Tag Archives: current news

Rumsfeld Redefines “Success”

Posted on by
Reply

Click on my latest political cartoon, the top one on the left side of this page, called “Success Redefined.” Always, the first victim of war is truth…. At various times, Secretary Rumsfeld has worked hard to redefine the terms, “torture,” “insurgency,” “victory,” “winning,” “enemy,” “mission accomplished,” “terrorism” and other words of war to make them fit his needs. 

Unfortunately, he's also having a hard time figuring out who and what we're fighting, and fighting for. Whose freedom? Whose liberty? Whose democracy? Whose rights? As defined by whom? Mr. Rumsfeld could use some thoughtful coursework in linguistics and ethics. 

The sad thing is that all violence is about fear, terror, hatred–call it whatever you will. As the Buddha once said, “the end of hatred is not hatred, but love.” The 60's hippies used to say “fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity.” It just can't be done. There is no way to peace: peace is the way. 

A just cause cannot justify an unjust (violent) means. We will all suffer some grave injustice in this imperfect new century, but we needn't add to its sum. It's a different way of seeing, yes. But John Lennon took that leap way back in the 60's. Isn't it about time to try to imagine all the world living life in peace? They may say you're a dreamer, but you won't be the only one….

Please write responses to epharmon@adelphia.net . Thank you for your caring and loyalty to the quality of human life everywhere.

 

 

 

 

A Way to Peace in the Middle East

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s bloody unity in Iraq can be maintained only by imposition of yet another inhumane, repressive KGB-type police state, backed by a huge, permanent, deadly U.S. occupation. It is in no one’s best interests to continue to force our own fallible western institutions upon historically self-identified “Kurds,” “Sunnis,” and “Shiites” fiercely loyal to their own unique sets of traditions, religious beliefs, and leadership, and committed to political self-determination and separatist destinies. Remember that it was foreigners who once arbitrarily invented “Iraq’s” national borders, and who cynically installed a vicious dictator (Saddam) to squish these three distinct groups together for our own imagined selfish interests.

 

After a century of violent outside interference, “Iraqis” justifiably don’t trust us, and don’t want us over there “helping” them—except as invited guests. Before we drain the last drop of lifeblood from our grandchildren and our economy, we can choose to back away from all militaristic regional leaders, and instead transfer our most generous financial, diplomatic and media support to non-violent, popular cultural representatives of each distinct ethnicity, who can then work cooperatively to minimize civil unrest and instability, and light the way toward mutual achievement of their own (equally fallible) highest priorities, ideals and solutions.

 

And yes, the United States will have to stand in line humbly to buy oil at market prices, just like every other nation.

 

Terrorism breeds wherever angry youths seeth under inflammatory external ruthless tyrannies. There is no violent “way” to peace and stability in the Middle East, or at home. Peace is the way.

Questions and Perspectives on Iraq

Posted on by
Reply

Will somebody please explain to me why it’s in anyone’s best interests for the west to continue to attempt to impose unity and western political institutions upon “Iraqis,” instead of helping self-identified “Kurds,” ”Sunnis,” and “Shiites” achieve self-determination, and their own highest ideals and priorities, each in their own unique and uniquely valuable ways?

 

I’m not a foreign policy specialist. I’m only a U.S. citizen loyally attempting to keep up with politics and uphold the highest traditional U.S. ideals by reading two newspapers and occasionally following CSpan. But try as I may, in all my reading and listening, I have not been able to conclude that Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis want to be united under one government. All evidence points to the contrary: each of the three groups apparently very much wants to control its own historically-separate destiny, now and into the future, each maintaining a fierce (and admirable) loyalty to their own unique set of traditions, culture, religious beliefs, values, and leadership.

 

How can we ever end this war and achieve long-lasting peace, in that region or here at home, without recognizing the very reason why each of these three ethnicities has so long been fighting against us and amongst one another—for the right (to which Americans give lip-service) to democratic political self-determination for all peoples everywhere?

