Mom is flying to San Diego this morning. Life in many ways is "back to normal." It just proves how we can mentally adjust ourselves to almost anything. We in Kansas City are not personally affected like people in New York or in Kabul. Those of us not in the reserves don't even think about being called to active duty. Even those who fly just have to pack differently and arrive for check-in an hour earlier.
Will this whole episode even be a "learning experience" for most of us? I am afraid that the potential lessons of being attacked by extremists who hate our "system" and/or our values and/or our behavior will be lost in the shuffle. Our main attention is on self-defense, closely followed by apprehending the culprits and accomplices, and finally by simple revenge.
Understanding what could drive people to hate us so much is barely attempted.
Tomorrow, October 12, will be the first Friday prayers for Muslims since we launched our military response against Afghanistan. There is much concern that Pakistani Muslims, sympathetic to the Taliban and to Osama Ben Laden, will institute violent protests in Pakistan against the recent positioning of US troops in their country. We can't just write these protestors off as "extremists" or as "demented." We should try to understand their sentiments and examine our motives.
If we just operate out of self-defense with a narrow definition, we will resort to the old tried-and-true method of proving to the "world" that might makes right. We have the most might, and what we say is right.
A broader definition of self-defense would include changing our behavior and our policies that provoke violent reactions from other people in the world. If we don't take these additional steps, we will undoubtedly face a resurgence of anti-US violence in the future.
Thursday, October 11, 2001
Monday, October 8, 2001
The Day After our Bombing of Afghanistan
We should have known it would happen sooner or later, but news came as a shock after church on Sunday. Bombing started at 11:30 AM Kansas City time, just while we were celebrating World Wide Communion Sunday. What can I say?
Instant polls show that 90% of Americans approve of the bombing. I am in the bottom (or top?) 10%. Osama Ben Laden calls us "infidels," supposedly because we are not Muslim. But as Christians can we say that we are really respecting the Sabbath to choose this day to drop our bombs? Maybe it had more to do with our capitalism than our Christianity, to choose Sunday rather than Monday to disrupt American life with hours of news broadcasts and press conferences and commentaries. Today we can get back to work to keep the economy humming.
Already we are being prepared (propagandized) that if there is a terrorist action, it won't really be in response to our attack: it must have already been in the works, planned weeks and months, even years, ago. As if that will make us feel more secure!
News photos of Sunday's football games show spectators holding "revenge" signs. How much can that sentiment go to explain our decision to bomb? There is a very prevalent attitude in American culture that is unchristian, that believes in the principle of an eye-for-an-eye, that ignores Christ's teachings to "Love thy neighbor" and "Love thine enemies." The fact that we have abandoned almost entirely one of the Ten Commandments to rest on the Sabbath seems so much more trivial than this.
Are we then Infidels? Is it really our punishment to feel insecurity? Are the terrorists merely delivering God's message to us?
Instant polls show that 90% of Americans approve of the bombing. I am in the bottom (or top?) 10%. Osama Ben Laden calls us "infidels," supposedly because we are not Muslim. But as Christians can we say that we are really respecting the Sabbath to choose this day to drop our bombs? Maybe it had more to do with our capitalism than our Christianity, to choose Sunday rather than Monday to disrupt American life with hours of news broadcasts and press conferences and commentaries. Today we can get back to work to keep the economy humming.
Already we are being prepared (propagandized) that if there is a terrorist action, it won't really be in response to our attack: it must have already been in the works, planned weeks and months, even years, ago. As if that will make us feel more secure!
News photos of Sunday's football games show spectators holding "revenge" signs. How much can that sentiment go to explain our decision to bomb? There is a very prevalent attitude in American culture that is unchristian, that believes in the principle of an eye-for-an-eye, that ignores Christ's teachings to "Love thy neighbor" and "Love thine enemies." The fact that we have abandoned almost entirely one of the Ten Commandments to rest on the Sabbath seems so much more trivial than this.
Are we then Infidels? Is it really our punishment to feel insecurity? Are the terrorists merely delivering God's message to us?
Monday, September 24, 2001
Thirteen Days Out
Flags are back to full staff. Troops are being moved closer to Afghanistan. Options are being discussed.
My mind is going back to December, 1941, after Pearl Harbor. What was life like then, in Kansas City? By November, 1943, I was born, and I received letters from my parents' friends and relatives around the country. My birth was announced in our church bulletin, along with this notice, "Lest we Forget . . ." which listed two servicemen from our congregation and their addresses. It had become a routine item by then, to encourage cards and letters from church members.
Will our lives become routine again like this again someday? The difference is that Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack on the contiguous 48 states. It was by a known enemy, and even though we may have overreacted by rounding up all residents in the U.S. with Japanese ancestry, we came to feel safe in our own borders, at least in Kansas City, far from any coast.
