The war to end wars

Sian and I watched the last part of the Anne of Green Gables movies tonight. We'd managed (well I managed) to miss the second part, where she becomes a teacher, and gets engaged to Gilbert, the idealistic young man who eventually trains as a doctor. In the third part, after a time in New York, they come back to Prince Edward Island. Gilbert buys Green Gables, and he and Anne are set to have a great life-the only problem being WWI. Most of the movie takes place on the battlefield of France and in London-and, without being needlessly violent, it doesn't shirk the depiction of the bloody cost of war. World War One was a needless war-infamous as one where old men sent young ones off to die. Perhaps it is simply in our nature to start fights-and then to up the ante and drag in others. It is hard to imagine that anyone who had been in a war would ever be in favor of another one. Those of us who have not seen the bodies of young men and women on battlefields can be so glib in talking about starting democracies and defending freedom-but we need to remember the number of wars that just ended because finally men in power (mostly men) were just too damned tired to fight anymore. What would Europe have been like, particularly Germany and France and England, if almost a whole generation of men hadn't been killed in Alsace and Neuve Chapelle and all the other places now memorialized in poetry and history books? Lines of white gravestones mark the spots where idealists and mercenaries and career soldiers died...for what, exactly?

Fiddling while Iraq burns

In addition to the resolution introduced by Mr. Gregg, declaring that Congress should not cut off financing for forces in Iraq, Republican leaders had sought a Democratic commitment for a vote on another alternative, one introduced by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. That measure would set 11 conditions for the Iraqi government if it wanted to retain American support. The Republican approach would need 60 votes for passage.
Democrats said that the Gregg initiative was meant as a political distraction and that they wanted to focus strictly on the question of whether senators supported Mr. Bush’s plan or opposed it. “We are witnessing the spectacle of a White House and Republican senators unwilling even to engage in a debate on a war that claims at least one American life every day and at least $2.5 billion dollars a week,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat.
Some Republicans admitted that they were unsure how long the unity would last and whether Republicans could continue to make a case against the resolution on procedural grounds. And two Republicans facing re-election in 2008, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, joined Democrats in voting to begin the debate. New York Times February 5

If we didn't have bombings that kill hundreds of civilians every week, and if we didn't have to bear the loss of US men and women trying to keep the peace in a land where they face enemies who don't mind blowing themselves up to get Americans out, then perhaps this jousting in the Senate over an Iraq resolution would seem like more politics as usual. But leave out whether this war is wrong, on the merits, for a minute-let's just ask what our $2.5 million a week is getting us---or what we could do with this kind of money to address huge problems at home? Sadly, this dispute will probably be resolved on the grounds of politics, not principle. Enough Republican senators who face the scrutiny of the public next year want to be on record opposing a surge in troops that Democrats can be fairly confident some kind of resolution opposing the war will eventually get passed. But, as was pointed out in a New York Times article this past Sunday, it really is up to the President to start or end a war-the Congress can make itself a royal pain (as it were), but it is up to the monarchical Commander in Chief to decide enough people have died to declare this one a failure and get out. But then, this is George Bush we are talking about-a stubborn man surrounded by a group of guys (maybe even Condi) that could most charitably be termed paranoid. They would go to Armageddon and back to see their will accomplished. They don't seem to understand that there is no going back once you get to Armageddon.

Optimism and the Morality of the Banana Skin

Do you think optimism is a matter of moral courage? Doing some online reading last night, I came across this thought-and have been pondering it on and off since. I'm spurred to think about meditate on this by the fact that my father, who is gravely ill, is not what one would call an optimistic man. Smart, yes. Well-read, of course. Although his temperament probably poses difficulties for his friends sometimes, he has loyal and profound friendships that go back to his early years as a professor at Brooklyn College. Oftentimes his skepticism about human motives could pose a real challenge to my late mother. She, though no fool, was willing to believe the best of people unless and until they proved themselves to be not worthy of her trust. I inherited that trusting disposition-which has been both a huge gift and perhaps a stumbling block. It certainly has not helped in the Internet dating world when I run into guys who display what might be kindly termed erratic behavior. A guy friend of mine was tougher, terming some of these characters "scoundrels and sleazeballs, scammers, phonies and mountebanks." (Mountebanks are quacks or charlatans-perhaps you can now find a way to use the word in conversation). I'm not so sure. I suppose there are folks who prey on others, but I tend to think the majority of the men and women who cause others pain in such Internet portals are simply confused, lonely and indecisive people-or people who can't overcome their genetic or environmental history. So is optimism truly a matter of moral courage-a decision one makes-or is it a genetic gift? Perhaps it is some of both. Optimism may be the courage to look at one's past and say-I accept the idea that I suffered from pain inflicted by parents or relatives who didn't know any better. Though there may be times when the wounds still bleed, I (or you) am going to work as hard as I can to be faithful in relationships, kind to those whom I stumble across, and an advocate for those who have few friends. We are all children of our genetic history. But as human beings with (relatively) free will, we have the God-given ability to make different choices-decisions that will influence our descendants. Ladies and gentlemen-are we going to be proactive and positive? Or are we going to stumble on that darned banana peel once more-and find somebody else to blame for dropping it?

For the good of the church

Once upon a time, in another land, I was active in a congregation that was full of light. The men, the women, even the children tried to live in harmony with the teachings of Jesus, and with each other. If you put on a program at that church, you could be assured that some people would show up. The music was wonderful, the campus large, the staff and lay leaders truly devoted to making the congregation into a a beacon for the Gospel.

