The GKS is embarking upon a campaign to raise the Socratic questions that the craven political Right of this country refuses to ask itself: What is the difference between war and terrorism? How can people who profess to hold the Torah sacred ignore the 6th commandment ("Thou shalt not kill")?
The anti-abortion crowd distributes a bumper sticker that reads:
ABORTION--What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand?
Our motto:
MILITARISM--What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand?
For far too long the militarists have gotten a free pass in this country. But they have some 'splainin to do--starting at the top with one Barack Hussein Obama.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Quick Quiz
Friends don't let friends do which of the following?
a) Drive drunk
b) Patronize Starbucks
c) Vote Republican
d) Join the military
e) All of the above
ANSWER KEY:
The correct answer is (e) all of the above. The reasoning behind this answer is simple: if you love someone, you will give them permission to heed the still, small voice of conscience. Opt out of the conspiracy of silence that gives aid and comfort to the permanent war economy.
a) Drive drunk
b) Patronize Starbucks
c) Vote Republican
d) Join the military
e) All of the above
ANSWER KEY:
The correct answer is (e) all of the above. The reasoning behind this answer is simple: if you love someone, you will give them permission to heed the still, small voice of conscience. Opt out of the conspiracy of silence that gives aid and comfort to the permanent war economy.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Where the Revolution Begins
We are told that it takes tremendous courage, true heroism in fact, to put on a uniform and body armor and, with legions likewise attired and equipped with virtually unlimited material resources and the most powerful weaponry ever devised by the black arts of man, descend upon a foreign country and make war upon its civilian population.
But, in our heart of hearts, and in the loneliest depths and quiet of the night, we know better.
We know better and yet we do nothing. Occasionally, someone does step forward--a Nat Turner figure--who can no longer stand the contradictions inherent in our collective state of denial and takes "justice" into his own hands.
We turn on him with fury: for in the face of our impotence, he had the temerity to act. And with his act our own complicity with the murderous affair we call "war" and "occupation" and even "liberation" is permitted to surface and shatter our lives.
We vow that he shall pay for our sins with every last measure of his own life--and then some. We vilify his name, his memory, his family, his community. Our rage is insatiable; but that is because our own guilt mocks us beyond redemption and at every turn.
The President himself may attend the memorial and rise to speak stirring words of valor, of sacrifice, of honor that accrues to unflinching resolve. But, in our heart of hearts, we know that when we essay murder most foul we risk being answered in kind.
And it is there, in our heart of hearts, where appears the faint hint of our true helplessness in the face of the mayhem we ourselves have wrought--in the form of a slight fissure, a fraying of the smooth fabric, something approximating a tear--that the revolution begins.
For it is there, and only there, that we say, "Enough."
Enough. No more. We can no longer hold the wolf by its ears. We had no business taking hold of it that way in the first place, and if it chooses to bite us upon release, so be it. We are done with this. We are done.
Talk about courage, about "true heroism" all you like; but find it there.
Find it there.
But, in our heart of hearts, and in the loneliest depths and quiet of the night, we know better.
We know better and yet we do nothing. Occasionally, someone does step forward--a Nat Turner figure--who can no longer stand the contradictions inherent in our collective state of denial and takes "justice" into his own hands.
We turn on him with fury: for in the face of our impotence, he had the temerity to act. And with his act our own complicity with the murderous affair we call "war" and "occupation" and even "liberation" is permitted to surface and shatter our lives.
We vow that he shall pay for our sins with every last measure of his own life--and then some. We vilify his name, his memory, his family, his community. Our rage is insatiable; but that is because our own guilt mocks us beyond redemption and at every turn.
The President himself may attend the memorial and rise to speak stirring words of valor, of sacrifice, of honor that accrues to unflinching resolve. But, in our heart of hearts, we know that when we essay murder most foul we risk being answered in kind.
And it is there, in our heart of hearts, where appears the faint hint of our true helplessness in the face of the mayhem we ourselves have wrought--in the form of a slight fissure, a fraying of the smooth fabric, something approximating a tear--that the revolution begins.
For it is there, and only there, that we say, "Enough."
Enough. No more. We can no longer hold the wolf by its ears. We had no business taking hold of it that way in the first place, and if it chooses to bite us upon release, so be it. We are done with this. We are done.
Talk about courage, about "true heroism" all you like; but find it there.
Find it there.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Dear NPR:
Tragically, today, I learned of two mass murders: one at Ft. Hood, Texas, the other in Orlando, Florida. Steve Inskeep reported on the Ft. Hood shooting during Morning Edition. I read about the Orlando shooting at NPR's web site this afternoon. What struck me about Mr. Inskeep's report on Ft. Hood was his announcement of the religious affiliation of the alleged shooter (whose name alone, Nidal Hasan, might indicate to the listener a likely religious affiliation). The report about Orlando makes absolutely no mention of the religious affiliation of the alleged shooter in that case (though his name, Jason Rodriguez, may also suggest a likely religious affiliation). I wonder why NPR chose to announce the suspect's religious affiliation in the one case and not the other. Is religious affiliation relevant in either case? If so, say how--and make an explicit argument to support your position. If not, omit irrelevant details that, by their very inclusion, may be understood to suggest that the news agency is in possession of evidence that it does not possess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
