The White House complained Monday (5/16) that an inaccurate Newsweek report based on an anonymous source had damaged the U.S. image overseas by claiming U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. The erroneous report sparked violence across the Middle East, leading to 17 deaths.
"It's puzzling that while Newsweek new acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "The report had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."
In similar events, the Muslim world has been asking for a retraction of U.S. forces in Iraq for the invasion based on anonymous sources and false evidence; a decision that has cost thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives, and damaged the U.S. reputation for years to come.
On March 19, 2003 the United States and coalition forces invaded Iraq. The goal was to depose Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction and to drive out terrorists. The White House claimed that these were imminent threats, based on "evidence" that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The White House later conceded that this evidence had been discredited. Also sited was Iraq's attempt to buy aluminum tubes. These were later found to be purchased for Iraq's conventional weapons program.
After occupying the country no unconventional weapons or terrorist ties were found. In an ironic twist, the same United Nations sanctions the White House claimed were not working were found to be exactly what was preventing Saddam from getting not only unconventional weapons but basic food and medical supplies for Iraqis. The occupation of Iraq, now for the purpose of causing democratic reform in the Middle East, has caused terrorism to increase by fueling anti-American extremism, and has led to atrocities such as Abu Grhaib.
It's puzzling to many that while the White House got the facts wrong, they not only have not retracted, rethought, or recanted, they were widely re-elected. U.S.taxpayers, the parents of soldiers killed in action, Iraqi civilians, and the Muslim world still waits for an apology.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Monday, May 09, 2005
Scenes From A Men's Room
Who are these guys who like to read the paper in the men's room while they're taking a dump? Call me crazy, but I don't like to touch anything in the men's room if it isn't necessary for good hygiene. Plus, being expeditious is prudent as well. It literally smells like crap in there, and the guy in the stall next to me is rifling through the business section checking stocks? Jesus, people! If a paper you see: leave it be! I've seen these newspapers strewn all over the floor, or perched neatly on top of the toilet tank. It should make no difference. They put those toilet seat covers in there for a reason and that guy was still in thumbing away when the stall door hit me on the ass on the way out? I know, we all need breaks from work. But go down to the shop, escape to the sidewalk, grab some coffee, but don't dig through a bathroom paper. Please, Hammer, don't hurt 'em.
Thought of the Week
Thought of the week goes to Howard Stern who concocted an idea that the world would be a better place if we blew up the moon. Apparently Gov. Schwarzenegger agreed too. He called up Stern's show and gave full support to the idea saying that he had already established a panel to study the feasibility of such a project. He pontificated on a time when women's menstrual cycles would no longer be controlled by our celestial neighbor. Pundits like Joe Scarburough and women's groups reacted immediately calling for the Governor to retract his statements and apologize. Unfortunately, the whole thing was a bit set up by Howard himself--it was only an impersonator calling in to talk about destroying the moon, not the real Arnold. Duh, people.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Observing the National Day of Prayer
Today's the national day of prayer so I decided to peruse our nation’s national day of prayer web site at http://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/.
I found that the national observance will feature such luminaries as: Christian fluff writer Max Lucado, the ethical Tom Delay, the pharisaic Dr. James Dobson (thank you madam chairwoman).
Looking further I found everything a good Christian could want, from bulletin insiders, to a prayer guide! Yes! In the prayer guide I found the "Freedom Five", advice to pray for five different areas of our country. One of the areas is education. "Pray," the guide reads, "that your schools will get 'back to the basics' when it comes to educating our children, instilling the leaders of tomorrow with a respect for the Judeo-Christian values upon which our nation was founded."
I find it interesting that, of the five areas, government, and media received five lines, education received four. But the areas where Christians should be working the hardest, their own personal lives—church, and family--each received only two lines of prayer. What is more important? That a teacher in a school tells a student about Jesus, or that that student's own parent does the job? Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said, "Take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbors."
Also, there is advice on how students can plan a "Freedom Student Rally!" And the advice is to find a location other than a church. "Somewhere like a school auditorium would be ideal. The high school auditorium is a lot better than middle school because high schoolers do not want to go to the middle school but middle schoolers love to go to the high school." Very savvy! "Give Away Donated Prizes!" it says. "Teenagers love free stuff!...Things like pizza, movie tickets, and clothing are enticing to teenagers. Have the drawing during the event and then finish up the night with the biggest prizes at the end to ensure everyone stays."
I don't remember Jesus using any gimmicks to get people to pay attention to him. In fact, he seemed to have a hard time keeping people away from him. Maybe this shows some of the fundamental differences between organized religion and Jesus? One is full of gimmicks and give-aways, the other used relationships and spoke truth. As far as I could tell, on this section of the web site devoted to the national day of prayer, two sentences were devoted to the topic of prayer.
Finally, I visited the NDP store. Max Lucado is wisely using his connections to the event to sell yet another book ($12.00). You can buy a lithograph for $94.00. Merchandise ranged from a $130.00 "Prayer at Valley Forge" painting to a $.50 commemorative pen. Everything a Christian needs to super-charge a relationship with God!
I am not against prayer. But I believe it is a private matter. Jesus gave so little advice about prayer that he had to be asked directly. Other than that he seems to have assumed that how or when people pray is between them and God. Do we really need a day of prayer? Do we need all the Christian merchandise that goes along with it?
If such things were so important and necessary, how would Christians in poor countries survive?
When I was 20 I took a trip to Haiti to help build a church. We arrived with our designer shirts, our Nikes, our Bibles. We landed like Europeans, all ready to bless and convert the population. We arrived at the village, driving past mud-huts and into the missionary's compound. Upon reflection, he lived like a king. Every day a member of the village outside died. The body would be carried through the streets in a solemn procession.
Their church services were intense two hour affairs and the people sang up-beat songs, loudly. It was much more like a workout than a passive service. They even prayed out-loud at the same time--their feverish prayers rising like incense into the sky. The voices of all those equals, asking God for some essential ingredient to life, mingled together to form a very sweet sound.
Occasionally someone would beseech God loudly. They spoke in rapid Creole and I didn’t understand. But I didn’t need to understand. One woman was asking God about her son. Another was praying for food. Another wanted his daughter to live. Their heads were bowed so low their foreheads touched the chair in front of them. And they got louder. One woman was on her feet, eyes closed, begging God for something. Another was crying. Hands were in the air. It was a wonderful and humbling thing to see so many people so sincerely talking to God.
Jesus once told a parable to the fundamentalists of his day. Maybe if he was here today he’d say it like this: “Two men went up to the church to pray, one was a fundamentalist and the other never went to church. The fundamentalist stood up, with his National Day of Prayer t-shirt on, and prayed, ‘God, I think you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this fellow I’ve never seen before. I go to church every Sunday and I give my tithe.’ But the other stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, haven mercy on me, a sinner!’ This man went home justified, rather than the other. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled.”
The Christians in Haiti did not need a national day of prayer, because prayer was their life. There was no need for any superficial forcing. They did not have the 10 commandments in their schools, they had no schools. They had no government, no organization, no Christian authors, no Focus On The Family. They had none of that to guide them, most of them didn’t even have Bibles, and yet they--rather than me—were justified before God. When I witnessed that, I realized that I knew nothing about God. I discovered that all the phoniness of organized religion, which I had sold myself to, had not led me any closer to God, but had kept me away. They needed no one to tell them how to go before God, why do we think we do?
Don’t be fooled. We are under no covenant with God that says “if you pray I will bless your nation.” Our covenant is one based on faith in Christ—a personal relationship. It is not bound by countries and governments. And we call ourselves a Christian country because we ecret a National Day of Prayer and sell t-shirts, CDs, and books around it? We have a lot to learn. Don't be fooled. These are no indication of a healthy relationship with God and in the end they will save no one.
I found that the national observance will feature such luminaries as: Christian fluff writer Max Lucado, the ethical Tom Delay, the pharisaic Dr. James Dobson (thank you madam chairwoman).
