EbertFest 8 2006

This week is EbertFest in Champaign-Urbana, which means for us movie buffs, all work comes to a screeching halt while we overdose on underappreciated films. See http://www.ebertfest.com for the official site.

Some friends of mine are doing an EbertFest blog this year, and they have graciously allowed me to soil their site with any random thoughts I may have about the movies or the festival. It is at http://ebertfest.blogspot.com/.

Mentioning this here is like building a pipeline between two dry lakes, but since virtual pipes in cyberspace are cheap and plentiful, there is no reason not to.

Update: Boy, this is exhausting, watching 3 films a day and trying to keep up with saying something even remotely interesting about them. But it is exhilirating as well. I'm happy to be included. I'm not going to cross-post any reviews here, so you'll need to go to http://ebertfest.blogspot.com/ to see them.

Last Update: Here are links to my EbertFest postings:

My Fair Lady Bucks Tradition
My Fair Lady And Joe Dimaggio
Man Push Sisyphus
Duane Hopwood
Spartan Comments About Spartan
Somebodies
Let The Eagle Soar (without me)
I Am Tired
Does CU Twinkle?
Junebug
Malkovich Plays Ripleys Game
I am a Sap for Millions
EbertFest 2006 Wrapup

Impeachment

An Illinois legislator found an obsure loophole that allows for state legislatures to start impeachment procedings against the president, which would then require the US congress to act on it:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-impeach24.html

There is no question Bush *should* be impeached. He has already admitted to a felony by ordering phone calls to be wiretapped without oversight by FISA courts. As far as I know, the constitution did not make special provisions allowing a law to be broken if the President thinks it is too limiting for him to follow it.

But, the question is whether something like this will create a political backlash. Any opinions out there?

Reason is a Tool

A New Yorker subscription is a relentless fire hose of interesting information. I would be a much more interesting person if I read every weekly issue in its entirety, but could only do so if I quit work, ignored my family and friends and eschewed all other social interaction, thus rendering my newfound appeal worthless. I’m calling this the New Yorker Magazine Subscription Paradox.

In any case, a February issue has been hanging around my bathroom long enough that I finally read some small portion of it, and I found an interesting little snippet in John Lanchester’s review of Jonathon Haidt’s book “The Happiness Hypothesis”:

"People who suffer damage to the frontal cortex can lose most of their ability to experience emotion while retaining their ability to think rationally. But they don’t therefore see the world with crystalline logic, so that life suddenly becomes simple. On the contrary, Haidt reports “They find themselves unable to make simple decisions or set goals and their lives fall apart. When they look out at the world and think, ‘What should I do now?’ they see dozens of choices but lack immediate internal feelings of like or dislike. They must examine the pros and cons of every choice with their reasoning, but in the absence of feeling they see little reason to pick one or the other.”

Although this may be the opposite of what one might initially think, it confirms what I’ve long believed – logic and reason are mostly at the service of desire and emotion in humans, and are not commonly used to weigh evidence in decision making.

This is not to say that people don’t develop opinions or change their minds based on logical arguments. I would guess that this has happened at some point in the course of human history. But let’s face it - people mostly start with what they want or feel, and then develop arguments to justify them. Mere facts are no match against an idea that one is emotionally attached to. It explains how people justified Manifest Destiny, why slavery persisted for so long and why George W. Bush is still president.

It is also interesting that the most selfless acts often seem to make the least sense. For example, turning the other cheek is a hard sell, even though in the end it creates a more real and lasting peace than returning violence with violence. Why is that such a hard sell? I think it is because our first emotional reaction to being attacked is to return in kind, so we rationalize it to also make the most sense.

It isn’t that logic and reasoning are terrible things that we should completely ignore. It is just that we need to see them as the tools that they are, rather than as the first and last words on an issue. We need to understand that our motivations and emotions and desires are what drive us to seek reasons for what we do, and that identifying those desires helps us to understand each other as much or more than our stated reasoned arguments.

So, according to this theory, it is only *after* understanding the desires behind someone’s reasoning is it justified to oppress them for being that way.