Will we ever feel safe again? How many days or weeks or months or years will it take for us to be "terror free" before we feel safe enough?
When we deal with more familiar threats - threats of tornadoes, or threats of getting cancer, or threats of being burglarized when we are away from home, or threats of having an automobile accident - we take reasonable precautions that do not really inconvenience our lives and then take our chances. Some of our relatives have died in automobile wreaks, or even playing high school football, or from industrial accidents. Many have died from cancer or heart disease.
Fewer have died in bad storms or from an act of crime.
We live in a state of "constructive denial" just so we can cope with the here and now and not get immobilized by limitless hypothetical threats out there.
Still, right now, not quite two weeks after that tragic day, we are still semi-immobilized. Long range projects are put on hold. All our commitments are "conditional" even if we don't say so out loud.
If even one more terrorist event occurs before Halloween, or before Thanksgiving, or before Christmas, what will happen to our ability to function? It seems so scary that just a few fanatics, showing just a small degree of coordination, could bring such a huge nation to its knees. Even if our army were twice as large, or our nuclear stockpile were ten times as big, we are vulnerable from this kind of disruption.
Where is the fault in this? Would our pioneer forebears have been so vulnerable to the Indians? Would our Minutemen have been so vulnerable to the Red Coats? Or for that matter, would present day Haiti be as vulnerable as the U.S. Our vulnerability may be the result of our advanced "development" wherein we are so interconnected, so dependent on maximum productivity and full capacity of our transportation systems and our communication systems, etc. We are potential victims of our own complexity, our choice to adopt "just in time delivery" on almost every necessity of life.
1941 was a simpler time, more hands-on. My birth in 1943 was announced to my out-of-town relatives by telegram, sent by my father, paid in cash. Their letters of congratulation were sent by airmail. The church bulletin that announced my birth was printed by mimeograph, and the stencil for the mimeograph was cut on a manual typewriter. Letterpress was used to print the front of church bulletins, and the photo of the church was reproduced with an 85-line screen.
What can we give up that will give us more security? Can we give up imported oil? Can we even discuss it? Why should we have to settle for telegrams and manual typewriters, even handwritten letters, and pay extra for airmail?
Our cold war with Russia for so many years seems so comfortable now, in retrospect. We could just have a nice arms race and as long as we were richer, we were sure to win in the end. As long as we could avoid a nuclear war.
Now, we aren't sure that increasing our FBI and our CIA and our INS and our Special Forces and our Rangers and our Seals tenfold or hundredfold will do the job. Maybe it is really a lot simpler: we just allow us all to have concealed weapons, on the ground or in the air. The terrorists won't know who is armed and who isn't! Let's go back to the days of the Wild West, to Wyatt Earp and Gunsmoke. No problem.
My mind is going back to December, 1941, after Pearl Harbor. What was life like then, in Kansas City? By November, 1943, I was born, and I received letters from my parents' friends and relatives around the country. My birth was announced in our church bulletin, along with this notice, "Lest we Forget . . ." which listed two servicemen from our congregation and their addresses. It had become a routine item by then, to encourage cards and letters from church members.
Will our lives become routine again like this again someday? The difference is that Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack on the contiguous 48 states. It was by a known enemy, and even though we may have overreacted by rounding up all residents in the U.S. with Japanese ancestry, we came to feel safe in our own borders, at least in Kansas City, far from any coast.
Will we ever feel safe again? How many days or weeks or months or years will it take for us to be "terror free" before we feel safe enough?
When we deal with more familiar threats - threats of tornadoes, or threats of getting cancer, or threats of being burglarized when we are away from home, or threats of having an automobile accident - we take reasonable precautions that do not really inconvenience our lives and then take our chances. Some of our relatives have died in automobile wreaks, or even playing high school football, or from industrial accidents. Many have died from cancer or heart disease.
Fewer have died in bad storms or from an act of crime.
We live in a state of "constructive denial" just so we can cope with the here and now and not get immobilized by limitless hypothetical threats out there.
Still, right now, not quite two weeks after that tragic day, we are still semi-immobilized. Long range projects are put on hold. All our commitments are "conditional" even if we don't say so out loud.
If even one more terrorist event occurs before Halloween, or before Thanksgiving, or before Christmas, what will happen to our ability to function? It seems so scary that just a few fanatics, showing just a small degree of coordination, could bring such a huge nation to its knees. Even if our army were twice as large, or our nuclear stockpile were ten times as big, we are vulnerable from this kind of disruption.