Looking further I found everything a good Christian could want, from bulletin insiders, to a prayer guide! Yes! In the prayer guide I found the "Freedom Five", advice to pray for five different areas of our country. One of the areas is education. "Pray," the guide reads, "that your schools will get 'back to the basics' when it comes to educating our children, instilling the leaders of tomorrow with a respect for the Judeo-Christian values upon which our nation was founded."
I find it interesting that, of the five areas, government, and media received five lines, education received four. But the areas where Christians should be working the hardest, their own personal lives—church, and family--each received only two lines of prayer. What is more important? That a teacher in a school tells a student about Jesus, or that that student's own parent does the job? Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said, "Take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbors."
Also, there is advice on how students can plan a "Freedom Student Rally!" And the advice is to find a location other than a church. "Somewhere like a school auditorium would be ideal. The high school auditorium is a lot better than middle school because high schoolers do not want to go to the middle school but middle schoolers love to go to the high school." Very savvy! "Give Away Donated Prizes!" it says. "Teenagers love free stuff!...Things like pizza, movie tickets, and clothing are enticing to teenagers. Have the drawing during the event and then finish up the night with the biggest prizes at the end to ensure everyone stays."
I don't remember Jesus using any gimmicks to get people to pay attention to him. In fact, he seemed to have a hard time keeping people away from him. Maybe this shows some of the fundamental differences between organized religion and Jesus? One is full of gimmicks and give-aways, the other used relationships and spoke truth. As far as I could tell, on this section of the web site devoted to the national day of prayer, two sentences were devoted to the topic of prayer.
Finally, I visited the NDP store. Max Lucado is wisely using his connections to the event to sell yet another book ($12.00). You can buy a lithograph for $94.00. Merchandise ranged from a $130.00 "Prayer at Valley Forge" painting to a $.50 commemorative pen. Everything a Christian needs to super-charge a relationship with God!
I am not against prayer. But I believe it is a private matter. Jesus gave so little advice about prayer that he had to be asked directly. Other than that he seems to have assumed that how or when people pray is between them and God. Do we really need a day of prayer? Do we need all the Christian merchandise that goes along with it?
If such things were so important and necessary, how would Christians in poor countries survive?
When I was 20 I took a trip to Haiti to help build a church. We arrived with our designer shirts, our Nikes, our Bibles. We landed like Europeans, all ready to bless and convert the population. We arrived at the village, driving past mud-huts and into the missionary's compound. Upon reflection, he lived like a king. Every day a member of the village outside died. The body would be carried through the streets in a solemn procession.
Their church services were intense two hour affairs and the people sang up-beat songs, loudly. It was much more like a workout than a passive service. They even prayed out-loud at the same time--their feverish prayers rising like incense into the sky. The voices of all those equals, asking God for some essential ingredient to life, mingled together to form a very sweet sound.
Occasionally someone would beseech God loudly. They spoke in rapid Creole and I didn’t understand. But I didn’t need to understand. One woman was asking God about her son. Another was praying for food. Another wanted his daughter to live. Their heads were bowed so low their foreheads touched the chair in front of them. And they got louder. One woman was on her feet, eyes closed, begging God for something. Another was crying. Hands were in the air. It was a wonderful and humbling thing to see so many people so sincerely talking to God.
Jesus once told a parable to the fundamentalists of his day. Maybe if he was here today he’d say it like this: “Two men went up to the church to pray, one was a fundamentalist and the other never went to church. The fundamentalist stood up, with his National Day of Prayer t-shirt on, and prayed, ‘God, I think you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this fellow I’ve never seen before. I go to church every Sunday and I give my tithe.’ But the other stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, haven mercy on me, a sinner!’ This man went home justified, rather than the other. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled.”
The Christians in Haiti did not need a national day of prayer, because prayer was their life. There was no need for any superficial forcing. They did not have the 10 commandments in their schools, they had no schools. They had no government, no organization, no Christian authors, no Focus On The Family. They had none of that to guide them, most of them didn’t even have Bibles, and yet they--rather than me—were justified before God. When I witnessed that, I realized that I knew nothing about God. I discovered that all the phoniness of organized religion, which I had sold myself to, had not led me any closer to God, but had kept me away. They needed no one to tell them how to go before God, why do we think we do?
Don’t be fooled. We are under no covenant with God that says “if you pray I will bless your nation.” Our covenant is one based on faith in Christ—a personal relationship. It is not bound by countries and governments. And we call ourselves a Christian country because we ecret a National Day of Prayer and sell t-shirts, CDs, and books around it? We have a lot to learn. Don't be fooled. These are no indication of a healthy relationship with God and in the end they will save no one.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Discontented Caucasian Inspires Fear, Suspicion
The country first expressed fear then suspicion at the actions of Jennifer Wilbanks. You may know her better as the bride who faked her own kidnapping, blamed it on a Hispanic man, and torpedoed her own wedding in the process. All this to be welcomed back to Georgia with a blanket draped over her head and a loving fiance ready to put her engagement ring back on her finger. Ahh, America, land of dreams!
Residents of Duluth, Georgia, her hometown, and the rest of the country, expressed shock. A white person, unhappy? In white America? This seems to be happening more and more! Alarming! How is this possible? On paper, she had all the makings of a successful life. A beautiful, thin, brunette with a great smile and nice brown eyes with a doting, slavish fiance, prepared to make her wedding dreams come true. Ahh, her wedding! One which, by any wedding magazine standard, was going to be a wonderful thing. A very large, wonderful thing! It was to be--before she made national news--the biggest day of her life! Yes, exactly the way it should be and more! 600 guests, 14 bridesmaids.
But then this woman freaked out and left town, called 911 and claimed she was kidnapped. But why is this really news? Compared with all the rest of the smelly, seedy, stinking refuse that goes on every day--are we really that compelled by the flailings of another unhappy Caucasian? As a country are we really that captivated with another who gets close to the American dram and melts down at the threshold? I'm reminded of the Scott Peterson trial / circus. Was it tragic that a man killed his pregnant wife? Yes. Was it fascinating that they were a white couple, the wife beautiful? Ohh, yess! He should have been happy! He took the right steps! That was the little twist that made the trial so compelling. After all, if a black man killed his beautiful, pregnant black wife and tried to flee to Mexico, would that event even make national news? No. That, according to our media, is status quo.
But when a white man or woman melts down--after all that has been done for them by government, corporate America, and Christianity--it is nothing short of stunning. What do we need to be happy? Society has been built to give us our bread and circuses. If we have any questions Madison Avenue will be happy to tell us what to do. Buy this car. Take this pill. Drink this beer. All the steps are right there! Jennifer Wilbanks was just doing what all of us do everyday, buying into a system that really doesn't offer us any lasting rewards. We've all been programmed to do the very things corporate America wants. And, as Maslow said, what we are, we must be.
So, what's a girl to do? By the time she is 12 or 13 she has assumed many society's norms for women. It is essential to look good, to get a man's attention, because sexiness is power, right? Madonna taught us that much. Girls dream of meeting "The One", the man who will sweep them off their feet. Implying, that they cannot stand on their own two feet. He is out there, right? Hollywood has taught us that much. Girls dream of their wedding day, they plan it years in advance. Just look at how many wedding magazines are on available the next time you go to the store! The unsuspecting male walks into this on every first date.
But, wait, are men unsuspecting? We are busy going through the motions too. Which woman looks the best? Can she cook? Will she look good in my shiny red corvette? Or, on my obnoxiously loud chopper? After all, men have arrayed these things in an elaborate attempt to display their plumage and woo a woman. Society has told us what the status symbols are and we'd better get them.
Yes, there's a lot of Jennifer Wilbanks in all of us. When a woman is 32, it is time to get married! How much pressure had been leveled on her by society, and family, to "tie the knot" and settle down and raise a family? Somewhere, at the top of some ivory tower, a shareholder declared, "What this country needs is another extremely lavish wedding!" If Brad and Jennifer can have one, why can't the girl next door?