 

After decades of cruel war and occupation by western countries, Iraqis seem to have reasonably concluded that they must fight back against western politicians who would encroach upon their families, friends, and the lands of their ancestors, and who would impose foreign values, institutions and approaches upon them through forced coalitions and nationhood.

 

I have read some of the regional instability arguments against partitioning Iraq into three nations, but am so far unconvinced that all interested nations and peoples—including “Iraqis”—wouldn’t be far better off if we in the U.S. just changed our foreign policy to support democratic self-determination and separate nationhood for each of the three historical ethnicities that we once, so unwisely, forced together under one dictator. I also remain mystified as to why (other than ignorance) the U.S. didn’t choose this more peaceful and lasting alternative approach to our current destructive, unjust, costly, protracted and unwinnable war, years ago. (But that’s another question….)

 

As long as we ignore the self-deterministic aspirations of these three ethnicities, the U.S. must settle, in Iraq as we have elsewhere, for minimal, shameful goals of imposed “civil quiet,” via yet one more cynically-installed, tyrannical, ruthless, repressive KGB-type police state backed by an endless, costly, inflammatory, deadly U.S. occupation.

 

How did we ever conclude that violent suppression of a popular movement for personal liberty would more likely result in peace and freedom than generous support for local freedom of choice?

 

We cannot win this war until Middle Easterners feel that they too have won a freedom they can believe in. And we can’t achieve a win-win outcome by imposing an outdated political and military solution grounded in untested assumptions, a solution which many in the west persist in believing is “in our best interests.”

 

There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.

 

We can choose to minimize the impacts of future civic unrest during inevitable land grabs and power struggles in the Middle East, by withholding military and financial support from all regional leaders who have historically used militaristic, terrorizing, violent approaches to achieving peace, and offer instead generous financial, diplomatic and media support only to those leaders who are popularly respected as most peaceful and most representative of the highest ideals and traditions of each ethnic group.

 

President Bush’s proposed “Strategy for Victory in Iraq” has identified four goals to be achieved in Iraq before troop withdrawal: peace, unity, stability, and security. But before the war, most (albeit dispirited) “Iraqis” already “enjoyed” exactly those four conditions under Saddam–the only exception being dissidents fighting for political self-determination.

 

What then have we been fighting for? What has our costly war accomplished? And for what and for whom are we still fighting?

 

Terrorism breeds and grows in regions where angry young people seeth under unjust, externally-imposed militaristic tyrannies.

 

So will someone please explain to me why it’s in anyone’s best interests—ours, or any others’–to keep on imposing our own beloved but fallible western institutions and values upon the people of the Middle East—right on up to the time when we drain the very last drop of lifeblood from our grandchildren and our economy–instead of peacefully and generously granting (Christian!) charity to the best and brightest leaders of every region, assisting them in lighting their own peoples’ way to achieving their own unique and uniquely valuable (if equally fallible) highest ideals and priorities–each in their own way?

 

 

 

 

 

Please send your thoughts to epharmon@adelphia.net ! And thank you for your loyal and caring support for the quality of human life everywhere.

 

My Father the Terrorist

Posted on by
Reply

He was a man who would kill and maim innocent children and civilians if he was told to do so by his leaders … Who would boldly face certain death for his beliefs … Who believed that death and destruction solved problems … Who believed in retaliating violently, and avenging losses … Who would kill anyone he was told was a threat to his safety, home, land, family, traditions and beliefs … Who would kill and die anywhere in the world to further his people’s interests, and to spread their ways around the world ….

 

He was a man who thought terror a reasonable means of achieving political, social and economic goals.

 

He was also a U.S. Army career officer, a highly decorated war hero, attorney, horseman, poet, woodsman, musician, scratch-handicap golfer, linguist, historian, and gentle, patriotic, idealistic, loving son, husband, brother, friend … father.

 

My father.