Locking up the Good Samaritan

I ran across the following in Sojourners: Two members of the group No More Deaths were arrested last July because they took three migrants to a hospital (they were vomiting and bleeding and needed medical help). The charge? “transporting illegal aliens and conspiracy”.

So, this is how insane our immigration policy has become. Take 3 injured migrants to the hospital and get arrested.

I had briefly heard about the criminalization of Good Samaritans, but just thought it was immigration debate hyperbole. Sadly, it appears to be all too true.

In looking up the story to verify its details (my librarian brother Tim would be so proud!), I also found a terribly ugly website (one of many I’m sure) that describes various stories of “aiding and abetting invaders”, of which this is one. They also bemoan how peaceful and organized the recent marches have been, likening it to an army that does exactly what it is commanded to do (under the heading of “discipline of invaders reason for alarm”).

I guess these folks are just trying to improve on Jesus’ message of who your neighbor is. However, they would tweak the lesson to be: If you encounter someone on the side of the road who is bleeding and sick, first make sure they are part of your tribe. If they are not, put them in jail. If someone from your tribe helps them, put them in jail too. Remember that only those who think, look, and act like you are your neighbors. You must treat everyone else as alien invaders.

Maybe it wasn't so bad that I failed the Good Samaritan test after all.

The Sinners Guide to the Chief Debate

Since it looks like it is only a matter of time now before the NCAA finally puts us all out of our Chief Illiniwek misery, I thought I would share this piece that I wrote quite awhile ago, but never really had an audience for. It seems perfect for this blog.

For those of you outside Central Illinois, the University of Illinois has a symbol/mascot (depending on which side you are on) called Chief Illiniwek, who is a white student who dons an American Indian costume and dances during halftime at football and basketball games, to the delight/horror of those watching. In the last couple of decades, there has been a most civil, calm, and reasoned debate between sober parties about whether this is a good idea.

---

The Chief Illiniwek Debate, at its core, is really about which side can claim the highest moral ground. On one side, we have The Anti-Chiefers, who are trying to end racial stereotyping of Native Americans. On the other side, we have The Pro-Chiefers, who are trying to honor Native Americans. Both sides love Native Americans so dang much they are just ready to explode. As the old saying goes, you can’t swing a dead cat in this town without hitting someone who is currently honoring a Native American, or thinking about doing so very soon now, as soon as the football game comes on.

As satisfying as it is to listen to groups of people yell at each other in different languages, I think it is high time we ended this dispute, for all of our sakes. If indeed we are arguing about moral positions, there seems to me an obvious way to settle it. The vast majority of Illini believe in, if not an absolute moral standard, at least a moral standard that has passed the test of time. Everyone knows it, most of us agree with it, many of us want to put it in school classrooms, and some of us want large granite idols, er, statues of it placed in courtrooms. One or two of us even want it tattooed on other peoples’ foreheads so we can point out when and where they are failing at it.

I am talking, of course, about the 10 Commandments. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and even godless communists and university professors agree with most of them. All we have to do to finally put this to rest is figure out who is sinning the most, as determined by the 10 commandments as applied to the moral arguments of each side. After all, as Mark Knoplfer once sang about 2 men claiming to be Jesus: One of them must be wrong, as must one side in this debate.

Since 10 can produce a tie number, which would be completely unacceptable to any true American, I am also going to use the Golden Rule as an 11th commandment/tie-breaker. I hope this doesn’t undercut the arguments for any non-Christians out there. It just seems that “Do onto others as you would have them do onto you” is too good a tool to leave lying on the floor when there is so much moral work to be done.

So without further ado, let’s simply count how many sins each side racks up. One point per sin, and may the best moral position win:

1. I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other Gods before me. While we can’t make sweeping generalizations about which side has a stronger faith in God, I’m pretty confident no one’s faith in God depends in any way on the Chief, or vice-versa. If so, I’d like to meet this person, as they probably have a lot of other interesting and surprising views as well. In any case, I don’t think this commandant applies. No sins for either side.
   