But Wilbanks came down to two weeks left, and decided something wasn't right. Of course, I don't know what it was, but I would hope something in her subconscious woke up and said, "Get off the treadmill!" So, and hatched a plot, bought a bus ticket out of town. She would go away from the noise society was leveling on her. She would vanish into the desert, to the city of Albuquerque, and try to think things though. At least that's what I'd like to imagine.
But, unfortunately she had tipped so much she decided to fabricate a kidnapping. A cry for help perhaps? Is this a woman who desperately wants attention? Don't we all? Did she look around and realize that all the steps she was taking were exactly the same steps people everywhere were taking? I think this is a woman who is obviously unhappy, and maybe a little crazy. But she is definitely someone who wants to be affirmed. And what is crazy? Is it more sane to go through the motions, and empty your wallet without question at the alter of the values America has put in front of you. Is it more sane to sacrifice your true needs for what someone else tells you you need? People who hear voices in their heads are said to be crazy. But what are the rest of us really doing?
And so here was a beautiful white woman in white America, ready to realize one of the great American dreams--her wonderful wedding. And what did she do? She got out of line. And this is the reason why we find this so compelling. What, a beautiful white woman is unhappy? This is America, and that is impossible. At first we were worried about her, but now we regard her with ire and suspicion. Maybe all this woman wants is what we all want: something real. Some real meaning. She wants to be listened to. And what did her fiance do? He put that flashy diamond ring back on her finger. It's back to American life, one step at a time.
Residents of Duluth, Georgia, her hometown, and the rest of the country, expressed shock. A white person, unhappy? In white America? This seems to be happening more and more! Alarming! How is this possible? On paper, she had all the makings of a successful life. A beautiful, thin, brunette with a great smile and nice brown eyes with a doting, slavish fiance, prepared to make her wedding dreams come true. Ahh, her wedding! One which, by any wedding magazine standard, was going to be a wonderful thing. A very large, wonderful thing! It was to be--before she made national news--the biggest day of her life! Yes, exactly the way it should be and more! 600 guests, 14 bridesmaids.
But then this woman freaked out and left town, called 911 and claimed she was kidnapped. But why is this really news? Compared with all the rest of the smelly, seedy, stinking refuse that goes on every day--are we really that compelled by the flailings of another unhappy Caucasian? As a country are we really that captivated with another who gets close to the American dram and melts down at the threshold? I'm reminded of the Scott Peterson trial / circus. Was it tragic that a man killed his pregnant wife? Yes. Was it fascinating that they were a white couple, the wife beautiful? Ohh, yess! He should have been happy! He took the right steps! That was the little twist that made the trial so compelling. After all, if a black man killed his beautiful, pregnant black wife and tried to flee to Mexico, would that event even make national news? No. That, according to our media, is status quo.
But when a white man or woman melts down--after all that has been done for them by government, corporate America, and Christianity--it is nothing short of stunning. What do we need to be happy? Society has been built to give us our bread and circuses. If we have any questions Madison Avenue will be happy to tell us what to do. Buy this car. Take this pill. Drink this beer. All the steps are right there! Jennifer Wilbanks was just doing what all of us do everyday, buying into a system that really doesn't offer us any lasting rewards. We've all been programmed to do the very things corporate America wants. And, as Maslow said, what we are, we must be.
So, what's a girl to do? By the time she is 12 or 13 she has assumed many society's norms for women. It is essential to look good, to get a man's attention, because sexiness is power, right? Madonna taught us that much. Girls dream of meeting "The One", the man who will sweep them off their feet. Implying, that they cannot stand on their own two feet. He is out there, right? Hollywood has taught us that much. Girls dream of their wedding day, they plan it years in advance. Just look at how many wedding magazines are on available the next time you go to the store! The unsuspecting male walks into this on every first date.
But, wait, are men unsuspecting? We are busy going through the motions too. Which woman looks the best? Can she cook? Will she look good in my shiny red corvette? Or, on my obnoxiously loud chopper? After all, men have arrayed these things in an elaborate attempt to display their plumage and woo a woman. Society has told us what the status symbols are and we'd better get them.
Yes, there's a lot of Jennifer Wilbanks in all of us. When a woman is 32, it is time to get married! How much pressure had been leveled on her by society, and family, to "tie the knot" and settle down and raise a family? Somewhere, at the top of some ivory tower, a shareholder declared, "What this country needs is another extremely lavish wedding!" If Brad and Jennifer can have one, why can't the girl next door?
But Wilbanks came down to two weeks left, and decided something wasn't right. Of course, I don't know what it was, but I would hope something in her subconscious woke up and said, "Get off the treadmill!" So, and hatched a plot, bought a bus ticket out of town. She would go away from the noise society was leveling on her. She would vanish into the desert, to the city of Albuquerque, and try to think things though. At least that's what I'd like to imagine.
But, unfortunately she had tipped so much she decided to fabricate a kidnapping. A cry for help perhaps? Is this a woman who desperately wants attention? Don't we all? Did she look around and realize that all the steps she was taking were exactly the same steps people everywhere were taking? I think this is a woman who is obviously unhappy, and maybe a little crazy. But she is definitely someone who wants to be affirmed. And what is crazy? Is it more sane to go through the motions, and empty your wallet without question at the alter of the values America has put in front of you. Is it more sane to sacrifice your true needs for what someone else tells you you need? People who hear voices in their heads are said to be crazy. But what are the rest of us really doing?
And so here was a beautiful white woman in white America, ready to realize one of the great American dreams--her wonderful wedding. And what did she do? She got out of line. And this is the reason why we find this so compelling. What, a beautiful white woman is unhappy? This is America, and that is impossible. At first we were worried about her, but now we regard her with ire and suspicion. Maybe all this woman wants is what we all want: something real. Some real meaning. She wants to be listened to. And what did her fiance do? He put that flashy diamond ring back on her finger. It's back to American life, one step at a time.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Dividing the World
The guest on "This Week: With George Stephanopoulos" was none other than the reverend Pat Robertson. For context, Robertson is the founder of the Christian Broadcasting network, host of the "700 Club", and sometimes presidential candidate. Robertson has authored a charming new book entitled "Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People".
In it Robertson argues that "an out-of-control judiciary is the single greatest threat to democracy and the religious and moral foundations of America." And even says that this is the greatest threat in American history! He frequently quotes from Jefferson, the Deist, to support his conservative Christian point-of-view. Stephanopoulos tried to pin Robertson down on a few of these issues. One in particular, in-which Robertson says that only Christians and Jews are fit to serve in government, Robertson tried to skate around amounting to a conversation much like this.
George: is that what you believe?
Pat: I meant that I would only have Jews or Christians in my cabinet.
George then reads what Pat wrote in his book about only Jews or Christians being fit to serve in government.
George: So, you don't believe that a Muslim should be able to serve in our government?
Pat: Well, I think we should stick to the founding father's intent. They were Christian. Have you read what Muslims write? They divide the world into two spheres--with God and without God.
So, his whole argument was that people who are judgmental and divisive should not serve in government. He's talking like Muslims have a corner on this activity, but I seem to recall Christians mastering and practicing the art of dividing the world.
Robertson does it himself by his own words. By judging who is fit to serve based on some arbitrary requirement. The opposite of dividing people would be to simply say: anyone who wants to serve can try, and the people will decide who they want to serve for them. Isn't this the most inclusive and fair way? Isn't that what essentially a representative democracy is?
Robertson keeps crying because the "tyranny of the oligarchy" is ruining this country. A few radical liberals and the ACLU are trying to take God out of the government's hands. I just have to laugh at this as if Robertson and his ultra-conservative interpretation of the Bible represent a majority of Christians. And I think someone like Robertson would readily admit that he is in the minority! That's what makes fear-mongering preachers like him so appealing to people: listen to me and I will tell you how to join an exclusive club while the world goes to hell. So, to admit he's in some kind of majority--in good standing with "the world"--goes against much of his apocalyptic rhetoric.
Let's look at the top 10 countries according to quality of life, prepared by the "Economist" and I'll also list their church attendance.
