budget, anti-Islam propaganda piece produced by an Egyptian Coptic going by the name of Sam Bacile, or some similar alias. The Innocence of Muslims, apparently is a piece designed to disillusion Muslims watching the film by depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a negative, insulting and vulgar light. However, since Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammed to be blasphemy, it probably was not ever going to have the intended effect, which makes it not only an act of poor taste, but an exercise in futility.
The movie was made in America, but its vision, as nearly as we can tell belongs to an Egyptian Coptic Christian, which begins to make a little sense. The Coptic Christians have been hanging around North Africa for a a very long time, being oppressed and persecuted by one empire after another and generally developing a bunker mentality that makes the modern state of Israel look like Switzerland. It's no wonder that an Egyptian Coptic would have an ax to grind with Islam, his people have been getting a royal stomp down from the "peaceful" servants of Allah for centuries.
Enter the American dream, with all our inalienable rights, like free speech. We are allowed to say anything we want (within limits, but I'll get to that presently). If an American wants to be a Nazi, or join the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church, or (until 9-11) be in Al-Qaeda, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. It's one of the things that makes our nation great, we allow everyone to have a voice, even (for the most part) our enemies.
The vast majority of Muslims do not live in a world where that is true. In Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Syria and all over the Islamic world, what you can say and do is strictly limited by the imposition of religious laws like Shariah, it is limited by totalitarian governments and theocracies, it is most limited by the fact that they are poor, uneducated and oppressed by systems of global economics and politics. It's a powder-keg of angry young men, and a hatefully bad movie or some Danish political cartoons can set it off just like that.
I notice a lot of side stories being played out surrounding this whole drama, and it's the side stories that make it really complicated. We have Christians in America and Jews in Israel sounding the alarm of Muslim aggression: "See? We told you this was going to happen again!" We have Republicans criticizing Democrats for offering an apology for the movie in an attempt to diffuse the bomb. We have Democrats (and some other Republicans) criticizing the Republicans who criticized the White House, because they talked before they thought. But mostly what we have is fear, which is becoming really dangerous.
Americans like free speech, but we really hate being afraid. If there's one thing that the last eleven years should have shown the world it's that you really don't want to push us too far. We believe in freedom, but we'll take yours and even give up some of our own if it's necessary to be safe. We believe in peace, diplomacy and democracy, but if we can't reason with you, we have bombs, lots of bombs.
I'm sure Osama Bin Laden felt triumphant on 9-11, I'll bet he thought that Allah had rewarded a faithful servant. I doubt he felt that way when Seal Team Six showed up in the middle of the night. I have no doubt that Ambassador Steven's blood is going to be avenged seven fold in good Biblical fashion, however, this time it's not going to be against a terrorist mastermind, it's going to be against a bunch of poor, angry young Muslims who took to the streets to protest something someone told them was an affront to everything they believe.
Which brings me to the limits that we all need to start taking seriously. First, this sort of violence is not okay, I don't care what you're mad about, storming the walls of an embassy and killing diplomats is not acceptable for any citizen of a civilized species. Islam, the peaceful, just, Islam that I keep hearing exists out there somewhere needs to get its house in order. I don't know how they're going to do it, but I do know that religions are not going to survive for long in the world that is coming, if they don't learn to exhibit simple human decency.
Christians, particularly American Christians, need to understand that we live in a bubble of freedom and security, and that bubble is fragile. Our freedom is maintained not only by military might but by the hope of many civilized people of all races and creeds that somehow this "liberty and justice for all," thing might actually work. We are free to say what we want, to believe what we want, but there are always limits. The famous example of limiting free speech is that you're not allowed to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do that you are putting others in danger. In my humble opinion, given the Arab spring, given the ongoing tension within Islam between moderates and radicals, given the general crushing effect of poverty and desperation felt by so many young Muslims, a movie like The Innocence of Muslims, is EXACTLY like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and therefore does not deserve the protection of our First Amendment.
As a Christian, I believe that one day wars shall cease and the nations will cease their raging, but that day is not today. Until God saves us from ourselves, the best we can do is try to treat each other with Love and Justice. Surely, all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, atheist, whatever, we can do better than this.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The War on War
I want to declare war! It seems like everybody's doing it. We had the war against Communism that spawned two armed conflicts (Korea and Vietnam) that some people didn't even call wars (notably the people who actually fought in those wars and their families don't suffer such semantic confusion). Of course the majority of the 20th century was consumed by what we refer to as the Cold War, which was actually a lot less of a war than Korea and Vietnam.
Wars apparently are popular. We have the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, both of which have become terrible quagmires that make Vietnam look like a well-defined and executed operation. These wars illustrate the difficulty of waging war against an abstraction. We should learn that perhaps declaring war on enemies that you have a hard time defining, let alone locating, is a bad idea.