   
2. Do not make idols. Clearly Anti-Chiefers are sin-free on this one, but I’m not so sure about Pro-Chiefers. The true believers are on some thin ice here when they claim the Chief symbolizes all that is good, that we should pay homage to and respect the Chief. Given a lot of the rhetoric one hears, and watching the faithful remove their hats and bow during the ceremony, the difference between worshipping a dancing man dressed in feathers and a Golden Calf on wheels is merely one of degree. I have to give Pro-Chiefers at least ½ a sin on this one, Anti-Chiefers escaping without any.
   
   
3. Do not take the Lord’s name in vain. It is likely that true believers on both sides are rather liberal in their use of the Lord’s name in a non-positive way when referring to the other side of the debate. However, there is nothing in either side’s moral arguments that requires vain name taking, so we’ll let both sides off the hook on this one.
   
   
4. Remember the Sabbath. The Anti-Chiefers seem to again be in the clear on this one. They may be Sabbath-breakers, but not because they are anti-Chief. However, regardless of whether Saturday or Sunday is your holy day, The Chief’s performances do occur on the Sabbath, and supporting the Chief performing on the Sabbath is a clear violation since it requires people to work on that day. Opponents: 0 sins. Supporters: 1 Sin, unless you believe the Chief’s performance are OK on the Sabbath because they are a religious ceremony, in which case, you score a sin for Commandment 1. Either way, it is one full sin for Pro-Chiefers.
   
   
5. Honor your mother and father. Both sides likely do a fine job here, since being an Anti or Pro Chiefer often depends on how you were raised. 0 sins for both sides.
   
   
6. Do not murder. Let’s hope neither side gets to collect this sin on this issue. Anti-Chiefers might claim that the overwhelmingly white participants in this tradition are beneficiaries of the systematic historical murder of Native Americans, and therefore should be more sensitive to the opinions of Native Americans. The thought here is that even if you didn’t kill someone to take their jewelry, but bought the jewelry at a steep discount knowing how it was acquired, you are nonetheless implicated in the immorality of the act. However, I don’t think this is what God was getting at for this particular commandment, so we’ll leave it at 0 sins for both sides.
   
   
7. Do not commit adultery. I can’t see how this applies, unless some people see the dance as erotic and leading to this type of immoral behavior. I’ve not heard that complaint before, so it looks like Pro-Chiefers are clear on this one. I’ve also never seen any sort of fornication going on during protests, so it looks like Anti-Chiefers are safe on this one as well. 0 sins around.
   
   
   
8. Do not steal. One could argue that Anti-Chiefers are trying to steal the University of Illinois tradition of the Chief. However, stealing is about wanting to have something of someone else’s, and not about wanting someone to stop doing something. I’d have to give Anti-Chiefers a clean bill on this, given that definition. However, Pro-Chiefers have to admit that the Chief tradition was clearly lifted from Native American culture, and that Native Americans in general want it back. I guess you could argue that it isn’t stealing if you parade it around and are unashamed of your actions. Or perhaps another tact is to argue that you got permission from one a distant relative to move into the house, so now the house is yours. Or you could argue that since your ancestors killed off everyone on the farm, and it is now empty, your moving in is not really stealing. All these seem to be rather slippery slopes to me. 1 full sin for Pro-Chiefers.
   
   
9. Do not bear false witness. The rhetoric level on both sides is fairly deafening on this one. But does anyone tell outright lies? For brevity, let’s just consider the battle cries of both sides.
   Anti-Chief: “Racial Stereotypes Dehumanize”. This is a fairly uncontroversial statement. The Chief is obviously a racial stereotype – supporters say as much when they say he represents all that is good about Native Americans. But, are not positive stereotypes a good thing? I personally don’t think so. I doubt that people jump out of bed ready to greet each day because others believe they are good dancers due to their skin tone, or smart because of the shape of their eyes. I have to conclude that the Anti-Chiefers are being truthful: 0 sins.
   Pro-Chief: “The Chief is an Honorable Tradition”. Generally, honor requires that those who are being honored actually feel honor, instead of embarrassment or anger. Native Americans clearly don’t like white people dressing up like their forefathers so that other white people can get worked up at sporting events. Sure, it’s hard to understand why that might be the case, but that’s the way it is. It may want to be honorable, just as I would like to be handsome and charming, but that doesn’t make it so. However, because of intent, we’ll only give ½ a sin to Pro-Chiefers, for not really wanting to bear false witness, but doing so anyway.
   