1. Ireland -- 84% church attendance
2. Switzerland - 16%
3. Norway - 5%
4. Luxembourg - < 4%
5. Sweden - < 4%
6. Australia - 16%
7. Iceland - 4%
8. Italy - 45%
9. Denmark - 5 %
10. Spain - 25%
13. US - 44%
And a similiar list by the United Nations
1. Norway - 5%
2. Sweden - < 4%
3. Canada - 38%
4. Belgium - 44%
5. Australia - 16%
6. US - 44%
7. Iceland - 4%
8. Netherlands - 35%
9. Japan - < 4%
10. Finland - < 4%
I think what this shows is that there is no correlation at all between going to church and any pragmatic result in quality of life. If fundamtalism was so compelling then there would be some kind of correlation between church attendence and quality of life--people who go to church more often should be happier, they should be more Christ-like and help their neighbors. In short, countries with citizens who go to church should be heavens on earth.
Statistics can only say so much. Fundamentalists would have you believe that our country is backsliding and getting worse. That once Christians held sway on our great land and now they are in danger of losing ground to liberals, homosexuals, and out of control judges. But our own sortid history, and the sortid history of the Christian church, argues for me beyond doubt.
We arrived, a persecuted, God-loving, Bible believing people. We taught our children to read from the Bible. We removed the Native Americans. We enslaved blacks to do work. Many of the founding fathers--people like Jefferson whom Christians embrace--owned slaves. We have used such tactics to carve out a country from sea to shining sea, rich in resources. The south believed in this institution so much that it was willing to kill thousands of Americans for the right to keep it. We founded companies whith total disregard for basic labor and safety laws. We lagged behind other countries in equal rights--our women could not vote, blacks were enslaved--and today we still lag behind. Homosexuals, to say nothing about how their sexual activity ranks in God's eyes, deserve the same rights as anyone else. Women should be paid the same as men. A person can be an athiest and be a good person. Everyone should have health care. Human rights are equal rights. How can we even call ourselves a country founded on Christ given our violent and selfish history?
As St. James said "So me your faith by what you say, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
And it indites us when we have to take social and civic lessons from countries far less "religious" than us. Just because we are the most powerful country in the world does not mean that God put us there. By that logic did God also approve of the Roman Empire?
This logic that we can somehow narrowly interpret the constitution in a Christian way is crazy. But of course, this is coming from a fundamentalist. Robertson gives his approval to Rudy Guiliani--who, if he were a Democrat--would be demonized for his social stances, and disapproves of John McCain. By what logic does this flow from? By what logic does someone like Robertson embrace president Bush, a man who aquires fundamentalist votes to win an election and 100 days later says you don't have to be a Christian to be a good American, and that faith is a private matter--two stances that fly in the face of fundamentalism? A man who drives up government spending, putting our children in debt, and violently works towards a manifest destiny, this is the same man fundamentalists clamor for? Would Jesus have acted like this?
The logic for dividing up the world is simply not there. You could grab ten random Christians and ask them ten questions on Christian beliefs and I'll bet you would not find two who agree on all ten, or even five. Christians themselves can't reach a consensus on interpreting the Bible--a document they believe is the direct word of God--how can they ever agree on how to interpret the constitution, written by falable men? That logic is crazy.
And it would be better if we didn't try such a thing. Isn't this exactly what we were trying to get away from in the firt place? A government telling other people how to relate to God? To say nothing of the constitution, anyone who perscribes to that ideal knows nothing of basic American history. If this country chooses to elect radical conservatives, and their nominees are approved by our elected representatives I will accept that. But I will not accept disparaging someone because they don't believe exactly the way you want them to.
The answer is not in dividing up the world. It is not found in fear and coercing people to conform. It is found in calling for a society where we treat people like Christ treated others--with empathy and care and common sense. Jesus wasn't even in favor of the status quo fundamentalists at his time, and I doubt he would be in favor of the loudest, most conservative, most agressive fundamentalists now. They were the ones who put him to death because he rocked their system. And now the system is being rocked again, and what does Robertson want? Snuff them out. Divide them out. Put the liberals to death. History has a strange way of repeating itself.
In it Robertson argues that "an out-of-control judiciary is the single greatest threat to democracy and the religious and moral foundations of America." And even says that this is the greatest threat in American history! He frequently quotes from Jefferson, the Deist, to support his conservative Christian point-of-view. Stephanopoulos tried to pin Robertson down on a few of these issues. One in particular, in-which Robertson says that only Christians and Jews are fit to serve in government, Robertson tried to skate around amounting to a conversation much like this.
George: is that what you believe?
Pat: I meant that I would only have Jews or Christians in my cabinet.
George then reads what Pat wrote in his book about only Jews or Christians being fit to serve in government.
George: So, you don't believe that a Muslim should be able to serve in our government?
Pat: Well, I think we should stick to the founding father's intent. They were Christian. Have you read what Muslims write? They divide the world into two spheres--with God and without God.
So, his whole argument was that people who are judgmental and divisive should not serve in government. He's talking like Muslims have a corner on this activity, but I seem to recall Christians mastering and practicing the art of dividing the world.
Robertson does it himself by his own words. By judging who is fit to serve based on some arbitrary requirement. The opposite of dividing people would be to simply say: anyone who wants to serve can try, and the people will decide who they want to serve for them. Isn't this the most inclusive and fair way? Isn't that what essentially a representative democracy is?
Robertson keeps crying because the "tyranny of the oligarchy" is ruining this country. A few radical liberals and the ACLU are trying to take God out of the government's hands. I just have to laugh at this as if Robertson and his ultra-conservative interpretation of the Bible represent a majority of Christians. And I think someone like Robertson would readily admit that he is in the minority! That's what makes fear-mongering preachers like him so appealing to people: listen to me and I will tell you how to join an exclusive club while the world goes to hell. So, to admit he's in some kind of majority--in good standing with "the world"--goes against much of his apocalyptic rhetoric.
Let's look at the top 10 countries according to quality of life, prepared by the "Economist" and I'll also list their church attendance.
1. Ireland -- 84% church attendance
2. Switzerland - 16%
3. Norway - 5%
4. Luxembourg - < 4%
5. Sweden - < 4%
6. Australia - 16%
7. Iceland - 4%
8. Italy - 45%
9. Denmark - 5 %
10. Spain - 25%
13. US - 44%
And a similiar list by the United Nations
1. Norway - 5%
2. Sweden - < 4%
3. Canada - 38%
4. Belgium - 44%
5. Australia - 16%
6. US - 44%
7. Iceland - 4%
8. Netherlands - 35%
9. Japan - < 4%
10. Finland - < 4%
I think what this shows is that there is no correlation at all between going to church and any pragmatic result in quality of life. If fundamtalism was so compelling then there would be some kind of correlation between church attendence and quality of life--people who go to church more often should be happier, they should be more Christ-like and help their neighbors. In short, countries with citizens who go to church should be heavens on earth.
Statistics can only say so much. Fundamentalists would have you believe that our country is backsliding and getting worse. That once Christians held sway on our great land and now they are in danger of losing ground to liberals, homosexuals, and out of control judges. But our own sortid history, and the sortid history of the Christian church, argues for me beyond doubt.
We arrived, a persecuted, God-loving, Bible believing people. We taught our children to read from the Bible. We removed the Native Americans. We enslaved blacks to do work. Many of the founding fathers--people like Jefferson whom Christians embrace--owned slaves. We have used such tactics to carve out a country from sea to shining sea, rich in resources. The south believed in this institution so much that it was willing to kill thousands of Americans for the right to keep it. We founded companies whith total disregard for basic labor and safety laws. We lagged behind other countries in equal rights--our women could not vote, blacks were enslaved--and today we still lag behind. Homosexuals, to say nothing about how their sexual activity ranks in God's eyes, deserve the same rights as anyone else. Women should be paid the same as men. A person can be an athiest and be a good person. Everyone should have health care. Human rights are equal rights. How can we even call ourselves a country founded on Christ given our violent and selfish history?
As St. James said "So me your faith by what you say, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
And it indites us when we have to take social and civic lessons from countries far less "religious" than us. Just because we are the most powerful country in the world does not mean that God put us there. By that logic did God also approve of the Roman Empire?