 

With such an admirable, lovable person in my family, how could I ever come to see soldiers in any way similar to terrorists, when they seem so completely different to everyone else?

 

True, both soldiers and terrorists deal in violence and death. But surely a righteous cause justifies a violent means? So, are terrorists ever right? Are soldiers often wrong? Is it possible that the problem is violence itself?

 

What could soldiers and terrorists possibly have in common?

 

Both soldiers and terrorists are often idealistic (or religious) youth, drawn to the disciplined, hard, masculine life and camaraderie of like-minded patriotic friends who share their desire to contribute to a better world. Soldiers and terrorists alike hope they won’t have to kill or be killed, and certainly not maimed, tortured or imprisoned, but yearn instead to do some good, to see the world, make a living, and maybe get in on some of the action they’ve seen in the movies.

 

Soldiers and terrorists often join up because they haven’t found alternative work they feel as passionate about. Both soldiers and terrorists often feel angry about the way the world is, and about their own lives, too. They feel their backs are against the wall, it’s someone else’s fault, and blood must be shed to right the wrongs.

 

Both soldiers and terrorists are fiercely loyal to armed forces of sorts, especially to their esteemed leaders and fellow-travelers. Soldiers take pride in being part of thrilling national armies; terrorists take equal pride in being part of glorious insurgencies against tyrannies or foreign invasions. Soldiers everywhere fight for governments they look up to and trust. Terrorists fight against governments they consider oppressive, illegitimate, unfair or unrepresentative. Both soldiers and terrorists, however, believe that what they’ve learned from their culture is true; both also believe they are right.

 

Statesmen put their faith in negotiation, believing that even infinite diplomacy is ultimately more effective, humane, lasting, ethical—and less costly, in every sense—than recurrent, endless escalations of violence which create new problems for future generations while leaving old ones unresolved. Seasoned diplomats resign themselves to accepting that a certain amount of horrific injustice will unavoidably be inflicted upon even the just. Nevertheless, they resist threatening more violence, or using past injustices to argue for adding to the total sum of injustice.

 

Soldiers and terrorists, on the other hand, trust that somehow their violent acts will alleviate conflicts, solve problems, and create lasting peace. Soldiers and terrorists alike count on charismatic political leaders who often possess dubious legitimacy and logic, unreliable integrity, small abilities and selfish hidden agendas. Soldiers and terrorists nevertheless count on such fallible leaders to negotiate for them, and to tell them when their approaches to political change (peaceful protest, diplomacy, cooperative organizing, and other tedious and deliberate efforts within “the system”) seem not to be “working.” Both soldiers and terrorists believe their decisions to use violence are moral, since they’re following orders from a higher, more knowledgeable authority.

 

Many youthful idealists sign up for soldiering and terrorizing because they find action more comfortable than talk. Compared with diplomats and statesmen who’ve spent lifetimes acquiring subtle understandings of regional issues, history, culture, conflicts old and new, trade, treaties, protocol, language, negotiation and communication, soldiers and terrorists (and politicians) often have short fuses, and limited, black-or-white/right-or-wrong views on political realities and options.

 

One reason so many young men (and women) are enlisted to die in terrorist violence and war is that those with more life experience are less likely to jump in to violence as wholeheartedly and innocently as the more easily-persuaded young.

 

Soldiers and terrorists alike, in a sad, special sense, are defeatists; they’ve chosen their careers because they are philosophically prepared to turn to violence at a moment’s notice, whenever politics-as-usual is declared to be insufficient to insure their group’s safety or to protect or promote their interests. Although both soldiers and terrorists are often religious, they both reject, as unrealistic, too-difficult and “vague,” the universal teachings of religious faiths everywhere: treat others as you would wish to be treated, love thy neighbor as thyself, be meek and mild, thou shalt not kill, blessed are the peacemakers, be as gentle as doves, forgive seventy times seven, turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do to you….