   
   
10. Do not covet your neighbor’s house, wife, slave, ox, donkey, or anything else. Presumably, this commandment only applies to things, not necessarily actions. In this case, Anti-Chiefers covet an end to the tradition, and Pro-Chiefers covet its continuation. Call it 0 or 1 for each side, as they are pretty much the same. Let’s say 0 for both sides, since it looks like Pro-Chiefers could use a break from sinning at this point.
    
    
    
11. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. It doesn’t look like we’ll need this as a tie breaker after all, but let’s continue anyway, for the sake of completeness. Anti-Chiefers are trying to see the world from the eyes of Native Americans, who are pretty upset about the whole situation. They seem to be treating Native Americans in the way they want to be treated. So, clearly the Anti-Chiefers are not just passively living up to this rule, but actively trying to live it out. Pro-Chiefers, however, seem like they just can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar of sin. Supporting an action that is designed for someone’s benefit, but instead makes him or her angry, seems to me the opposite of what this rule is going after. Or, we could look at it in the opposite direction: Suppose Native Americans took all our houses by force, forced us to live in concentration camps, and forbid us to practice our religion. I guess in this hypothetical situation Pro-Chiefers would really enjoy it if a Native American dressed up like Jesus for ritualistic hunting trips and did a dance to honor us, and then ignored us when we said that Jesus is sacred to us, and should not be trivialized in this way. However, I don’t think that any reasonable person would actually believe this, so it ends up counting as yet another sin for supporters.
    

Well, there we have it. The surprising result seems to be: 4 sins for Pro-Chiefers, 0 sins for Anti-Chiefers. I’m not really sure which sport sinning most compares with, so I’m not sure how to interpret the score. If this were soccer or hockey, it would be a blowout. If it were baseball, just a solid win. If it were football, it would have been a really boring game.

Unfortunately, this is not good news at all for those who want both the 10 commandments AND Chief Illiniwek in schools. It looks like we need pretty much one or the other, or we’ll confuse the children. I think staying with the 10 commandments is a good choice here. Heck, we might want to roll out a big marble statue of it at football games, and cheer for it instead of the Chief, to get back into God’s good graces. In fact, I believe there is one available right now in Alabama, where marble statues are known to cause morality.

Lastly, it is surprising that the final score was so lopsided, given how sure both sides are of their moral rectitude. Perhaps another lesson for us all is that feeling strongly about something does not necessarily translate into it being right. That is, unless you are an Anti-Chiefer, apparently.

It is the Constitution

We took the family to Washington DC last week for spring break. Our kids are at good ages (11, 8, 7) for DC - strong enough to trudge from museum to monument to government building, but not old enough to be too surly about it.

I really enjoyed seeing the actual copies of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights in the National Archives. Unlike the movie National Treasure, where Nicholas Cage steals what looks like a gift shop copy, the actual text on the paper is so faded it is almost impossible to read.

I can’t help but make the connection between those faded original documents and our fading values as a people. Americans, especially the self-proclaimed patriotic ones, seem to have little use these days for the rights this country was founded on.

How did we get into a state where people can be locked up forever without legal rights, we torture people we unilaterally deem evil enough, we invade countries that do not threaten us, and we allow the president to brazenly break the law by wiretapping without warrants? These documents don’t actually mean anything unless we hold ourselves accountable to them.

It also reminded me of this poem, which I have always disliked:

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

Um, sorry, no, this is just false. It is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that give us that freedom, not a bunch of guys with guns. Soldiers throughout human history have been far more often on the side the oppressor than the oppressed.

The truth is that oppression is almost always enforced with some kind of violence, whereas attaining freedom often does not require an army (see India, American Civil Rights, and South Africa for recent examples). Countries don’t attain freedom just because soldiers march through them (see Iraq), but because reporters reveal the truth, poets inspire people to great deeds, organizers create mass demonstrations, and most importantly, leaders create constitutions that guarantee basic human rights.