This logic that we can somehow narrowly interpret the constitution in a Christian way is crazy. But of course, this is coming from a fundamentalist. Robertson gives his approval to Rudy Guiliani--who, if he were a Democrat--would be demonized for his social stances, and disapproves of John McCain. By what logic does this flow from? By what logic does someone like Robertson embrace president Bush, a man who aquires fundamentalist votes to win an election and 100 days later says you don't have to be a Christian to be a good American, and that faith is a private matter--two stances that fly in the face of fundamentalism? A man who drives up government spending, putting our children in debt, and violently works towards a manifest destiny, this is the same man fundamentalists clamor for? Would Jesus have acted like this?
The logic for dividing up the world is simply not there. You could grab ten random Christians and ask them ten questions on Christian beliefs and I'll bet you would not find two who agree on all ten, or even five. Christians themselves can't reach a consensus on interpreting the Bible--a document they believe is the direct word of God--how can they ever agree on how to interpret the constitution, written by falable men? That logic is crazy.
And it would be better if we didn't try such a thing. Isn't this exactly what we were trying to get away from in the firt place? A government telling other people how to relate to God? To say nothing of the constitution, anyone who perscribes to that ideal knows nothing of basic American history. If this country chooses to elect radical conservatives, and their nominees are approved by our elected representatives I will accept that. But I will not accept disparaging someone because they don't believe exactly the way you want them to.
The answer is not in dividing up the world. It is not found in fear and coercing people to conform. It is found in calling for a society where we treat people like Christ treated others--with empathy and care and common sense. Jesus wasn't even in favor of the status quo fundamentalists at his time, and I doubt he would be in favor of the loudest, most conservative, most agressive fundamentalists now. They were the ones who put him to death because he rocked their system. And now the system is being rocked again, and what does Robertson want? Snuff them out. Divide them out. Put the liberals to death. History has a strange way of repeating itself.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
"Bowling For Columbine"
I just watched "Bowling For Columbine" and here are my thoughts.
I have to admit, I like Michael Moore. I'm no knee-jerk liberal either. I like to give everyone a fair say before I react. What is Michael Moore trying to say and what did I think?
I remember the massacre at Columbine High School, April 20, 1999, which left 13 students dead. I remember watching the news footage about it, seeing students crying outside of the school, the panicked faces of parents, and one student escaping out a window onto a ledge. I was a high school teacher in Los Angeles at the time which made it all the more vivid. A national debate was started: why did this happen? Or even more broadly: why do we live in a society where a disproportionate amount of people are killed by guns?
Is rock music to blame? Gangster rap? The NRA? Blacks? Our country's violent history? Loose gun control laws? A decline in church attendance?
Moore argues "no" to all of these for one simple reason: other Western countries have these same influences upon them but do not have over 10,000 homicides a year. So, Moore spends most of the movie on a quest to try to find what makes America different. What is the key element that makes us more violent than other countries.
The film largely argues that it is our culture of fear--perpetuated by the media--which produces such violence against one another. And, so a lesser degree, our government's aggressive attitude in the world community is echoed on smaller scales in our personal communities.
This film, I believe, would have been better if it would have stayed more focused on these answers. This seems to be what Moore really wants us to understand, and the films best moments are when he goes to Canada to discover their media does not pump its citizens full of fear. They do not even lock their doors at night. They own plenty of guns, but rarely ever kill each other. Dick Clark need not be bothered to hammer this point home. He is not part of the problem, but part of the system of problems. Carlton Heston, by Moore's own admission, is also not to blame. It is not the presence of guns in our lives that make us more violent, it is the presence of fear.
When George Bush won his re-election, I sat down to ponder this and brainstorm my thoughts. What came out was a litany on fear in this country. I had not seen "Bowling For Columbine" at the time, but this was the only explanation I could manage as to why Bush got re-elected. It seems obvious to me--and if I can see it anyone can--that we live in a scared society. Why did Bush get re-elected? It certainly wasn't because of his job approval. But it definitely was because no one in this country wants to change. We live in fear of homosexuals, terrorists, blacks, Hispanics, liberals, and tolerance. And this was never more true than in how people came out to vote for Bush to save them from their fears.
Along these lines, I believe one other element in our "fear factor" should be addressed. Among Western, gun-loving countries we are also the most religious.
Of the countries profiled by Moore in the movie, here's a breakdown of country's church attendance and also their homicide rate (murders, not just with firearms) and how much spent on military per person.
Germany: 5% / 960 (14th) / $470 (19th)
Australia: 16% / 302 (32th) / $577 (14th)
France: 21% / 1051 (12th) / $772 (10th)
United Kingdom: 27% / 850 (18th) / $527
Canada: 38% / 489 (26th) / $244 (30th)
United States: 44% / 12,658 (6th) / $953 (3rd)
I wonder if going to church contributes to the problem? Church, after all, is about division. People who go to church are going to heaven, and pleasing God. Others are not. I can see the fundamentalist thread and xenophobic attitude running through our society's common fears: fear of terrorism, homosexuals, minorities, etc. It's one thing to own a gun. It's another thing to own a gun and not be able to break bread with your neighbor.
However, I looked up one more statistic: perception of safety, and the results were surprising.
Australia: 64% of the people felt safe.
United Kingdom: 70%
France: 77%
Canada: 82%
United States: 82%
Now, wouldn't you think the countries with the most per-capita crime would have the population that feels the least safe? Or vice-versa? But the inverse seems to be true. Of the countries polled, America has the highest per-capita murder rate, but also felt very safe--the 2nd safest behind Sweden (85%). New Zealand had the lowest per-capita murder rate (45 murders, 55th place) and felt the least safe (62%)!
On the surface this statistic undermines Moore's biggest argument in the movie: that we kill each other because we're afraid of each other. Apparently American's are not afraid, but maybe that's only because we sleep with loaded .45s under our pillow. Maybe that's the attitude common in many military and police officers--they feel safe because they can lead out of aggressive action rather than defensive reaction. It is a guise of safety, and a gilded cage. But I believe our values and fears play themselves out in our actions. We vote down equal rights for people we don't want to understand, and--like our government--we use violence to solve our problems.
But, is there even a murder problem at all? I saved this question for last because it is the question that doesn't even get addressed by Moore. It is just assumed that since we had a school shooting we must have an epidemic on our hands. The United States ranks as the 24th most per-capita murders in the world. #23 is Bulgaria. Who has ever heard of Bulgaria's alarming homicide rate? And here's how we ranked with those other western countries in per-capita murder.
49th - Germany, .01 per
46th - United Kingdom, .01 per
44th - Canada, .01 per
43rd - Australia , .01 per
41st - France .01 per
24th -United States .04 per 1000 people
So, if we were a country the size of France, 60 million people, our murder rate would go from 12,600 to roughly 3,000. That's still high. Germany--Germany!!--has 82 million people and only 1000 murders a year.
While I enjoyed, and agreed with, most of his movie, Moore sometimes tends to do the same thing he is convicting the media of doing: pumping people full of fear. Do we live in a society where everyone sleeps with a .45 under their pillow? Where everyone locks their doors and hates blacks? No. But is that element of fear in our society? Are we an arrogant, ethnocentric nation that takes matters into it's own hands, reacting rather than processing information? Absolutely. And as I watched the movie all I could think about was my daughter, who will grow up in a country where she is at least 3x more likely to be killed than if she grew up in France, Germany, England, or Australia. Outside, it's America.
I have to admit, I like Michael Moore. I'm no knee-jerk liberal either. I like to give everyone a fair say before I react. What is Michael Moore trying to say and what did I think?
I remember the massacre at Columbine High School, April 20, 1999, which left 13 students dead. I remember watching the news footage about it, seeing students crying outside of the school, the panicked faces of parents, and one student escaping out a window onto a ledge. I was a high school teacher in Los Angeles at the time which made it all the more vivid. A national debate was started: why did this happen? Or even more broadly: why do we live in a society where a disproportionate amount of people are killed by guns?