That brings us to the many and various wars that people think are being fought against them and their interests. The War against Families, the War against Morality, the War against Freedom, who is fighting these wars I'm not sure, but judging by how often people talk about them someone must be. I have noticed lawn placards around my area that talk about a war on coal, surely this is the first time in human history that anyone has declared war on a mineral, but before I launch into some absurd analysis of the semantics of the phrase, "war on coal," I'm going to stop.
Because what I think I really want to talk about is how ridiculous it is that we use the word war so lightly. Anyone I have ever talked to who has been a part of an actual war has at least mentioned that it was about the most awful thing they've ever been through. My Uncle, who was an Army Officer in both Korea and Vietnam, said one time that it was always a little difficult to figure out exactly why the people "over there" wanted so badly to kill you. That sort of thing tends to leave a mark on your psyche.
Maybe it would be better if we stopped tossing the word war around quite so much.
There's this thing that happens, call it a semantic phenomenon: the more you use a word, the less it means. The perfect example of this is the F-Bomb, in some circumstances (Church services and kindergarten classes) it is shocking, profane and completely unacceptable. In other circumstances (construction sites and Tarantino movies), it's punctuation. I would argue that the ideas and realities implied by the word war should always be a little bit shocking and terrifying. Maybe the word should hold onto the horror of all that it inevitably entails. Maybe if we stopped calling everything a war, we wouldn't be so ready to start them.
Wars apparently are popular. We have the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, both of which have become terrible quagmires that make Vietnam look like a well-defined and executed operation. These wars illustrate the difficulty of waging war against an abstraction. We should learn that perhaps declaring war on enemies that you have a hard time defining, let alone locating, is a bad idea.
That brings us to the many and various wars that people think are being fought against them and their interests. The War against Families, the War against Morality, the War against Freedom, who is fighting these wars I'm not sure, but judging by how often people talk about them someone must be. I have noticed lawn placards around my area that talk about a war on coal, surely this is the first time in human history that anyone has declared war on a mineral, but before I launch into some absurd analysis of the semantics of the phrase, "war on coal," I'm going to stop.
Because what I think I really want to talk about is how ridiculous it is that we use the word war so lightly. Anyone I have ever talked to who has been a part of an actual war has at least mentioned that it was about the most awful thing they've ever been through. My Uncle, who was an Army Officer in both Korea and Vietnam, said one time that it was always a little difficult to figure out exactly why the people "over there" wanted so badly to kill you. That sort of thing tends to leave a mark on your psyche.
Maybe it would be better if we stopped tossing the word war around quite so much.
There's this thing that happens, call it a semantic phenomenon: the more you use a word, the less it means. The perfect example of this is the F-Bomb, in some circumstances (Church services and kindergarten classes) it is shocking, profane and completely unacceptable. In other circumstances (construction sites and Tarantino movies), it's punctuation. I would argue that the ideas and realities implied by the word war should always be a little bit shocking and terrifying. Maybe the word should hold onto the horror of all that it inevitably entails. Maybe if we stopped calling everything a war, we wouldn't be so ready to start them.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Revolution Will, in Fact, Be Televised (but probably by accident)
Visual media is virtually inescapable. The Inter-web has taken things three steps beyond the saturated, sensory blitz that was television. Now, viral videos make people instantly famous with the sort of demographic numbers that would send ecstatic tremors through the psyche of a TV station manager.
Half of the things that become massively popular are completely inane, and many of them are rather vulgar. It's hard to see how this is possibly making the world a better place.
Most likely, it's not.
The level of discourse demanded by a society with a collective consciousness shaped by Twitter is perhaps tenfold more disturbing than anything Orwell or Huxley envisioned (though Huxley was closer to the mark). We cannot follow even the simplest rhetorical path, or evaluate the dozens, if not scores of logical absurdities launched at us from every quarter.
Gil Scott Heron sang: "The Revolution will not be Televised," in the 1970's. While I love the song, while there are certain prophetic edges that are still sharp, there is absolutely no way anything so significant as a revolution will not be televised. Because television has become more ubiquitous and the progeny of television, including the Inter-Web, are legion. We have a 24 hour news cycle that was just coming into its own during the LA riots in the wake of the Rodney King incident. In fact, Heron's wonderful line: "there will not be pictures of you and Willy Mays pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run or trying to slide that color TV into the back of a stolen ambulance," was proven absolutely false, as such behavior, minus Mr. Mays, was in fact displayed for all to see on the evening news.
It's fairly certain that soon, probably sooner than any sane person would like, almost everything we do will be televised, or tweeted, or... God only knows what's coming next, but viewers will probably be doing more than tuning in for details at eleven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)