And in the end, if no one cares about the meaning of those founding documents, freedom will fade just as easily as the ink in which they are written.

The Bubble President

Would the world be a better place if W spent less time time talking to hand-picked people who agree with him (left), and instead spent time with people directly affected by his policies (right)?

I think so. In fact, I think if officials had to personally acknowledge every person killed in wars they are responsible for, they'd reflect a little more on what they are about to do.

U.S. President George W. Bush greets supporters after speaking about the U.S. military involvement in Iraq while at the Dorothy Betts Marvin Theatre at the George Washington University in Washington, March 13, 2006. REUTERS/Larry Downing

Relatives mourn near the bodies of children, reportedly killed in a U.S. raid, as they arrive in a hospital in Tikrit, 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, March 15,2006. Eleven people, most of them women and children were killed when a house was bombed during a U.S. raid north of Baghdad early Wednesday, police and relatives said. The U.S. military acknowledged four deaths in the raid that they said netted an insurgent suspect in the rural Isahaqi area, about 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of the capital. (AP Photo/Bassim Daham)

Why Can't Democrats Be More Like George Clooney?

I enjoyed George Clooney's Oscar acceptance speech, where he essentially said he's proud to be out of touch if it means standing up to social injustice. He used his 60 seconds of attention to "speak truth to power" yet remained classy and understated in doing so.

He just wrote up the following defense of liberalism, and I now officially admire the man. He obviously values making the world a better place more than protecting his celebrity and fame, a choice that very few people make.

And why does it take an actor to defend liberalism like this? Where are the Democrats, for crying out loud?

George Clooney:

I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.

Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out.

That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty" and "We can't defend freedom at home by deserting it at home," it's like he's commenting on today's headlines.

The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.

Dan Schreiber, Levite Schmuck

I was reading “Shalom: The Bible’s Word for Salvation, Justice and Peace” by Perry Yoder the other night, resonating with its message that God is on the side of the poor and the oppressed. God’s shalom justice is concerned with making the world as it should be, and has nothing to do with retributive violence. I am, like, so down with that, man. If only everyone did their part to bring about such justice, we’d have a totally groovy world.

But the phone rings, and I’m jerked out of my reverie. I’m becoming a cranky old man who doesn’t like answering the phone anymore, because it is invariably some unknown person wanting something from me. Sure enough, it’s a solicitation call. Yuck. Amnesty International. Didn’t I just give them money at the end of last year? They want $50 for a campaign against torture by US interrogators. I’m pretty sure I gave them money already. At least I intended to. Did I follow through? No, I answer, I don’t have $50 for this. How about $25 they ask? No, I say, annoyed, I don’t have $25. Just leave me alone.

I hang up. Now, what was I doing? Oh yea, reading my Shalom book.

Pause.

Did I just lie to Amnesty International that I don’t have $50? To support anti-torture advocacy? While reading about justice making, and thinking that if only everyone did their part, we’d have shalom justice in the world? I have $50. In fact, one of the ways I console myself about being so comfortably well-off is that I can give money to worthy causes. What kind of hypocritical schmuck am I?

Luckily enough, there is a parable that will tell me exactly what kind of schmuck I am. Luke 10:4, the Good Samaritan. Let’s see, I didn’t beat or rob anyone, nor am I a priest. Yes, here it is: I am the heartless Levite, who passes to the other side of the road so he doesn’t have to see a guy who’s naked and bleeding and suffering. That’s me. The Levite Schmuck. Hooray for me.

In all seriousness, when I checked the actual text, I was quite horrified by the description of the thieves stripping a man, beating him, and leaving him for dead. It isn't horror that evil people do this kind of thing, but that it is such an accurate description of what we are doing to our so-called enemy combatants. Some of them may be evil terrorists bent on our destruction, but a number of them are apparently just people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had enemies that wanted them out of the way. That is exactly what is so insidious about our locking them up without trial and torturing them – they have no chance to tell their stories or defend themselves. Not only is it against all principles of a free democracy to do so, but it is exactly how Jesus says not to treat others.