Is rock music to blame? Gangster rap? The NRA? Blacks? Our country's violent history? Loose gun control laws? A decline in church attendance?
Moore argues "no" to all of these for one simple reason: other Western countries have these same influences upon them but do not have over 10,000 homicides a year. So, Moore spends most of the movie on a quest to try to find what makes America different. What is the key element that makes us more violent than other countries.
The film largely argues that it is our culture of fear--perpetuated by the media--which produces such violence against one another. And, so a lesser degree, our government's aggressive attitude in the world community is echoed on smaller scales in our personal communities.
This film, I believe, would have been better if it would have stayed more focused on these answers. This seems to be what Moore really wants us to understand, and the films best moments are when he goes to Canada to discover their media does not pump its citizens full of fear. They do not even lock their doors at night. They own plenty of guns, but rarely ever kill each other. Dick Clark need not be bothered to hammer this point home. He is not part of the problem, but part of the system of problems. Carlton Heston, by Moore's own admission, is also not to blame. It is not the presence of guns in our lives that make us more violent, it is the presence of fear.
When George Bush won his re-election, I sat down to ponder this and brainstorm my thoughts. What came out was a litany on fear in this country. I had not seen "Bowling For Columbine" at the time, but this was the only explanation I could manage as to why Bush got re-elected. It seems obvious to me--and if I can see it anyone can--that we live in a scared society. Why did Bush get re-elected? It certainly wasn't because of his job approval. But it definitely was because no one in this country wants to change. We live in fear of homosexuals, terrorists, blacks, Hispanics, liberals, and tolerance. And this was never more true than in how people came out to vote for Bush to save them from their fears.
Along these lines, I believe one other element in our "fear factor" should be addressed. Among Western, gun-loving countries we are also the most religious.
Of the countries profiled by Moore in the movie, here's a breakdown of country's church attendance and also their homicide rate (murders, not just with firearms) and how much spent on military per person.
Germany: 5% / 960 (14th) / $470 (19th)
Australia: 16% / 302 (32th) / $577 (14th)
France: 21% / 1051 (12th) / $772 (10th)
United Kingdom: 27% / 850 (18th) / $527
Canada: 38% / 489 (26th) / $244 (30th)
United States: 44% / 12,658 (6th) / $953 (3rd)
I wonder if going to church contributes to the problem? Church, after all, is about division. People who go to church are going to heaven, and pleasing God. Others are not. I can see the fundamentalist thread and xenophobic attitude running through our society's common fears: fear of terrorism, homosexuals, minorities, etc. It's one thing to own a gun. It's another thing to own a gun and not be able to break bread with your neighbor.
However, I looked up one more statistic: perception of safety, and the results were surprising.
Australia: 64% of the people felt safe.
United Kingdom: 70%
France: 77%
Canada: 82%
United States: 82%
Now, wouldn't you think the countries with the most per-capita crime would have the population that feels the least safe? Or vice-versa? But the inverse seems to be true. Of the countries polled, America has the highest per-capita murder rate, but also felt very safe--the 2nd safest behind Sweden (85%). New Zealand had the lowest per-capita murder rate (45 murders, 55th place) and felt the least safe (62%)!
On the surface this statistic undermines Moore's biggest argument in the movie: that we kill each other because we're afraid of each other. Apparently American's are not afraid, but maybe that's only because we sleep with loaded .45s under our pillow. Maybe that's the attitude common in many military and police officers--they feel safe because they can lead out of aggressive action rather than defensive reaction. It is a guise of safety, and a gilded cage. But I believe our values and fears play themselves out in our actions. We vote down equal rights for people we don't want to understand, and--like our government--we use violence to solve our problems.
But, is there even a murder problem at all? I saved this question for last because it is the question that doesn't even get addressed by Moore. It is just assumed that since we had a school shooting we must have an epidemic on our hands. The United States ranks as the 24th most per-capita murders in the world. #23 is Bulgaria. Who has ever heard of Bulgaria's alarming homicide rate? And here's how we ranked with those other western countries in per-capita murder.
49th - Germany, .01 per
46th - United Kingdom, .01 per
44th - Canada, .01 per
43rd - Australia , .01 per
41st - France .01 per
24th -United States .04 per 1000 people
So, if we were a country the size of France, 60 million people, our murder rate would go from 12,600 to roughly 3,000. That's still high. Germany--Germany!!--has 82 million people and only 1000 murders a year.
While I enjoyed, and agreed with, most of his movie, Moore sometimes tends to do the same thing he is convicting the media of doing: pumping people full of fear. Do we live in a society where everyone sleeps with a .45 under their pillow? Where everyone locks their doors and hates blacks? No. But is that element of fear in our society? Are we an arrogant, ethnocentric nation that takes matters into it's own hands, reacting rather than processing information? Absolutely. And as I watched the movie all I could think about was my daughter, who will grow up in a country where she is at least 3x more likely to be killed than if she grew up in France, Germany, England, or Australia. Outside, it's America.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Driving in Silence
We drive in silence. We always do when I am driving to the drop-off point. I go through the same symptoms each time: loss of appetite, moodiness, and introspection. But I wonder what it is like for her, what she thinks about. What does the world look like through the eyes of a four year old girl?
It’s a cold night. The snow falls softly and vanishes as it hits the warm windshield. We drive up highway 94 through Wisconsin towards her home in Minnesota. Her grandfather, my former father-in-law, has agreed to meet us halfway, at the tiny town of Tomah. This gives Zoe and me about two hours together in the car.
She sits quietly. I can’t see her in the darkness of the backseat that stretches out of sight.
“Zoe?”
“Yes, daddy?”
“I was just seeing if you were sleeping.”
“OK.”
She seems to take these final drives rather well. But what is her concept of time? Minutes before she asked me what time I would see her again. If I say weeks or months will she understand? Her concept of time is still forming—one day rolling into the next—that happy, innocent, formless void of childhood.
She breaks the silence by singing one of her favorite songs. “Do you want to sing it too?” she asks.
I laugh, “I don’t know the words, Zoe.”
“Yes you do,” she insists. And, although I don’t, her faith in me and in the sincere belief that everybody must know the newest song she has learned—songs are universal, right?—compel me to try to sing with her.
Suddenly she is asking a harder question. “Daddy, how come you and mommy don’t live together? How come Gavin lives with his family but I don’t?”
This question can take on many forms, but I take it hard. To me she is asking: how come my life isn’t the same as my friends? How come I have to deal with this, I’m only four! Why should I pay for your mistakes?
I meagerly answer, “Your mommy and me decided we’re going to be friends, which means we don’t live with each other.” A weak attempt, but maybe it will pass?
“I remember when we lived in the white house with Sunny!” Sunny was her dog and she seems happy at this memory and perhaps is lost for a moment back when her life was more stable.
“Do you remember my plan?” I ask her.
“No” she admits.
“I’m going to try to see you as often as I can, and you can call me whenever you want.”
“Daddy, it takes you so long to see me.”
“I know, baby. I’m going to try my best.”
Sometimes she starts to falter and cry a little--it’s more like a quiet sob. But this time she accepts. “OK” she says, and then adds, “I’m going to miss you so much.”
“I’m going to miss you too, baby.”
I live 500 miles away, and sometimes I can see her after four weeks, sometimes six, sometimes two months…but it is not anything consistent and that to me is the real issue for her: that I am simply not accessible to her. And it hurts me. When I found out I would be a father I remember reacting: “I hope I get a little girl!” and God gave me one and she continues to defy all my greatest expectations. And I just can’t help but feel guilty about the lessons I’m teaching her.
She rides in the back, always amicable--singing, once in a while requesting some more juice or gum. But now we are nearing the drop-off point. “We’re almost there” I say.
We turn off the highway into the small town and I pull into a Quick Trip parking lot.
I spot a familiar green truck. “There’s grandpa!” I say, trying to sound excited and happy for her. “Tell him all about your vacation! He’ll be so happy to see you!”
But when I stop the car and turn around she is crying, silently. I hadn't even heard it. How long had she been crying? Tears are running down her cheeks and her lip is quivering.