 

When urgently exhorted to war or to terrorist action by demagogues and impatient, opportunistic leaders, inexperienced soldiers and terrorists often turn too quickly toward alpha-male, testosterone-based, kill-or-be-killed, survival-of-the-fittest solutions. They and their less-experienced leaders find protracted negotiating an effeminate sign of weakness, a waste of time, preferring instead to rely upon immediate, power-based solutions such as lethal weaponry and overwhelming force.

 

When soldiers and terrorists see trouble coming, they are trained to shoot, not talk, to prevail and overpower, to shock and awe, never give a inch, and never show weakness. They look for advantage, not fairness; dominance, not equality. They see enemies, not future allies, and react to fear by inducing more fear in their foes.

 

Of course, both soldiers and terrorists alike invariably fervently believe that they are the good guys, “our” guys in the white hats—valiant saviours, protectors—while the evil ones opposing them are the bad guys in the black hats, the “enemy”—blood-thirsty, soulless, unfeeling, vicious, ignorant, faithless, cowardly, stupid, inhuman.

 

Sadly, both soldiers and terrorists believe in and contribute to the widely-accepted cultural notion that their violent roles are necessary and useful ones that will make an overall positive difference, at least for their side. Both soldiers and terrorists justify the chaos they leave behind them—the blighted lives, shattered dreams and pointless, gruesome deaths of civilians and combatants on both sides, the wanton killing of innocents from accidents, starvation, disease, economic disruption, and conventional and nuclear bombs—by blaming the stupidity, intransigence, and cruelty of their enemies, or by chalking up their own abhorrent results to “necessary collateral damage”—morally virtuous, because essential to a worthy cause.

 

Both soldiers and terrorists believe that violence saved “us” in the past and will save “us” again in the future—forgetting that only living victors get to write the history books, and that alternative non-violent solutions have never been given anything like a fair trial, have never received anything like equivalent consideration and financial and leadership support.

 

Both soldiers and terrorists choose any time, place or method necessary to defeat their enemies and win their wars, maximizing strategic, economic and political advantages, and minimizing losses. Both soldiers and terrorists believe that any means, however cruel and unfair, are justified by their own often changing noble ends and causes.

 

Older, battle-weary soldiers and terrorists gradually lose their faith in violent solutions, bitterly shutting down their sad memories. A few hold onto their past convictions even more strongly, angrily defending them. Many keep right on walking the lonely paths they’ve carved out. A gutsy few manage the difficult shift to exploring new kinds of civilian or military contributions.

 

Ninety percent of the victims of both terrorism and war are civilians….

 

It is difficult indeed to change the way one has traditionally seen soldiers and terrorists, to reverse millennia of cultural conditioning, to come around instead to recognizing that both soldiers and terrorists began as well-meaning, misguided victims themselves, brainwashed into analogous goals, methods and results which both later find repugnant, impossible to live with and to explain.

 

Every mother’s son, every child’s father, every lover’s darling, every beloved brother and friend, whether soldier or terrorist, was born to be a giving, kind, tender and beautiful good soul, the person we love and know them to be.

 

The only difference between our soldiers and their terrorists (and soldiers) is that the ones we love use violence for our side, to defend and further our interests, while the ones we hate use violence to fight for their side. Without a doubt, both ours and theirs, soldiers and terrorists alike, resort to unspeakably appalling violent solutions to achieve political, social and economic goals.

 

My gentle father would, I think, have been proud to honor the selfless sacrifices of all our courageous and well-intentioned dead and maimed, past and present … all our brave revolutionary sons and daughters … all our uprising slaves and civil war champions on both sides … in fact, all courageous soldiers and veterans and impassioned idealists everywhere, from every time and place … and all their victims, with this request:

 

May we reconsider whether we wish to repeat the violent mistakes of the past. May we recognize that there are as many ways to live in this world as there are people who live in it. May we accept that people everywhere want the same thing—to live out their lives in peace. May we all work non-violently to understand and serve the priorities of others everywhere who are different from us. May we learn the thousand and one non-violent ways to resolve conflicts….