If we apply the good Samaritan story to our present circumstances, then who is who? Who strips, beats and leaves people for dead? We do. Which Christian leaders fail to say or do anything when confronted with this knowledge? Ours do. Who walks to the other side of the road and ignores injustice so they can feel safer? We do.

Who has the courage in these dark days to see “The Other” as fully human and worthy of basic human decency? Who believes enough in Jesus’ message of radical love of our enemies, even to those who might not extend it to us? Amnesty International apparently does.

Well, I don’t want to be the Levite Schmuck, that’s for sure. So, within a few minutes of hanging up on Amnesty, I went to their website and made a $50 donation. I may not be able to be a Full-On Good Samaritan, but at least I can write a check to support those who are. It is quite literally the least I can do. It may mean I only move from being a Levite Schmuck to the regular Privileged Middle-Class Comfortable kind, but at least it is movement in the right direction.

Anyone who wants to join me in this middle-class comfort zone can also make a donation to Amnesty here.

Juan Cole on last week's violence

From Juan Cole:

Someone should explain to me why last week's events are an argument for keeping US troops in Iraq. What did they do? Did we hear about any US military units guarding Sunni mosques as they were being attacked by Shiite mobs?

This is a great point. If we are in Iraq to provide security so that it doesn’t descend into civil war and chaos, isn't a descent into civil war and chaos the time to act?

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t pretend that we are there to nobly protect freedom, but not step in when violence gets out of hand. If we are going to police Iraq into a Democracy, then at a minimum we need to stand between mobs and victims.

America as Good Neighbor

I'm shamelessly lifting this content from the This Modern World blog, but the quote is so astounding that it bears repeating.

---

Jonathan Schwarz:
Wow, this really IS Vietnam

Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, in 2004:

Should national unity prevail, Iraq’s chances of becoming a stable democracy will improve dramatically. I’d like to see one other thing in Iraq, an outbreak of gratitude for the greatest act of benevolence one country has ever done for another.

David Lawrence, editor of US News & World Report, in 1966:

What the United States is doing in Vietnam is the most significant example of philanthropy extended by one people to another that we have witnessed in our times.

---

I've been thinking about the following analogy for the Iraq war, and these quotes fit quite nicely:

Suppose you live next door to a Muslim family. The husband drinks and sometimes beats his wife, and even killed one of his sons a few years back. There are other, worse families in the neighborhood, but this one has a lot of uncut jewels hidden in their basement. You'd like the local police to do something about it, but you've just spent the last few years undermining institutions that would apply laws across households, since you don't want other neighbors to have any say in what you do in the neighborhood. Also, you bought the guns the guy next door uses to threaten his family, because he used to threaten a different neighbor that you liked less.

You decide it is your job to help this family. So you go next door and shoot the husband execution-style in the front yard, to the horror of most of the neighborhood. You then tell the wife that she is now going to marry your cousin, who is a nice Christian man who won't beat her. In the meantime, you are going to move in and take care of her as a proxy husband.

After you move in, you find that the house is falling apart from neglect and now thieves are coming in freely and stealing anything that isn’t bolted down. You spend all your time rummaging through the family’s finances, protecting the jewels in the basement, and painting the fence outside.

The family is both humiliated at what has happened, and frustrated that they are no longer safe. They react by hitting you every time you come in the house. So, you decide to burn everything in the rooms where you get hit in the most, to teach them a lesson and discourage them from hitting you again. When people tell you to leave, you say it would be dishonorable to leave the family in such a mess, and question their commitment to marriage.

When you finally present the wife with your cousin, she decides instead to marry a strict traditional Muslim instead. She won’t have the same rights she had before, but her new husband will definitely get you out of the house. The kids can't agree on whether this new husband is a good idea or not, and are so freaked out by everything that has happened in their life, that they start shooting each other.

And Fred Barnes comes strolling along, notices the fresh paint on the fence, and chastises the wife for not being more grateful to you for all of your benevolence.

Article on Bush Speechwriter

There was an interesting (and long) article in the New Yorker last week about Michael Gerson, George Bush’s chief speechwriter.

