conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

monday morning

Trish and I saw the recent Potter installment over the weekend. I must confess that I think it is the best movie in the series thus far. I loved almost every minute of it. Incredible. No, it did not capture all the book had to offer. There are simply limits to the medium. It did, however, present a coherent story that focuses on the rising of Voldemort and how Harry and his friends manage all that is there. And the scenes with Young Diggory were great. It was a good movie. I would pay to see it again. Trish and I may try to see it at the local I-MAX! Wow.

The Librarian sent this url my way. IT is an interesting article about the training of clergy in the United States.

Educators — whether they teach at Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Protestant or Jewish seminaries — "no longer have a clear picture" of what kind of student will enter their institutions, said Charles R. Foster, director of the study, in a Friday telephone briefing. "They can’t assume that all students are the same anymore."

It is all wonderfully complicated. Give the article a read.

Finally, I want to draw your attention to a previous post on post-humanism (transhumanism?). Rich and I had an interesting dialogue. Camassia's comments are well taken. It seems to me that once again we are going to struggle with knee-jerk reactions on either side of an issue. We will have to wade through the incomplete polemics that lead to misunderstanding. How do we enjoy bio-technological innovation, taking greatest advantage of it so that it benefits humanity? Can this be done in a way that Christians can participate and even, *gasp*, contribute in a positive fashion?

You all have a good Monday. I will post again today if I get the time. I don't know if the short week will mean more or less work for me.

[Editor's addition at 10:40am] Oops! I forgot this earlier. I received an article via e-mail from a friend about the war in Iraq and the culpability of our public officials for its continuance. Read if you wish. I'll include it in the extended. Here's a little Thomas Merton to get you started.

"The most obvious fact about war today is that while everyone claims to hate
it, and all are agreed it is our greatest single evil, there is little
significant resistance to it except on the part of small minorities who, by
the very fact of their protest are dismissed as eccentric....The motive for
which men are led to fight today is that war is necessary to destroy those
who threaten our peace! It should be clear from this that war proceeds to
its violent ritual with the chanting of perfect nonsense." ~ Thomas
Merton

There you go. My friend who e-mailed the article to me had this MErton quote in mind when he sent it. Let me know what you think.

Vegetarians Between Meals: This War Cannot Be Stopped By a Loyal Opposition

by Jeremy Scahill

The refrain of the Democrats about being misled into supporting the invasion
of Iraq has become really tired. And someone other than the White House
smearmongers needs to say it: The Democrats cannot be allowed to use faulty
intelligence as a crutch to hold up their unforgivable support for the Iraq
invasion. What is DNC Chair Howard Dean's excuse? He wasn't in Congress and
didn't have any access to Senate intelligence. Still, on March 9, 2003, just
days before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russert, on NBC's Meet The
Press, "I don't want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons
of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for
Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what
intelligence he based that allegation. "Talks with people who were
knowledgeable," Dean told me. "Including a series of folks that work in the
Clinton administration."

A series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.

How does that jibe with the official Democratic line that they were misled
by the Bush administration? Sounds like Howard Dean, head of the Democratic
Party, was misled by....the Democrats. Dean's candor offers us a rare
glimpse into the painful truth of the matter. As unpopular as this is to
say, when President Bush accuses the Democrats of "rewriting history" on
Iraq, he is right.

None of the horrors playing out in Iraq today would be possible without the
Democratic Party. And no matter how hard some party leaders try to deny it,
this is their war too and will remain so until every troop is withdrawn.
There is no question that the Bush administration is one of the most
corrupt, violent and brutal in the history of this country but that doesn't
erase the serious responsibility the Democrats bears for the bloodletting in
Iraq. As disingenuous as the Administration's claims that Iraq had WMDs is
the flimsy claim by Democratic lawmakers that they were somehow duped into
voting for the war. The fact is that Iraq posed no threat to the United
States in 2003 any more than it did in 1998 when President Clinton bombed
Baghdad. John Kerry and his colleagues knew that. The Democrats didn't need
false intelligence to push them into overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime.
It was their policy; a policy made the law of the land not under George W.
Bush, but under President Bill Clinton when he signed the 1998 Iraq
Liberation Act, formally initiating the process of regime change in Iraq.