 

Life on earth is at stake.

 

I think my father would have been proud to see today’s soldiers and terrorists put down their weapons and become non-violent warriors fighting this century’s magnificent battles by protecting people everywhere from the ravages of disease, injustice, hopelessness, hunger, greed, environmental degradation, natural disasters, ignorance, addiction, prejudice, nuclear proliferation, crime, poverty, war, terrorism, and yes, violence itself. I think my father would have saluted their expanded allegiance and heartfelt pledge, to protect, respect, and support, with their lives, and not only their deaths, human life everywhere.

 

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net .

Please feel free to reprint this essay in its entirety. Copyright reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

We Need Not Add to the Sum of Human Injustice

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Post reports that soon after 9/11, President Bush established secret CIA prisons in foreign countries, and authorized agents there to rescind the human rights of captured suspected terrorists, and to subject them to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. I remember when many Americans thought Soviet-style KGB undercover skullduggery and thuggery sufficient proof that the Russians were “the bad guys….”

 

The 21st century is a risky time for everyone; however, not all nations are targets of international terrorism. The safest countries today aren’t those brandishing the biggest sticks, but rather those courageously upholding impeccable international reputations for humility, fairness and diplomacy.

 

Secret government agencies can turn on their own citizenry; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We wouldn’t need a judiciary if it were always obvious who the bad guys are. Courts are instituted to protect presumed innocents—even suspected terrorists caught in the act, even our own “strange” citizens who may seem guilty—until their guilt is proven by a court of law. If any individual is excepted from due process, if any person can be held above or below the law, then we have no rule of law.

 

We can’t prevent more 9/11’s, save our soldiers, or keep our grandchildren safe, as long as we keep adding to the number of our envious, frightened, angry enemies. It is up to American citizens to risk peace, not war; to risk caring, not fear; to risk generosity, not hate. We can elect proven statesmen to lead our country, and together offer to citizens of all nations the high moral ground of a sound spiritual and ethical example.

 

Our most powerful “weapon” is our national reputation. As long as the U.S. is seen as a rich, selfish country careless of human welfare and disrespectful of international opinion, no stirring words, no proud history, and certainly no amount of spending on intelligence and defense can protect us from our multiplying enemies.

 

Along with the rest of our fellow-earthlings, Americans risk suffering terrible injustices during this best and worst of all possible centuries. However, we need never choose to add to the sum of human injustice.

 

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ballad of Harrie and Bushie

Posted on by
Reply

The Ballad of Harrie and Bushie

(Various verses, based on Frankie and Johnny, gleaned from the ‘net…. ) 

 

 

Bushie and Harrie were pardners

Oh lordy, how they cleared brush

They swore to be true to each other

Then Bushie gave her the brush

He was her man

But he done her wrong

 

Harrie’s a nice southern lady

Bright as a shiny new dime

Always did good in her law school

Harrie she worked overtime

She's a big-hearted gal

She couldn’t do no wrong

 

Bushie said Harrie’s my pit bull

Good dog in big size six shoes

Harrie did all Bushie asked her

Now she’s left singin’ the blues

Bushie was her man

But he done her wrong

 

Bushie told Harrie he picked her

Now Harrie, she wanted it bad

All of her life she’d been lonely

All of her nights had been sad

Harrie knew her man

He wouldn’t do her no wrong

 

Well Harrie, she knew her business

Worked all her life to make good

But Limbaugh and Kristol they nixed it

They wanted their boys from the hood

They didn’t want Bushie’s gal

They said he got it all wrong

 

Now Bushie he looked at Roe v. Wade

Then o’er on his back Bushie rolled

He put his right hand on the Bible

Swore now he would do what he’s told

Oh, he’s a new man

And he's doing her wrong

 

Bushie told Harrie, I’m leavin’

I’ve stood by your side for too long

Don’t you wait up for me, honey

‘Cuz early next mornin’ I’m gone

I know I was your man

But now I’m doin’ you wrong

 

Poor Harrie she took care of Bushie

Worked nights ‘til quarter to three

Now Harrie's alone in her office

Playin’ Nearer My God to Thee.