I was struck by how sincere his faith seems to be, and also the sincerity with which he wants to contribute to the problems of poverty and AIDs. And, yet, like Bush, there is just a stark disconnect between these stated desires and the actual policies he supports.

He gives full support to war, even though pre-emptive war is decidedly against most everything Jesus preached. He sincerely believes that tax breaks for the rich are the best way to help poor people, despite the fact that it is bankrupting the government and causing major funding shortages for programs that the poverty stricken need, (and also ties our hands in getting real health care reform going).

I thought this quote was very revealing, where he is talking about how little money there is for AIDS and other programs he wants to see: “we’re living in a different budgetary situation than we were in 2003, when the President could announce a fifteen-billion-dollar AIDS initiative, and that’s just a reality. There’s nothing that anyone can do about that, and I can’t change that.”

No kidding.Life is about choices. You can’t claim to be compassionate to the poor and then spend all your money on war and tax breaks, and then say “Oh well, all the money’s gone. We’d like to help, really we would, but it’s just beyond our control.”

I get so incredibly frustrated with well-meaning Christians who, although very sincere in their faith, are so blind to the moral results of their own actions. It doesn’t bother me as much when the Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world do this sort of thing, because we all know they are just interested in political power. But when Gerson and Bush (who is apparently a sincere Christian) do it, it gives religious backing to evil deeds, and makes Jesus a servant of belligerence and greed.

Where Should Power Reside?

The “Two Kingdoms” book I mentioned earlier made me think a little differently about political power in relation to liberalism and conservatism, which is quite impressive, given how calcified my thoughts have been in that area over the last few years.

Liberalism and conservatism has often been portrayed as a conflict between federal power and “state’s rights” over the last few decades. I’ve been supportive of federal power over the years, mostly in support of civil rights, a security net for those in need, and as a check to the unbridled greed that capitalism seems to encourage. Government can be a force for good in these areas, even if it overreaches at times. The “states rights” version of conservatism (popular until 5 years ago) always struck me as a reaction against these ideals, and seemed to reduce it to “freedom from responsibility to others”.

What caught my attention in the “Two Kingdoms” book is how state power has changed warfare in the last century from one of simply two armies engaging each other, to one of the Modern Total Warfare State, where every aspect of the economy and society is used to engage in and pursue war.

The trajectory of Mennonite conservatism is related to all this, as it started out as a “leave us alone so we can worship God without being tortured” kind of reaction against state power, and later became a reaction against the kind of federal power required to engage in the modern total warfare state. Mennonites today are an interesting mix of conservative and liberal – loyally committed to service to others and officially supportive of peacemaking (although sometimes that wavers in local congregations). They can vary widely in their political views, and sometimes they just mirror the arguing that happens in national politics and the “culture wars”.

In any case, freedom of religious expression and opposition of the total warfare state are good reasons to be wary of federal power, and it made me realize that the issue isn’t where power is located, but how that power is used. Distributing power to states only works if those states don’t abuse their own citizens (say by fire-hosing them when they demand equal treatment under the law). Federal power can be an antidote to this, but concentrating power at the top allows things like unnecessary wars on countries that are not threats to us. In the end, I don’t think liberals and conservatives really care where the power resides, as long as their social policies are the ones being enacted.

So, there’s no good answer. Power is just inherently corrupting, as anyone who has read Lord of the Rings knows (especially when it comes in ring form). The paradox is that you need great power to affect great change for the better, and in doing so, you inevitable become corrupt.

The Ever-Pervasive Wider Culture

I’ve been reading “Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties: Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America” by Perry Bush, one of the required texts for the Biblical Foundations of Peace & Justice class I’m taking this semester.

I don’t know if the book would be interesting to non-Mennonites, but it has really helped provide me with a solid context for modern Mennonite thought, and has also been a reminder of how modern culture has become so pervasive. A hundred years ago, Mennonites and other groups could remain in isolated enclaves with very different values and customs from the rest of society. Now, everyone engages and interacts with the wider culture, and it is very hard to retain values that go against that wider culture.