“Baby, don’t let grandpa see you cry," I say. "You know he doesn’t like it.” And I know she is trying as hard as she can, but what can I expect? I am a 28 year old and with all my coping skills I will be crying as soon as she is out of sight. But for now: a brave front, for her.
I undo her seat belt and help her out of the car. “Wait here,” I say. I grab her red backpack out of the trunk. I’m automatically doing these things, my brain has stopped sensing, a defense mechanism I suppose. I hand them to grandpa who greets me warmly. He is a jovial man with a moustache nestled comfortably on top of a sincere smile.
We make small talk for a second as I hand him her things: her bag, her Dora the Explorer pillow, her car seat. Once again I am handing her out of my life one item at a time. I turn around to say a few last words to my daughter. She is standing there, in her coat, head turned to the ground, clutching a tiny, white toy cat she adopted and named Sally.
I kneel down and hug her and lift her. “My big girl!” I say.
“I don’t want you to go, Daddy” she says.
“I know, baby. I will be back soon, I promise. Now…” I’m starting to lose it, “Now, just sit with grandpa and go to sleep. It’s late, and when you wake up it will be OK.”
And I lift her up and she holds onto me tightly. I notice that she doesn’t fight. She doesn’t kick or scream or panic. What is it like being a small child and your whole life is forced on you in one way or another? I place her in the seat but I can’t look at her anymore. I buckle her in and hug her one more time. “Remember my plan, Zoe. I love you. Call me tomorrow if you miss me.”
“I love you too, Daddy.”
I step back outside and her grandpa is talking to me but I can’t hear him. My head feels as hallow as a drum. I feel sick and empty and cold. I shake his hand and get into my car parked next to his truck. I look through the side window and she is crying. I can’t hear her but her face is flushed, mouth open and her head is quivering back and fourth, eyes producing tears. It is the sincere face that says: I am in pain. It is the face that only an innocent child can make. No defense mechanisms, no coping, no faking, none of the facades that adults so naturally incorporate into everyday life.
I force a smile and wave goodbye. She looks at me, biting her lip to keep it still, and finally her hand comes up in a reflexive action, waving back just as the truck pulls away. Did I teach her that? Did she learn that from watching me or other adults? I don’t know when she learned that lesson: that when someone waves you wave back. She must have just picked it up along the way. Now it is so ingrained it is just reflex action to her young mind--that is how society works. And I wonder, what other lessons is she learning?
It’s a cold night. The snow falls softly and vanishes as it hits the warm windshield. We drive up highway 94 through Wisconsin towards her home in Minnesota. Her grandfather, my former father-in-law, has agreed to meet us halfway, at the tiny town of Tomah. This gives Zoe and me about two hours together in the car.
She sits quietly. I can’t see her in the darkness of the backseat that stretches out of sight.
“Zoe?”
“Yes, daddy?”
“I was just seeing if you were sleeping.”
“OK.”
She seems to take these final drives rather well. But what is her concept of time? Minutes before she asked me what time I would see her again. If I say weeks or months will she understand? Her concept of time is still forming—one day rolling into the next—that happy, innocent, formless void of childhood.
She breaks the silence by singing one of her favorite songs. “Do you want to sing it too?” she asks.
I laugh, “I don’t know the words, Zoe.”
“Yes you do,” she insists. And, although I don’t, her faith in me and in the sincere belief that everybody must know the newest song she has learned—songs are universal, right?—compel me to try to sing with her.
Suddenly she is asking a harder question. “Daddy, how come you and mommy don’t live together? How come Gavin lives with his family but I don’t?”
This question can take on many forms, but I take it hard. To me she is asking: how come my life isn’t the same as my friends? How come I have to deal with this, I’m only four! Why should I pay for your mistakes?
I meagerly answer, “Your mommy and me decided we’re going to be friends, which means we don’t live with each other.” A weak attempt, but maybe it will pass?
“I remember when we lived in the white house with Sunny!” Sunny was her dog and she seems happy at this memory and perhaps is lost for a moment back when her life was more stable.
“Do you remember my plan?” I ask her.
“No” she admits.
“I’m going to try to see you as often as I can, and you can call me whenever you want.”
“Daddy, it takes you so long to see me.”
“I know, baby. I’m going to try my best.”
Sometimes she starts to falter and cry a little--it’s more like a quiet sob. But this time she accepts. “OK” she says, and then adds, “I’m going to miss you so much.”
“I’m going to miss you too, baby.”
I live 500 miles away, and sometimes I can see her after four weeks, sometimes six, sometimes two months…but it is not anything consistent and that to me is the real issue for her: that I am simply not accessible to her. And it hurts me. When I found out I would be a father I remember reacting: “I hope I get a little girl!” and God gave me one and she continues to defy all my greatest expectations. And I just can’t help but feel guilty about the lessons I’m teaching her.
She rides in the back, always amicable--singing, once in a while requesting some more juice or gum. But now we are nearing the drop-off point. “We’re almost there” I say.
We turn off the highway into the small town and I pull into a Quick Trip parking lot.
I spot a familiar green truck. “There’s grandpa!” I say, trying to sound excited and happy for her. “Tell him all about your vacation! He’ll be so happy to see you!”
But when I stop the car and turn around she is crying, silently. I hadn't even heard it. How long had she been crying? Tears are running down her cheeks and her lip is quivering.
“Baby, don’t let grandpa see you cry," I say. "You know he doesn’t like it.” And I know she is trying as hard as she can, but what can I expect? I am a 28 year old and with all my coping skills I will be crying as soon as she is out of sight. But for now: a brave front, for her.
I undo her seat belt and help her out of the car. “Wait here,” I say. I grab her red backpack out of the trunk. I’m automatically doing these things, my brain has stopped sensing, a defense mechanism I suppose. I hand them to grandpa who greets me warmly. He is a jovial man with a moustache nestled comfortably on top of a sincere smile.
We make small talk for a second as I hand him her things: her bag, her Dora the Explorer pillow, her car seat. Once again I am handing her out of my life one item at a time. I turn around to say a few last words to my daughter. She is standing there, in her coat, head turned to the ground, clutching a tiny, white toy cat she adopted and named Sally.
I kneel down and hug her and lift her. “My big girl!” I say.
“I don’t want you to go, Daddy” she says.
“I know, baby. I will be back soon, I promise. Now…” I’m starting to lose it, “Now, just sit with grandpa and go to sleep. It’s late, and when you wake up it will be OK.”
And I lift her up and she holds onto me tightly. I notice that she doesn’t fight. She doesn’t kick or scream or panic. What is it like being a small child and your whole life is forced on you in one way or another? I place her in the seat but I can’t look at her anymore. I buckle her in and hug her one more time. “Remember my plan, Zoe. I love you. Call me tomorrow if you miss me.”
“I love you too, Daddy.”
I step back outside and her grandpa is talking to me but I can’t hear him. My head feels as hallow as a drum. I feel sick and empty and cold. I shake his hand and get into my car parked next to his truck. I look through the side window and she is crying. I can’t hear her but her face is flushed, mouth open and her head is quivering back and fourth, eyes producing tears. It is the sincere face that says: I am in pain. It is the face that only an innocent child can make. No defense mechanisms, no coping, no faking, none of the facades that adults so naturally incorporate into everyday life.
I force a smile and wave goodbye. She looks at me, biting her lip to keep it still, and finally her hand comes up in a reflexive action, waving back just as the truck pulls away. Did I teach her that? Did she learn that from watching me or other adults? I don’t know when she learned that lesson: that when someone waves you wave back. She must have just picked it up along the way. Now it is so ingrained it is just reflex action to her young mind--that is how society works. And I wonder, what other lessons is she learning?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
my first post
Well, here I go. I don't have anything in particular to say but I just wanted to put something out here.
I'm not sure how I'm going to use this thing--as a journal or just for random thoughts--but we'll see how it goes.
Right now I'm in the process of organizing everything for my move into St. Louis. I bought my first house and I'm pretty excited and a little nervous.