He was her man

But he done her wrong

 

I couldn’t tell you no story

I wouldn’t tell you no lie

Ol’ Georgy Porgy ain’t studyin’ no justice

He just wants his puddin’ and pie

He's done kissed that girl

And now he’s makin her cry

 

Now women, this is my story

This is the point of my song

That mean sorry Bushie’s a cold-hearted man

To do his poor pardner so wrong

Yeah, he done that gal wrong

Will he do us all wrong?

 

 

(I agree with President Bush that Harriet Miers has had a distinguished legal career against high odds, and is an admirable, caring woman whose experience and character would have uniquely and valuably contributed to the court and the nation. She should have had a chance to present her case to the nation during the hearings. If President Bush believed that the nomination was his prerogative, and if he felt Miers was right for the court, he owed it to all of us and to her to stand by his convictions, and to stand by his friend….

 

Let me know if you hear of any other good stanzas? epharmon@adelphia.net

 

 

 

 

Of Mice-Like Men: Libby and Cheney

Posted on by
Reply

My country—the richest, most powerful country in the history of this planet, is currently in the hands of men who conceive of life, power, and politics in the meanest, smallest, most fearful, vengeful way imaginable.

 

Consider this quote in yesterday’s Washington Post (Sunday, October 23rd), from an article about I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Dick Cheney:

 

“Libby greatly admires the work of Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian who posits that warfare is an inevitable part of civilization, evil is a basic condition of humanity, and tyrants must be confronted by the harshest possible means. (In late 2002, a few months before the Iraq invasion, Cheney—also a Hanson devotee—invited the historian to the vice president’s mansion for a small dinner gathering that included Libby.)…Hanson’s stark perspective comports with Libby’s view on Iraq. He was among the administration’s fiercest proponents of the invasion, and his office prepared a 48-page document of intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs for Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations in February 2003. (Powell couldn’t confirm a lot of the data and wound up not using much of it.)”

 

Humanity's greatest courageous and visionary leaders have historically appealed to and built upon the best that humanity is capable of, instead of looking for or reacting to the worst. How did our great country get put in charge of tiny, scared, quaking little mice?

 

I’m sure Libby and Cheney love their country, mean well, and work hard from within their narrow, frightened versions of how the world works, but they are benighted, misinformed, misguided, and do not boldly make policy or decisions based on the highest ideals and values that hold us all together and make our fragile planet go 'round.

 

We all must suffer some injustice, but we don't have to add to its sum. We can risk peace, not war.

 

I can only hope our most democratic processes soon remove from positions of influence forever, Libby, Cheney and other leaders who govern as they do.

 

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

Thanks, Eppy Harmon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do You Know This Man?

Posted on by
Reply

Click on my latest posting, a quiz/drawing/political cartoon called “Soldier,” on the left side of this blog…. So what do you think?

epharmon@adelphia.net

Thanks, eppy

 

 

 

Lead Me On, Oh Great Commander in Chief. But Whither?

Posted on by
Reply

My favorite new show, Commander in Chief, shows promise for extending West Wing’s visionary qualities, and then some. Too bad Commander also bodes equivalent stumbles along the same dark lines of its predecessor—too much emphasis upon the quick use of military force to resolve diplomatic crises.

 

Military force doesn’t solve problems, it creates them. Will Geena Davis, aka President Mackenzie, learn this while in office? Will Commander showcase the long list of options any nation has to throw at problems, other than the show and/or use of force? Will Commander de-emphasize testosterone-filled approaches, and demonstrate instead the range of strengths any leader, male or female, can find in more “feminine” approaches? The show's producers will be glad to know that I'm awaiting their answers in great suspense….