Manipulated intelligence is but a small part of a bigger, bipartisan 15-year
assault on Iraq's people. If the Democrats really want to look at how
America was led into this war, they need to go back further than the current
president's inauguration.

As bloody and deadly as the occupation has been, it was Bill Clinton who
refined the art of killing innocent Iraqis following the Gulf War. One of
his first acts as president was to bomb Iraq, following the alleged
assassination plot against George HW Bush. Clinton's missiles killed the
famed Iraqi painter Leila al Attar as they smashed into her home. Clinton
presided enthusiastically over the most deadly and repressive regime of
economic sanctions in history--his UN ambassador Madeline Albright calling
the reported deaths of half a million children "worth the price." Clinton
initiated the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam with his
illegal no-fly zone bombings, attacking Iraq once every three days for the
final years of his presidency. It was under Clinton that Ahmed Chalabi was
given tens of millions of dollars and made a key player in shaping
Washington's Iraq policy. It was Clinton that mercilessly attacked Iraq in
December of 1998, destroying dozens of Baghdad buildings and killing scores
of civilians. It was Clinton that codified regime change in Iraq as US
policy. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq but he could not have done it
without the years of groundwork laid by Clinton and the Democrats. How
ironic it was recently to hear Clinton call the war "a big mistake."

It's easy to resist war with a president like Bush in the White House. Where
were these Democrats when it was Clinton's bombs raining down on Iraq, when
it was Clinton's economic sanctions targeting the most vulnerable? Many of
them were right behind him and his deadly policies the same way they were
behind Bush when he asked their consent to use force against Iraq. As the
veteran Iraq activist and Nobel Prize nominee Kathy Kelly said often during
the Clinton years, "It's easy to be a vegetarian between meals." The fact is
that one of the great crimes of our times was committed by the Clinton
administration with the support of many of the politicians now attacking
Bush.

Herein lies the real political crisis in this country: the Democrats are not
an opposition party, nor are they an antiwar party-never were. At best, they
are a loyal opposition. The Democrats ran a pro-war campaign in 2004 with
Kerry struggling to convince people that Dems do occupation and war better.
The current head of the DNC, Howard Dean, never met a war he didn't adore
until he realized he could exploit the energy and sincere hopes of millions
of peace-loving Americans. Dean wasn't ever antiwar. In fact, during the
2004 campaign he attacked Kerry for opposing the Gulf War while laying out
his own pro-war record.

"In 1991, I supported Gulf War. I supported the first President Bush,"
declared Dean. "Senator Kerry who criticizes my foreign policy, he voted
against that war. I supported the Afghanistan war, because I felt it was
about our national defense-- 3,000 of our people were killed. I supported
President Clinton going into Bosnia and Kosovo."

How can Howard Dean look people in the eye today and pretend to speak with
any credibility as an antiwar voice?

When the hawkish Democrat Rep. John Murtha bravely stepped forward to call
for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq this week, he was quickly
blasted by the White House and simultaneously disowned by powerful Democrats
like John Kerry. Occupation lovers together again. The bloody scandal of the
Iraq occupation has opened a rare and clear window into the truth about this
country: there is one party represented in Washington--one that supports
preemptive war and regime change. The reality is that the Democrats could
stop this war if the will was there. They could shut down the Senate every
day, not just for a few hours one afternoon. They could disrupt business as
usual and act as though the truth were true: this war should never have
happened and it must end now. The country would be behind them if they did
it. But they won't. They will hem and haw and call for more troops and throw
out epic lies about the US becoming a stabilizing force in Iraq and blame
the Republicans for their own complicity and enthusiasm in the 15 years of
bipartisan crimes against Iraq.

All of this begs for a multiparty system in this country and the emergence
of a true opposition. The epic scale of the disaster in Iraq calls for epic
lessons to be learned at home. Like the Bush White House, the Democrats have
lost their credibility. They are undeserving of the blank check of "Anybody
But Bush" and should never be allowed to cash it again. Rep. Rahm Emanuel,
who heads up the House Democrat's election campaign, criticized Murtha's
call for immediate withdrawal, saying, "At the right time, we will have a
position." It is statements like that that should result in Emanuel and his
colleagues losing theirs.

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the
national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time
reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow
at The Nation Institute. He can be reached at jeremy@democracynow.org.

Posted by tripp at November 21, 2005 09:32 AM