Where is the fault in this? Would our pioneer forebears have been so vulnerable to the Indians? Would our Minutemen have been so vulnerable to the Red Coats? Or for that matter, would present day Haiti be as vulnerable as the U.S. Our vulnerability may be the result of our advanced "development" wherein we are so interconnected, so dependent on maximum productivity and full capacity of our transportation systems and our communication systems, etc. We are potential victims of our own complexity, our choice to adopt "just in time delivery" on almost every necessity of life.
1941 was a simpler time, more hands-on. My birth in 1943 was announced to my out-of-town relatives by telegram, sent by my father, paid in cash. Their letters of congratulation were sent by airmail. The church bulletin that announced my birth was printed by mimeograph, and the stencil for the mimeograph was cut on a manual typewriter. Letterpress was used to print the front of church bulletins, and the photo of the church was reproduced with an 85-line screen.
What can we give up that will give us more security? Can we give up imported oil? Can we even discuss it? Why should we have to settle for telegrams and manual typewriters, even handwritten letters, and pay extra for airmail?
Our cold war with Russia for so many years seems so comfortable now, in retrospect. We could just have a nice arms race and as long as we were richer, we were sure to win in the end. As long as we could avoid a nuclear war.
Now, we aren't sure that increasing our FBI and our CIA and our INS and our Special Forces and our Rangers and our Seals tenfold or hundredfold will do the job. Maybe it is really a lot simpler: we just allow us all to have concealed weapons, on the ground or in the air. The terrorists won't know who is armed and who isn't! Let's go back to the days of the Wild West, to Wyatt Earp and Gunsmoke. No problem.
Monday, September 17, 2001
The Next Monday
The New York Stock Exchange reopened today. Every community across the country held special prayer services and memorial services and some held interfaith dialogues with Muslims, Christians and Jews, from late last week through yesterday. The FBI is seeking broader wiretap authority. The military reserves are being called up. There is much "war" talk. Alliances are being announced. The use of ground troops, which has been taboo since Viet Nam, is seriously being discussed. There is much emphasis on defense of U.S. territory, with fighter pilots on high alert, and making routine patrols above Washington, DC, among other places.
The questions now involve how much privacy we must give up to increase our security to an acceptable level. And how much inconvenience we must expect when checking in at an airport. And how much ticket prices must increase to cover the costs of extra security. And how much the economy must suffer because of uncertainty and loss of investment and consumption. Will international trade decrease? If so, will domestic production increase?
All the talk about "evil" and the desire to eliminate it from the world seems very simplistic. I think we can understand this desire and its specific reference to terrorism and more specifically to violent acts against civilians. But what is evil to our side is good to the other side. And likewise, our acts of violence to our enemies may be seen as good to our side. "Good & evil" in the context on one country's legal system is translated into "legal and illegal." We avoid provocative labels like good and evil when we discuss income tax evasion or spouse abuse or even murder. And we believe implicitly in the rule of law to govern rules of evidence and rights of the accused and questions of procedure, etc. We provide for juries of our peers, and appeals to higher courts, etc. It would seem that when dealing with this "terrorist attack" we should avoid loaded language like "evil" and should not seek to build popular support for an attitude of "shooting first and asking questions later." We should look for courts where this case would have standing and follow the legal precedents to bring the accused to "justice."
One commentator has already made a strong case why our "prime suspect" should not be summarily executed or assassinated, but should be tried and convicted and sentenced to life in prison: we do not want him to become a martyr and to thereby give romantic justification to his followers and would be imitators.
The questions now involve how much privacy we must give up to increase our security to an acceptable level. And how much inconvenience we must expect when checking in at an airport. And how much ticket prices must increase to cover the costs of extra security. And how much the economy must suffer because of uncertainty and loss of investment and consumption. Will international trade decrease? If so, will domestic production increase?
All the talk about "evil" and the desire to eliminate it from the world seems very simplistic. I think we can understand this desire and its specific reference to terrorism and more specifically to violent acts against civilians. But what is evil to our side is good to the other side. And likewise, our acts of violence to our enemies may be seen as good to our side. "Good & evil" in the context on one country's legal system is translated into "legal and illegal." We avoid provocative labels like good and evil when we discuss income tax evasion or spouse abuse or even murder. And we believe implicitly in the rule of law to govern rules of evidence and rights of the accused and questions of procedure, etc. We provide for juries of our peers, and appeals to higher courts, etc. It would seem that when dealing with this "terrorist attack" we should avoid loaded language like "evil" and should not seek to build popular support for an attitude of "shooting first and asking questions later." We should look for courts where this case would have standing and follow the legal precedents to bring the accused to "justice."
One commentator has already made a strong case why our "prime suspect" should not be summarily executed or assassinated, but should be tried and convicted and sentenced to life in prison: we do not want him to become a martyr and to thereby give romantic justification to his followers and would be imitators.
