i'm here now.

i'm here now.

Does Democracy Avert Famine? -- great article

[johnny cash - american iv]

i got sent this wendell berry essay against the iraq war. nice work by berry...

there was a article in my school's newsletter this week in response to all the anti-war articles lately. he was arguing for the attack on iraq as a justified preventive action but in the midst of this line of thinking, he cited the dropping of the atomic bombs in ww2 as an example of the efficacy of preventive military actions. the dropping of the bombs, he argued, quickened the surrender of the japanese and prevented further loss of life in the pacific theatre. arguing for action in iraq is one thing but to justify it using one of the most tragic moments in world history is pretty myopic.

how can one offer the strategic killing of non-combatants in japan during ww2 as support for a so-called "just" war? terrorism is described by our current government as, "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents" in the national security strategy (2002). truman and the us military should be considered terrorists according to our own definition. (not that that's surprising.) doesn't that make the attack on pearl harbor a justified preventive action by the japanese? (yes, i realise that i'm being argumentative here but you can see how grotesque these attempts to justify preventive actions can become)...

beyond the fact that the actions of the us in ww2 can be construed proto-terroristic, these actions initiated the cold war, the arms race and the international weapons trade --all of which are well-documented causes of the current crisis in iraq. not to mention north korea (i'm ignoring pyongyang, however, following the example of the usa and u.n.).

if you're going to argue for a "just" war in iraq, use something less problematic as an example of a preventive military action than the a-bomb in japan. but that will be hard since preventive military actions do not prevent unfavorable outcomes (much like the prevent defense in football). violence begets violence. war begets war. and the only true preventive strategy is to address the injustices which oppress those that are so angry with the usa.

i've got to get in a better groove of posting things on this blog. i guess it's not that different from my regular journal where the entries occur with the same sort of frequency.

this potential war with iraq has got me thinking through the issues of just war theory. is this really a last resort? if iraq continually shows (begrudgingly) that they don't have weapons of md, doesn't that means inspections are working? so if the inspections are working, what ulterior motive does the u.s. have in iraq?

i'm not saying that iraq is doing the right things but is these things seem less a cause for war and a justifies further inspections. plus, the u.s taking a unilateralist approach is extremely scary.

saddam's scary but the ineffective-ness of united nations without the u.s. is far more scary. and whatever the us does now will continue to add to perceived evil of the us in muslim countries.

how about combating terrorism at the grassroots by addressing the injustices these people face? if we get rid of some of these causes for anger, that will fight terrorism far better than tanks and soldiers.

also, i need to read some jeremy black on the history of war. he addresses the fact that technological superiority does not insure victory.

more to come on war...

i've been reading some cool stuff this term. stuff from MLK, jr. and stuff on christology.

there's been a obsession within xianity with the idea of martyrdom and suffering for one's faith. there's the expectation in the words of jesus x that xians wil suffer. so why don't we in america suffer for the kingdom? that's actually a question that was raised in class the other week. the lack of suffering for the faith in the u.s.a. leads the church to press a view of suffering that glorifies the those missionaries 'out there' and pre-supposes a spiritual hierarchy of those who suffer are more 'holy.'

after reading mlk, i'm starting to understand suffering not merely for the faith. but our suffering should be 'for the kingdom.' our suffering should not be based on what we believe to true, but it should be reflective of how the kingdom should be. in other words, we, the american church, does not suffer for the sake of the gospel because we have not allied ourselves with the true issues of social justice and an establishing of the reign of god. our suffering will come when we choose to remove our priorities and investments from the systems that perpetuate injustice (which is almost every system) and begin to live simply.

this should be our suffering: the world thinking we're crazy for giving away so much to help those in need. being ostracized for criticising a government and economy that continually oppress. facing rejection from the power networks because of our association with the unmentionables.

the world will persecute the american christian when the challenges to live out a life based on the sermon on the mount. they will laugh at our 'stupidity' in making poor investments and they will respond dramatically when we refused to play a game that continually rewards those who cheat.

okay, just needed to get that off my chest.

i've been hearing this song "I'm Still Here" quite frequently on the radio and i can already see it coming. some post-modern ministry guru guy at my school will use this to talk about the real desire for experience in the post-modern person. s/he will probably have charts with one column expressing the characteristics of the modern human and the other highlighting the post-modern. and then, s/he will play this song and express how this song is a perfect representation of the journey of a post-modern soul. it'll probably happen in chapel tomorrow...

why can't we just turn the page. we've got other things to deal with. if you still need to be informed as to what the post-modern dilemma is, try reading a book published in last ten years. or just watch or listen to the news. not local news (you'll just learn about strip clubs and what your teen is doing at night). watch and listen to real news. bbc, jim lehrer, new york times, npr, the daily show with john stewart...

just heard a great show last week KCRW: Left, Right & Center on the bush tax cuts. the liberal democrat of the this panel was calling out g.w.bush on his tax cuts. though w claims to be a xian, he doesn't seem to be driven by the same ethics that caused jesus to overturn the moneychangers' tables in the temple.

how have we let the market determine our morals? why do we let the market determine our morals? how do we prevent the market from destroying our morals?

another thought: in 1996, zaire spent fives times more money per capita in paying back loans than in health care.

godspeed, bono vox. jubilee