For instance, the values of non-violence and simple living are extremely hard to maintain within the wider cultural values of mass consumerism and militarism that are so powerful today. I was struck that if we are not careful, it would only take one generation for our peace witness to go the way of simple dress and Quaker use of “Thee and Thou”. We can’t merely tread water on cultural issues that we think are harmful – we have to actively swim upstream or we will simply be carried down the river. And even if we are able to tread water, our children will not if we are not actively engaging them and teaching them these values.

On the other hand, interaction with the wider culture can also bring about positives. When Mennonites were forced out of their isolation, they discovered others in the world who had great need, and as a result, felt that they had a Christian obligation to respond with service to those needs. Even later, they found that merely doing individual acts of service to others was not entirely enough. You can help people best by being in a continuing relationship with them, and also by advocating for social policies that reduce their needs in the first place.

Anyway, as someone who grew up immersed and embraced by American middle-class white culture, it was illuminating to see how easy it is to lose positive aspects of smaller communities in the wider culture, and how hard it is to attempt to move the wider culture in better directions.

Why Mennonite?

Some people may be thinking: Dan, I knew you in [high school] [college] [just a few years ago], and you were vaguely [Catholic] [Agnostic] [Unitarian] [Quaker] at the time and not terribly pious. What’s with the whole Mennonite self-identification thing? Is this some kind of over-reaction to finally being able to grow some facial hair?

Sadly, no, I am still unable to properly grow facial hair. I think one of my ancestors must have some secrets about who, exactly, they procreated with.

But, yes, I do self-identify as a Mennonite these days. In fact, I would be a card-carrying Mennonite, if they issued cards. (This is actually a little joke about Mennonite registration. See Anabaptists, History Of, for why you should be rolling on the ground laughing hysterically right about now.)


Here’s how’s those pesky Mennonites got their claws into us: We wandered into a Mennonite church eight years ago just looking for the More With Less Cookbook, assuming that they would have some sort of money-changing table in the sanctuary where you could buy the book, and maybe also get some discounts on indulgences, since we heard that Mennonites were pretty cheap.

Instead, we were surprised to hear a sermon on the Sermon on the Mount. And, not just one, but a whole series of sermons over the next few months, focusing on how Christians should be servants to others and maintain an attitude of mutual respect and humility. I was so disappointed. I had all but given up on Christianity, due to its proclivity to turn its followers into self-indulged, judgmental hypocrites, and now I would have to re-examine this beloved stereotype.

With their toleration for my more inclusive world views, I’ve learned that there can be a voice within Christianity for service, simple living, peace and justice, and a witness against militarism and the “redemptive” violence that so permeates our culture today. Mennonites aren't the only denomination with these values, but they were at the right place at the right time for me. Plus, they don’t wear those “simple” (i.e. unattractive) clothes anymore, and they sure can cook and sing.

I’m obviously not an “ethnic” Mennonite. This merely means that I don’t have an Otto or Yoder as a relative, and when I meet other Mennonites, they usually don’t try to figure out if they are related to me. This is a good thing, since “Schreiber” is a tip off that my German ancestors probably oppressed their Anabaptist ancestors somewhere along the way, or at least transcribed the orders to do so.

Instead I’m calling myself a “Modern” Mennonite, because it fits, alliteratively speaking, and because I want a way to exclude ethnic Mennonites in casual conversations.

For example:

Random Ethnic Mennonite, engaging me in conversation: “Oh, you’re from Champaign. Are you related to Eli/Harold/Peter Otto/Yoder/Kaufman/Dyck?”.
Me: “No, I’m a Modern Mennonite”.

Disclaimer: Please don’t mistake anything I say in this blog as being typical, representative, characteristic, standard, reliable, trustworthy or authoritative on Mennonite theology, beliefs, principles, opinions, views, policies, politics, affairs, traditions, practices, customs, rituals, ceremonies, or habits. I just like calling myself a Mennonite, that’s all.

That said, it is totally true that a “real” Mennonite believes every letter, stroke, and mark in the Mennonite Confession of Faith and will punch you in the nose if you challenge them or disagree. But secretly, most of them like the Vision Statement a lot more.

My own views will be left as an exercise to readers of the blog.