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
The Day After
School is open. People are going to work. Church services will be held this morning, or at noon, or this evening. The commentators are filling the airways. But most of us are numb, and every once in a while we hear a heart-rending interview with a family member of someone trapped in the debris.
Don't we owe it to one another to pull our own weight and to do our individual jobs to keep things going as smoothly as possible. Those of us not in the affected cities need to work even harder, maybe, to help take up the slack. For instance, if printers in NYC are being interrupted due to commuting problems or untimely delivery of supplies, won't part of their production shift to printers in other cities? Not that we want to profiteer from their hardships, just that we need to help out.
And the economy is so depressed, even before the events of yesterday, and seemingly even more so now and for the foreseeable future. How can we work harder if there is no work to do? Aren't we obligated to "make up" work for ourselves, to help "prime the pumps" and to keep ourselves in practice. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, they say.
Don't we owe it to one another to pull our own weight and to do our individual jobs to keep things going as smoothly as possible. Those of us not in the affected cities need to work even harder, maybe, to help take up the slack. For instance, if printers in NYC are being interrupted due to commuting problems or untimely delivery of supplies, won't part of their production shift to printers in other cities? Not that we want to profiteer from their hardships, just that we need to help out.
And the economy is so depressed, even before the events of yesterday, and seemingly even more so now and for the foreseeable future. How can we work harder if there is no work to do? Aren't we obligated to "make up" work for ourselves, to help "prime the pumps" and to keep ourselves in practice. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, they say.
Tuesday, September 11, 2001
September 11, 2001 - A Tragic Day for America
The unspeakable horrors in today's news from New York and Washington and Pennsylvania have paralyzed America in so many ways, from grounding of all aircraft to businesses being closed to sports events being canceled.
Now we have to figure out what to do next. How can we go on with "business as usual"? How can we behave in front of our kids? How can we laugh or be an audience at a theater or cheer at a sports event? How can we focus our attention on the personal problems of ourselves or our friends? How can we continue working on projects we have started, or make up new projects for ourselves? How can we buy things when we can't work, can't make things or sell things ourselves?
We just want to go to sleep and wake up when the nightmare is over.
But some of us may want revenge. How can anyone oppose them? How can anyone offer forgiveness or pray for our enemies? How can we not defend ourselves? And if the best defense is a strong offense, how can we not invade someone and bomb someone?
Can the Canadians and Mexicans and Germans and British all feel smug in the safety of their countries that only America was attacked today? If the terrorists use only pinpoint accuracy in their attacks, can even we Americans who rarely fly and are not involved in world trade or the defense department and never visit New York or Washington feel safe?
It might be better if the water supply of 10 cities across the world, including at least one in the Midwest of the U.S.A. were attacked, then we could all feel like targets, and band together for our collective security. As it is, some of us can feel lucky and maybe even self-righteous that we could never be targets. We are harmless, unimportant, out-of-harms-way, and we are good people, not selfish, not violent, not powerful.
It will be hard for us to discuss this with one another. Those of us who have a "sure" plan will take over the discussion. There will be little patience for long deliberations, but much pressure for immediate "response." It makes one envious, in a twisted way, of the emergency workers in NY who do not have to think deeply, but can just put all their energy into coping with the crisis.
Now we have to figure out what to do next. How can we go on with "business as usual"? How can we behave in front of our kids? How can we laugh or be an audience at a theater or cheer at a sports event? How can we focus our attention on the personal problems of ourselves or our friends? How can we continue working on projects we have started, or make up new projects for ourselves? How can we buy things when we can't work, can't make things or sell things ourselves?
We just want to go to sleep and wake up when the nightmare is over.
But some of us may want revenge. How can anyone oppose them? How can anyone offer forgiveness or pray for our enemies? How can we not defend ourselves? And if the best defense is a strong offense, how can we not invade someone and bomb someone?
Can the Canadians and Mexicans and Germans and British all feel smug in the safety of their countries that only America was attacked today? If the terrorists use only pinpoint accuracy in their attacks, can even we Americans who rarely fly and are not involved in world trade or the defense department and never visit New York or Washington feel safe?
It might be better if the water supply of 10 cities across the world, including at least one in the Midwest of the U.S.A. were attacked, then we could all feel like targets, and band together for our collective security. As it is, some of us can feel lucky and maybe even self-righteous that we could never be targets. We are harmless, unimportant, out-of-harms-way, and we are good people, not selfish, not violent, not powerful.
It will be hard for us to discuss this with one another. Those of us who have a "sure" plan will take over the discussion. There will be little patience for long deliberations, but much pressure for immediate "response." It makes one envious, in a twisted way, of the emergency workers in NY who do not have to think deeply, but can just put all their energy into coping with the crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)