Various and Sundry, 11/13

It's been a super-busy week and I didn't get to blog as I would have liked. But other people did, and here is some of it.

I still haven't dared to watch The Walking Dead, but that doesn't stop me from admiring the winner of the 2010 Zombie Safe House Competition. I'm glad the architects are on board and thinking about these things. Lorin, I'm looking forward to your 2011 entry.

Speaking of the actual dead, there were a number of obituaries I particularly liked this week.

First up: Charles Reynolds, a magician's magician. He helped create the tricks used by the famous illusionists. “Like most boys, he was interested in magic,” his wife said. “But most of them grow out of it. He never did.”

I've got to tip my hat to Jule Sugarman, the bureaucrat who made Head Start a success. At Obit Mag, as he observes the focus on this bureaucratic success, "Grim Reader can’t help wondering whether the Obitosphere’s focus on the wonders of fast-moving institution-building wouldn’t have been different if the current ambitious Democratic president weren’t facing a Congress out to undo his still very much unbuilt signature program."

I LOVED Julia Clements, the high priestess of flower arranging who died at the age of 104. "The author Beverley Nichols once described her as 'the head of a vast salvation army in which souls are saved through the medium of flowers'." The story of how and why she started got me all teary. Pass this one on to your Altar Guild!

I was intrigued by the obituary for Peter Hilton who was a codebreaker at Bletchley Park during WWII.

During his time at Bletchley Park, Hilton was given every fourth week off to hone his cryptanalytical skills; by way of a change of mental gear, he helped Turing solve chess problems, puffed on his pipe, and once spent a sleepless night composing one of the world's longest palindromes: DOC, NOTE: I DISSENT. A FAST NEVER PREVENTS A FATNESS. I DIET ON COD.

Finally, obit-wise, I LOVED this one as much for the headline as anything: Howard Van Hyning, Percussionist and Gong Enthusiast, Dies at 74. The story of the gongs in question is quite touching, actually.

One of the things I did this week was try to reduce my wireless phone bill. I found a very easy way to reduce my 3G coverage costs, thanks to this article. If you have 3G on AT&T I highly recommend you check this out.

Finally (although there's more I could share), I recommend this blog entry about offering our prayers for those who have died in combat. Simply lovely.

Have a wonderful weekend.

This week on the Colbert Report

I hope you got to see this week's episodes of the Colbert Report, broadcast from Iraq. I downloaded the episodes since there's no cable here, and every day found myself saying, "Bless his heart." Colbert did a lovely job of supporting the troops, and not in a sentimental way. He allowed his hair to be shaved off, for one. He talked to enlisted men and women as well as generals. He promoted the USO's care package program, encouraging viewers to participate. And he ended the broadcast by saying...well, here it is.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Operation Iraqi Stephen - Sign Off - Honey, I'm Coming Home
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Stephen Colbert in Iraq

You can find all the episodes here.

Memorial Day

I'm not so happy this Memorial Day, seeing as we're still fighting in two wars and all.

I went to the iCasualties website yesterday, hadn't been for a while, to find that 4,300 U.S. and coalition forces have died in Iraq, and God knows how many other Iraqis.

Meanwhile, as we step up our military action in Afghanistan, over 1100 people have died there.

Afghanistan leaves me ambivalent. Iraq I feel is an out-and-out farce. Those people should not have died, and it enrages me.

This morning, I learned about an amazing project called Map the Fallen. It uses Google Earth to mark and remember each of the some 5,000 people who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The creator of the program writes,

I have created a map for Google Earth that will connect you with each of their stories—you can see photos, learn about how they died, visit memorial websites with comments from friends and families, and explore the places they called home and where they died.

It's an impressive thing. I downloaded it this morning and used it to find people who were from places where I've lived.

I'd like to wish you a happy Memorial Day, but today, I just can't.

Weary of all trumpeting, wearing of all killing,
weary of all songs that sing promise non-fulfilling,
we would raise, O Christ, one song; we would join in singing
that great music pure and strong, wherewith heaven is ringing.

Vague thoughts on vengeance

Last week in one of my NY Times obituary updates that I receive in my daily email, I noted the following brief item:

Names of the Dead
The Department of Defense has identified 4,231 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American this week:

FERNANDEZ, Darrell L., 25, Specialist, Army; Truth or Consequences, N.M.; Fourth Infantry Division.