 

And what if Geena does experience a direct provocation by another government? Why not try really clever media coverage…. What if the American public insists on revenge and retaliation? Try education, forbearance, charity…. What if Americans die? Try rituals of national mourning for fallen martyrs, or any one of the other thousand approaches to diplomacy…. What if there’s a terrorist attack by a known force? Try investigations, and high-level meetings….

 

And keep on trying. Peace and democracy aren’t missions that can be accomplished. They’re missions that never end. You can’t end a war against an abstract noun. Besides, there will always be one more bomb-throwing terrorist to provide an excuse for one more retaliation. I hope Geena teaches us that sometimes you just have to endure a certain amount of injustice—but you almost never have to add to it.

 

What if a woman who is convicted of adultery is about to be buried to her neck in the sand and then stoned to death? Geena could have focused overwhelming international attention on that country’s leaders, and then shipped in thousands of well-paid, white-clad, unarmed international forces of young innocent collegiate pacifists, silent disapproving witnesses to evil deeds, all willing to die for their ideals—just as our current youthful military volunteers are willing to die for theirs.

 

What a moral message this would send! What culture could continue to kill unarmed, disapproving children while an international press looked on? Maybe the poor adulterer would die, but maybe no other adulterers would, the next time. Geena's point would be made, her lesson taught, her stance clarified, her insistence noted. Conversations would be started. Maybe minds would even be changed.

 

We don’t have to do away with our military forces. We can still use them to defend our country from those who would invade our shores or climb with their guns through our windows (I haven’t seen much of this lately, but it could happen…) We can still call up our national guard for times of natural catastrophes.

 

A new, improved Commander in Chief would have a few long-simmering unsolvable conflicts aggravatingly popping up throughout the show’s lifespan. We could watch these conflicts wend their ponderous and circuitous diplomatic ways through the series, in alarming fits and infuriating starts, week after week, year upon year—and each time, see Geena turn down the easy options of violence. We could grow to love the wisdom and expertise of her trusted diplomats, who have already spent half their lives preparing to tackle just such thorny problems, and who will spend the rest of their lives patiently addressing them, instead of mucking them up with ever more violence, leading, of course, to ever more hatred… and violence…and more hatred…and more violence.

 

I don’t want to see any more episodes in which Geena impresses me with fast, decisive, tough and completely hokey short-sighted violent “solutions” which only postpone and ultimately exacerbate the original problems (remember Iraq?) I want to see her impress me with her wisdom, vision, and forbearance. I want to see deliberate, consensus-building, thoughtful international answers bearing the weight of the whole world behind them.

 

I’d like to see well-written episodes dealing with moments of national hysteria over provocations, complete with their inexorable drumbeats in favor of retaliation, revenge and war, and then I want to see Geena demonstrate some of the myriad, no, infinite alternatives to loutish thuggery. Isn’t that what leadership is? Or is it really all about one's readiness to whip out one's six-guns and shoot ‘em up? I don’t think so. C’mon, TV producers, make my day….

 

I’d like to see Geena diplomatically rebuild a couple of really shaky international relationships, offer aid to one of our so-called enemies in their moment of need, implement fair trade rules for globalization…. I want to see her lead, and become even more visionary than she already is.

 

Some day, when Congress gets around to legislating a cabinet-level Department of Peace (H.R 3760 and S. 1756), I look forward to seeing the show belatedly renamed “Commander in Peace.”

 

Some day perhaps we’ll see Geena back again, a full-lipped, swivel-hipped Indian-style crone, still leading her tribe patiently and diplomatically past each new day's conflict toward the greater safety, prosperity and contentment that await us all on the other side.