For starters, I'll put some old election ramblings up.
I'm not sure how I'm going to use this thing--as a journal or just for random thoughts--but we'll see how it goes.
Right now I'm in the process of organizing everything for my move into St. Louis. I bought my first house and I'm pretty excited and a little nervous.
For starters, I'll put some old election ramblings up.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
On Faith and Hope
On December 16 a suicide bomber blew up the mess hall at an American base in Mosul. 22 people were killed 13 US troops, five contractors, and four Iraqis. This was exactly one week ago. This morning the brother of one of the slain soldiers was interviewed on TV. The last question was: is there any anger in your family towards the military for not doing a better job of protecting the troops, specifically your brother. No, the brother said. I just can't imagine that if this were preventable that the government would allow it to happen.
I am continually amazed at the morale of our troops at home and abroad given the circumstances, and also the unending faith their families put in the government's altruism given its long list of war prosecuting failures. However it seems that the tide is slowly turning: for the first time the majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and people are calling for Rumsfeld to step down. I wish there had been this level of agitation about two months ago. But like the Titanic, this country is hard to turn.
I was in the military and served on a base that anyone with malicious intent could have infiltrated. This was not necessarily the government’s fault. After 9/11 they scrambled to put up chain-link fences around the bases, and staff enough security personnel to keep the right people in and the bad people out. As threat levels go up, more security people are needed to guard not only the gates but also buildings and equipment. Even when all these measures are in place it is very hard to keep a determined terrorist from unleashing death as every day in Iraq.
I am amazed and thankful that there have not been more events like the one in Mosul on more US bases. Still, given the ingenuity and determinism of terrorists, and the laundry list of failures by the administration in this war, I personally did not feel safe, and if I had relatives in a combat zone I would have a hard time believing that the government was really capable of keeping them safe.
I am not surprised at the fragile hope in our government most people cling to. Certainly the Bush administration banks on it and it pays off. They set the stage of uncertainty and people look to them for leadership—an amazing formula. If you had a loved one in a combat zone you would buy into it too. You would have to. How would you get through the day with the sinking belief that your son or daughter was precariously unsafe and the administration woefully inept when it came to keeping them safe? It is so much easier to manufacture hope in the form of a strict faith in the government than to deal with the truth.
The government’s altruism and ability to keep your kids safe is what is at question. Of course it is not in the military’s best interest to allow suicide bombers to penetrate bases and kill soldiers. The government would like to keep these people out, but does it know how? This is the same group of people who have sent our native sons into the breech with too few troops and inadequate armor. They search junk piles for scraps to arm their Humvees with. Does this government really have the wherewithal to keep our kids safe? Or have they tragically underestimated not only what is needed to turn the tide in Iraq but also the determination of those who want us out?
I’ve often wondered why so many in the military almost automatically supports President Bush. One reason is that he is their boss. I think they have a hard time getting it up for serving their country and also voting against their president. Also, many in the military simply believe what they are told—along these lines they attend church more than the average American. If the administration tells them they are doing all they can to keep them safe, they believe it.
But this is the same administration that rushed to war on faulty or cooked intelligence, mocked the UN and embarrassed the country to the rest of the world, cracked open a secular Muslim country which is now a cauldron of religious fanaticism and terrorism, took too few troops to war, under equipped and armed those troops, and does not allow those troops to come home when their service time is up. What gives you any idea that this administration knows when to go to war, how to fight a war, much less how to keep a determined terrorist out of its bases?
Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. Recently he listed 11 lessons he learned from that failed conflict. I can not see one that we are not breaking in Iraq. But my favorite is number four. “Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.” We coalition’t win in Vietnam because we didn’t understand Vietnam, and we don’t understand Iraq. Our troops will never be safe under an administration that does not know when to use them, or how to use them properly.
The families of 22 people received terrible news this Christmas. Their sons will never walk across their threshold for another family Christmas. If any of those 22 slain were parents, they will never have another Christmas with their families. What are the answers here? Slowly, it is becoming painfully obvious that we should never have gone to Iraq at all. We should have let UN sanctions continue to keep Saddam anemic. But if we were to go, we should have gone with a better plan to win the war and keep the civilians and soldiers safe during the rebuilding.
None of this has happened, and the people who are forced to put all their trust in the president because he has sent their children into harm’s way have given him four more years to try to connect with the pitches this complex world is throwing at him. Perhaps it is better to accept the hard truth, than to hide from it so you can sleep at night.
I am continually amazed at the morale of our troops at home and abroad given the circumstances, and also the unending faith their families put in the government's altruism given its long list of war prosecuting failures. However it seems that the tide is slowly turning: for the first time the majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and people are calling for Rumsfeld to step down. I wish there had been this level of agitation about two months ago. But like the Titanic, this country is hard to turn.
I was in the military and served on a base that anyone with malicious intent could have infiltrated. This was not necessarily the government’s fault. After 9/11 they scrambled to put up chain-link fences around the bases, and staff enough security personnel to keep the right people in and the bad people out. As threat levels go up, more security people are needed to guard not only the gates but also buildings and equipment. Even when all these measures are in place it is very hard to keep a determined terrorist from unleashing death as every day in Iraq.
I am amazed and thankful that there have not been more events like the one in Mosul on more US bases. Still, given the ingenuity and determinism of terrorists, and the laundry list of failures by the administration in this war, I personally did not feel safe, and if I had relatives in a combat zone I would have a hard time believing that the government was really capable of keeping them safe.
I am not surprised at the fragile hope in our government most people cling to. Certainly the Bush administration banks on it and it pays off. They set the stage of uncertainty and people look to them for leadership—an amazing formula. If you had a loved one in a combat zone you would buy into it too. You would have to. How would you get through the day with the sinking belief that your son or daughter was precariously unsafe and the administration woefully inept when it came to keeping them safe? It is so much easier to manufacture hope in the form of a strict faith in the government than to deal with the truth.
The government’s altruism and ability to keep your kids safe is what is at question. Of course it is not in the military’s best interest to allow suicide bombers to penetrate bases and kill soldiers. The government would like to keep these people out, but does it know how? This is the same group of people who have sent our native sons into the breech with too few troops and inadequate armor. They search junk piles for scraps to arm their Humvees with. Does this government really have the wherewithal to keep our kids safe? Or have they tragically underestimated not only what is needed to turn the tide in Iraq but also the determination of those who want us out?
I’ve often wondered why so many in the military almost automatically supports President Bush. One reason is that he is their boss. I think they have a hard time getting it up for serving their country and also voting against their president. Also, many in the military simply believe what they are told—along these lines they attend church more than the average American. If the administration tells them they are doing all they can to keep them safe, they believe it.
But this is the same administration that rushed to war on faulty or cooked intelligence, mocked the UN and embarrassed the country to the rest of the world, cracked open a secular Muslim country which is now a cauldron of religious fanaticism and terrorism, took too few troops to war, under equipped and armed those troops, and does not allow those troops to come home when their service time is up. What gives you any idea that this administration knows when to go to war, how to fight a war, much less how to keep a determined terrorist out of its bases?
Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. Recently he listed 11 lessons he learned from that failed conflict. I can not see one that we are not breaking in Iraq. But my favorite is number four. “Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.” We coalition’t win in Vietnam because we didn’t understand Vietnam, and we don’t understand Iraq. Our troops will never be safe under an administration that does not know when to use them, or how to use them properly.
The families of 22 people received terrible news this Christmas. Their sons will never walk across their threshold for another family Christmas. If any of those 22 slain were parents, they will never have another Christmas with their families. What are the answers here? Slowly, it is becoming painfully obvious that we should never have gone to Iraq at all. We should have let UN sanctions continue to keep Saddam anemic. But if we were to go, we should have gone with a better plan to win the war and keep the civilians and soldiers safe during the rebuilding.
None of this has happened, and the people who are forced to put all their trust in the president because he has sent their children into harm’s way have given him four more years to try to connect with the pitches this complex world is throwing at him. Perhaps it is better to accept the hard truth, than to hide from it so you can sleep at night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)