Once upon a time, in that land, I worked in a church that was all too open to darkness. Perilously often, the leaders forgot that they were supposed to be merciful as well as judgmental, loving and inviting as well as critical. They drew the drawbridge up, proclaiming themselves the only keepers of the light. Many came, attracted by the idea of being part of a chosen community. Some left quietly, put off by the aura of arrogance, or wounded by the very human misdeeds of unaccountable leadership. Generation after generation kept secrets, thinking that they were doing it for the good of the church, but making it more comfortable for bad things to be done in darkness.

Of course, I am describing one and the same church. Perhaps I am describing most churches.

It is a congregation with a great capacity for doing good, but a frightening capacity for doing harm. It is also a church where some of the leadership has been put in the unfortunate position of baptisizing behavior that they had qualms about-"for the good of the church." Lots of nasty things are done "for the church of the church"-that does not make them anymore excusable.

I am rather quick to be critical of what I feel is a lack of personal integrity on the part of men and women who had the opportunity to stand up to leadership and instead pretended they were powerless.

After all, Jesus showed us a different sort of power-strength in weakness, power in humility.

Yet I wonder how I would behave, were I in such a position of leadership. Perhaps I would not do much better than they did.

Seeing the damage happen once again with the blessing of a little distance, I have to wonder: how hard is it to stand up for what you believe is right? How costly is it to deal with the consequences? Is courage a matter of grace or genes or maybe some of both? Or are there only certain men and women who know the consequences...and defend the weak and powerless anyway?

Later rather than sooner

We're going interactive!

Well, we thought we were. My intention is to start posting some of the essayettes on this blog (the ones I think are half-way decent) as audio files as well as text files. I've joined a audio file sharing company which is supposed to post my files to the blog. Because I'm mildly technologically challenged, I haven't quite gotten them to upload my posts to this blog...nor do I have any idea as to whether there is an audience who wishes to hear them. But, as in many things in life, I leave that choice to you. Reading me might be more than enough, or maybe even too much sometimes...have a cup of tea, and go back to that novel!

By the way, I think that was a very cheap shot Fox News took at Anderson Cooper...or was it Paris Hilton they were trying to offend? What's wrong with SNAG'S (Sensitive New Age Guys)?After broadcasting false accusations about Senator Barack Obama having gone to an Islamic madrassa, Fox might want to look at some of its own reporters-and think about adding Ms. Hilton to its news staff.

One smart Republican

Driving back from the gym tonight I heard the end of a conversation that Terry Gross, host of the NPR program "Fresh Air", was having with Senator John Kyl. Sometimes lost in the shadow of the 'other' Senator from Arizona, John McCain, Kyl just happens to be his parties' third in command. Two barometers of how reliably conservative Kyl is: he is to the right of President Bush on immigration and he has come out (as it were) against gay marriage. Given the amount of unctuous baloney that passes for political conversation in D.C., Kyl sounded candid, straightforward, and intelligent. Gross, who has proved over and over again what a good interviewer she is, had a couple of misses today. Questioning Kyl about dissonance between his opinion on gay marriage and the fact that VP Dick Cheney's daughter is a partnered, pregnant lesbian is a major stretch, in my opinion. Kyl's not married to Dick Cheney, he just happens to share a party affiliation with him-and if Cheney refuses to answer questions about Mary Cheney, why the heck should Jon Kyl? In addition, Mary Cheney makes an odd subject for a symbol of discrimination-nor is there much indication that she wants to be the subject of a crusade. Although gay marriage may be a cause celebre among the chattering classes,left and right, it doesn't seem to arouse simmering passions among moderates. There is growing support for legal rights for partners, but no great public outcry for gay marriage-which suggests, agree or not, that Americans draw a distinction between cohabitation and marriage. Gross's other mistake was most unlike her, but it was also unintentionally funny-she asked Kyl about his father, the Congressman. Gross thought that he was still alive, and serving in Congress. Congressman Kyl, who died several years ago, left Congress decades ago. What most impressed me about the present Kyl was his willingness to take a hard look at why the Republicans lost-and why, from his viewpoint, they deserved to lose. His reasons, while apt, are do not tell the whole story. But his capacity for self criticism, particularly while serving as a mouthpiece for the minority, is relatively rare. Although Kyl will not openly blame the mendacity and arrogance of this Administration for the Democratic triumph in both Houses of Congress, he must quietly reflect on what it would have been like to have a conservative President who knew how to work with his party, and not against it.

Follow up to last night's post-call me naive

I met a two of my journalist friends for lunch today. Over sandwiches and soup in a Puerto Rican luncheonette we talked about careers, our families and the politics of reporting. One of us commented that the "kicker quote" at the end of a piece can tell the reader how the writer really feels about a particular issue. I'm not sure that even the most able journalist can write about issues he or she carers about in an objective manner. We talked about the value of moving from covering controversial issues in a way that polarizes to covering them from an individual, human perspective (what if newspapers reported on abortion or the war in Iraq that way?) I regaled them with some of my dating adventures (and misadventures)-their tolerant incredulity at my ignorance was humbling, to say the least. It felt like a tough love session with a couple of big brothers. I realized that, as I said last night, I had spent many years in a virtual cocoon-and was blithely oblivious to signs of trouble that most other people might have picked up on. Although he agreed with me that I was naive, one of them said that my desire to see the inner light in everyone I met was one of my endearing qualities. I hope so-because I don't seem to be able to shake it.