 

 

 

A History of Violence Offers Hope For A Less-Violent Future

Posted on by
Reply

A History of Violence is a very good movie. Yes, the violence is graphic and hard to take, but that’s a positive thing in a movie intent on provoking thought and dialogue on the subject of violence. So, for you many testosterites (both male and female) who depend for your jollies upon superhuman heroes gloriously avenging the depraved acts of craven evildoers—and if you also happen to be married to a Quaker spouse—this is the family movie for you. If you gotta have gore, at least this gore isn’t simplistic; it’s powerful, purposeful, effective gore.

 

I was gripped and thoroughly entertained by A History of Violence. The production displayed a beautiful Casablancan integrity–nothing superfluous, nothing left out.

 

The movie’s many surprising moments of really funny dark humor were a nice added kick. At its blackest, life is ridiculously insane, and laughter covers the sad eyes of clowns; it's never either/or. Shakespeare knew this. So, this sad, funny, violent movie makes perfect sense as it moves along inexorably, belly laughs preceding abject tragedy setting up comic tittering introducing disaster….

 

History is also authentically moving, a tricky thing to do considering the thin fine line between effective emoting and hokey schmaltz. It’s a rare treat to have my jaded heartstrings expertly twanged by a good script in the hands of an inspired director leading brilliant actors.

 

History’s clarion response to the long-standing ethical question: When is violence morally justified? Only when you or someone you personally love is directly, persistently and seriously threatened. History’s imperfect characters conscientiously persevere in minding their own business, and endure the injustice of repeated outrageous attempts to provoke them to retaliatory violence–without adding to it–demonstrating the multitude of non-violent options available to unwilling participants.

 

I also appreciated the movie’s generous advocacy for second chances, and third ones, and however many it takes. In this movie, people who make big mistakes (no matter how big) receive support, not punishment–at least so long as they convincingly demonstrate conscientious intentions and results over time. History’s message–that sometimes motivated people can and do change—isn’t heavy-handedly religious; Tom admits that even after three long years in the desert, he wasn’t really born again until he met his wife. We all need both God and man to lift us up over our barriers to caring.

 

The very explicit but lively and original sex scenes were touching and memorable, and essential to the movie’s theme, since affection, loyalty, intimacy, and sexuality are often all that hold humanity to sanity and purpose.

I enjoyed watching Tom, like Lady Macbeth, futilely attempt to scrub the blood from his hands, and then receive the grace to be washed clean, rebaptised—forgiven–probably for the seventy-times-seventh time.

 

I wish the writers had clearly disavowed any hint that a schizophrenic split-personality-thing might be going on. For a confused moment I thought the story was bending that way, which would have disappointed me. I was relieved when it turned out to be about one man’s honest efforts at transformation.

 

Tom’s brief but telling dialogue with his brother offered a perfectly adequate argument for his stunning attempt to climb up from the horrendous dark pit of his childhood environment.

 

The movie offered several intriguing mini-plots—one for each character—most of them feel-good stories anyone could relate to. When Tom’s son finally got around to soundly beating up the kids who had continually attacked him, our theatre audience cheered. And when our thoroughly besmirched and discredited, yet undeniably righteous champion returned home, his family’s acceptance felt honest and right.

 

So why is it that we Americans still feel comfortable flinging our invading armies into the far corners of our empire, to threaten the persons and homes and families and livelihoods of complete strangers who are quietly trying to get ahead, in the lands of their ancestors? Where do we get off invading other countries, tearing up their infrastructure, disrupting their social fabric, blowing up their children? A History of Violence should make perfectly clear that people (of all creeds) who are doing their best to care for their families deserve to be left alone.

 

If my gentle reader still holds a belief that our superior culture justifies empire-building, I suggest you go back to your Bible, perhaps starting with the part about the kindly Jewish itinerant rabbi, Jesus, delivering his Beatitudes and his Sermon on the Mount. As A History of Violence demonstrates: fighting for peace on this incredibly small, interconnected and fragile planet–unless the bad guys are really climbing in your window—makes about as much sense in the real world as it does in the movies.