It made me wonder how many people had been killed in the original 9/11 attacks. Answers vary slightly, but the total number, including firefighters and foreign nationals working at the WTC, but minus the highjackers, is around 2,976 or 2,977. Something like that. So that whole avenging American lives lost? That worked well, then. And that doesn't include the 647 US casualties in Afghanistan or any other coalition forces (317 in Iraq, 422 in Afghanistan--all figures from icasualties.org), nor the servicemen and women who committed suicide after they returned home. "Truth or Consequences" indeed.

I'm sure the argument is that the sacrifice these troops are making is to keep more Americans safe in the long run. I just don't buy it. If you look at the numbers, they don't add up.

In other news this weekend, the Diocese of Fort Worth held a special convention to elect a provisional bishop since their former bishop, Jack Iker, has decamped for South America (in spirit if not in reality). It's been extremely traumatic for them, as you can imagine. I was very touched by a report from a blogger who attended and described the effect of the arrival of the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schorri.

As the procession entered the church, a woman turned and saw Katharine and burst into tears. Katharine stopped, put her hands on her shoulders and said, ‘Everything’s going to be all right.”

The Presiding Bishop's sermon was on dealing with rage. Among other things, she said that "Anger and rage and violence and retribution will not heal the hurt. The only thing that will is love." Which is rather standard, I know, but I also think it's true. And it makes me wonder how much we are still wounded from 9/11 because we reacted in violence and retribution. And how we can work on moving forward with love.

More on Just War Theory

My friend Elisabeth and I have been having a vigorous debate about Just War theory since I posted on it...was it just yesterday? At any rate, on this, the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki (a highly non-proportional response), it seems like a good time to say a bit more about it, in what I realize is a very simplified form.

To give a rough overview (thank you, Wikipedia!), the basic principles of classic Just War theory, in terms of going to war (or, if you want to get all fancy and latin, jus ad bellum), are

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

One of the things I've been thinking about is that I'm not sure I would want to live under a completely pacifist government, a la the Quakers, the wonderful Society of Friends whom I admire so much, who, in the strictest construction, won't fight back even when attacked. I do want a government that would be willing to come to my defense as a private citizen. With that in mind, I have to say I think it is a burden laid upon leadership to defend its citizenry in a thoughtful and just way.

It seems to me that the importance in just war theory is not in proving "why we are right to go to war." Instead it is because in a fallen world, wars do happen and it is important for people of faith to be at the table in some meaningful way, other than saying, "Wars are bad."

The other thing is that Just War theory is actually a theory of interpersonal conflict writ large. One of the reasons I think it would be helpful for us to understand Just War theory is so we can apply it, say, in the case nasty office politics or, you know, church politics. Change "going to war" (or "force")to "confrontation" or "taking legal action" in the jus ad bellum above and see what happens.

In that vein, I remember once running across a parody of Just War theory called the Just Adultery theory. It was supposed to make me see how the Just War theory is merely a pretext for going to war. Unfortunately, even while trying to make it sound bad, the Just Adultery theory makes a reasonable point (i.e. 1. Last Resort. Every other means of getting along must be tried: discussion, advice of a third party, reconciliation of differences, expressions of affection, anything short of adultery.) Given that Jesus says in the gospel of Mark that "A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his wife. In the same way, a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man commits adultery," the Just Adultery theory seems to have very practical applications.

Now, I know I'm being the devil's advocate, here, but believe me, I'm not saying that we should be in Iraq. I don't think we met any of the criteria from jus ad bellum to go to war. Not one. For that very reason, I think people of faith are better prepared to meet the argument of those who claim to be fighting a just war if we know what terms are being used or abused. "War is bad" will cut no mustard.

Vague thoughts on war

Here I am, teacup at my side, thinking numerous vague and unformed thoughts despite the late hour of the morning.

Friday morning is often one when I indulge and get a hard copy of the SF Chronicle so that I can linger over the movie reviews and see Bad Reporter in all its full-color glory. Getting the actual paper means I get a much better overview of the news; I never look very deeply when I'm glancing over headlines on the computer screen. So I miss things like stories about the woman complaining that her son's Fisher Price walkie-talkie picked up lewd CB discussions between truckers. Important stuff like that.

But I'm also still thinking about an article I saw online yesterday, in print today, about U.S. deaths surging in Afghanistan. As both my former parish and my current parish pray by name for those killed in Iraq, I'm now thinking about those in Afghanistan and how to remember them. I also find myself strangely affirmative of U.S. troops' presence there while thinking we probably should have focused our attention on Afghanistan from the outset, if we were going to have troops anywhere at all. And how do I reconcile this with my own personal desire to see the U.S. involved in something other than belligerance. I've become far more of a "just war" person than a pacifist as I get older, while hating the easy way in which just war theory is bandied about in self-justification.

Did you know that General Convention 2003 passed a resolution that "urge[d] dioceses and congregations to study and better understand Just War theory and pacifism as they apply to the situation of the United States in responding to contemporary international conflicts"? And further "commend[ed] 'Just Peace Readings' from the Office of the Bishop Suffragan for Chaplaincies of the Episcopal Church Center, and the website, www.episcopalchurch.org/chaplain, as an important resource in the continuing study of Just War"? Bet you didn't. I learned about that when our youth Sunday School studied War and Peace a few years back. As a result of that Sunday School, I learned about Just War theory and about this resolution

This was a worthwhile resolution and I'm sorry it was not more widely practiced. At least I never heard it was. Just War theory is a very important and very helpful way to think about war. It should not be dismissed out of hand because it has been used by those who seek justification for war, because that's not what it does. It's not facile. It's not simplistic. And it's worth a deeper look by everyone, and I think especially by people whose greatest and first desire is peace.

I'll come back to this.

The volunteer army

I saw in yesterday's paper an obituary for "Gen. Walter Kerwin--helped end draft, create all-volunteer Army." He graduated from West Point in 1939, serving in Italy, North Africa and France in WWII, and served in Vietnam from 1967-1969. He was the army's second-highest-ranking officer in the mid-1970's, and, according to the Washington Post obit, "helped create a policy that scrapped the draft and led to the creation of an all-volunteer Army in 1973."

The article doesn't say what exactly his role was in creating this policy. What it does say is "The voluntary enlistment program has been in place for 35 years and is credited with the development of a more effective and professional fighting force."

This was a strange obit for me. It is far more suggestive than descriptive and as an obit almost dropped General Kerwin into history; he doesn't seem to have made it himself.

Mostly it made me think about what we call the volunteer army. How voluntary is it? I have a genuine question about this: how many people sign up for the armed forces because that is the only option they see? This is absolutely not to denigrate anyone serving in the military, but I do get the sense that though some people join proudly because that is what they want to do, some join as a means to an end, for the finances or stability or education. And so it has always been, I am sure.

God knows I wouldn't like to see the draft return, but the benefits of the draft as I see it is that a) a wider cross-section of society would bear the burden of battle; and as a result b) we as a society would be less likely to say "Send the army to take care of it," if the army were more us, rather than "them."

Nothing new in these thoughts, I know. Liberal cliche. But it's a strange mix of labels, though, isn't it? A volunteer army, and the result is that it is more professional. Perhaps it should be called a professional army. That seems more accurate in some ways.

Gone with the Wind

Rhett Butler died this week in Iraq. He was a corporal, not a captain, and he was 22 years old, and he was from Fort Worth, Texas. He died in an IED attack in Khan Bani Saad in the Diyala province of Iraq.

Each week, we include the names of those killed the prior week in Iraq, thanks to a website called icasualties.org. We include the names of soldiers killed and as many Iraqis whose names are reported. Most often, the names just slip past me. I often will note the women, at least their first names, and linger over them a minute. When I see a name that is the same as someone I know, I will say a special prayer. Rhett Butler really caught my eye. God's blessing and peace be upon you and all who love you.

Am I missing something?

So tell me something: wouldn't President Bush have been better off with a bill that funds the war in Iraq until March 2008 than with a bill that funds the war in Iraq for the next two months?

Died in Iraq

Wrote up the list of those killed in Iraq this week, and it was painfully long. Included two young women, Eleanor Dlugosz (19) and Joanna Dyer (23), both British, from the Duke of Lancasters Regiment (they have such great sounding troop names), killed along with two men and a civilian interpreter in Basra.

The women's names still stand out to me when I'm typing up the lists, whether right or wrong. What are they doing there, I tend to wonder. One of these young women was a nurse; the other in intelligence. The ages also upset me. I have trouble seeing that teenagers are being killed.

Not that older is better. I didn't like seeing the 42-year-old Naval officer's name on the list this week. Not that there is a good age at which to die in this war, but between 23 and 39 I tend not to notice the age so much.

On the Iraqi side, looking at the news reports of those killed, I was particularly affected by the article reporting "Police discovered the body of an 11-year-old boy with his throat slit in Sab al Bor, north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. A local al Qaeda cell was suspected." And that is the extent of the report. Also can't say I was thrilled to hear "Bodies of six goat-herders were found shot west of Kerbala, 110 km (70 miles) south of Baghdad, police said." What is wrong with people?