Violence begets violence: Fort Hood

The tragedy at Fort Hood should absolutely be condemned. It was absolutely wrong.

According to the system of morality adopted by the military-industrial complex–and perhaps our culture at large–the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan were morally acceptable.

I realize that this statement sounds preposterous. Allow me to explain.

The system of morality embraced by the military-industrial complex upholds that when one cannot imagine any other way to resolve a conflict, it is appropriate to respond by asserting one’s way forcibly and violently over others.

When Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with our demands, we responded in violence. When Osama bin Laden orchestrated attacks on innocent civilians, we responded in violence. When Timonthy McVeigh bombed a government building in Oklahoma City, we responded in violence. When we are attacked, threatened, or simply challenged, we respond in violence. Our culture does not condemn violence. In fact, our culture glorifies violence. Examples of the glorification of “moral violence” can be seen in action movies, yellow ribbons on car bumpers and capital punishment in our ‘justice” system.

Leviticus 24 states, “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”

“An eye for an eye.” In the case of our culture, an eye for a potential eye–or perhaps even a dirty glance.

If we believe that violence may be justified, glorious, even moral–as it is with the military–then we cannot condemn Major Hasan. He was acting according to the moral code espoused by the armed forces.

In 2006 in Pennsylvania Carl Roberts killed six people including himself in an Amish school shooting. The Amish response to this tragedy was strikingly beautiful. They reached out to Roberts’ family, offering forgiveness and comfort. Amish families visited Roberts’ family, comforted them and even set up a charitable fund for his family.

It’s a bold statement, but one that I believe our culture desperately needs to hear. As long as violence is permitted as a solution to problems, events like the tragedy at Fort Hood will persist. Reconciliation, not retaliation, must be our ultimate goal.

Speak Progressive Liberalese: “-industrial complex” suffix

For those of you attempting to learn to speak Progressive Liberalese, this lesson should provide some further insight into the P-L language and build your vocabulary.

This lesson is on the suffix: -industrial complex.

Similar to the English prefix anti-, non-, and un-, the suffix -industrial complex gives a negative connotation to the word it is attached to. P-L language adds this suffix to any sector of the economy which it wishes to criticize. By attaching -industrial complex to any societal structure, one causes the listener to wonder if the structure is actually a gigantic system controlled by a mysterious group of inaccessible conspirators for their own oppressive gain. While formal usage of the suffix is relegated to social and economic discussion, colloquial usage of this suffix can be expanded to non-economic terms.

Common usages of this suffix include:

• Military-industrial complex
• Prison-industrial complex
• Medical-industrial complex
• Real Estate-industrial complex

Colloquial examples in use:

• If you fear or dread going to the dentist, you might say: I hate going to the dental-industrial complex.
• If you are more of a dog person than a cat person, you might say: I prefer dogs to the feline-industrial complex.
• If your friend, Greg, is extremely annoying at parties, you might say: Don’t invite the  Greg-industrial complex. He’s so lame!

Exercise:
Try using the suffix in the following examples by filling in the blank.

1. Everyone should unilaterally the expansion of the medical insurance  ____________.
2. Increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan would only strengthen the military ____________.
3. We need alternative forms of justice to our defunct prison ____________.

Now create your own sentences using the following words.

1. Capitalist-industrial complex
2. Private health care-industrial complex
3. Penguin-industrial complex

Christian dualism and the environment

A core component of conservative Christian theology is that of dualism. Dualism dictates a divide exists between the physical world and the supernatural realm. These dual realities overlap impermanently and abstractly. For example, according to Christian dualism, a divide exists between the physical world and the spiritual world. Many Christians believe that a spiritual battle rages between the angelic forces of Heaven and the demonic forces of Hell. However, physical evidence of this conflict remains almost exclusively circumstantial. On a personal level, most Christians also believe in a body/soul dualism. One may die, but the soul lives on in eternity. This dichotomy gives rise to the belief that this temporal existence is but an insignificant “blip” on the time line of eternity. Equipped with such beliefs, many Christians permit a disregard for the physical well-being of others and themselves in favor of what they regard as the more important spiritual reality.

I believe that this notion of physical/supernatural dualism often leads to a lack of stewardship for the environment. Ultimately, caring for the environment is of secondary importance to securing the eternal well-being of other human souls. This world may be pass away, but Heaven and Hell are eternal, permanent destinations. Plus, with the promise of a spiritual “new Heaven and new earth,” Christian dualism gives little incentive to care for this physical, and ultimately damned, world. In fact, due to their eternal impermanence, little motivation exists for Christians to be concerned about the environment. Were it not for God’s command in Genesis to subdue the earth and rule over it, Christian dualism may not have removed environmental stewardship from the conversation altogether.

Conservapedia: Rewrite the Bible so that you’re the main character

A friend of mine posted an article on Facebook about how a conservative group is rewriting the Bible to better fit their conservative perspective.

Candidates for deletion include such passages like, “Father forgive them,” “Turn the other cheek,” and “Love thy neighbor.” Usage of commie words like “comrade,” “labor” and “fellow” will be greatly reduced in this new version. Words like, “peace” and “word” will be updated in favor of words with stronger connotations of power. Finally, parables which endorse a free market economy will be embellished and emphasized.

Furthermore, their logo. I rest my case.

From their website: “The ensuing debate would flesh out–and stop–the infiltration of churches by liberals pretending to be Christian.”

I’ll be honest. I’ve infiltrated a number of churches in my day. The ol’ wolf in sheep’s clothing thing… works every time. I walk in the door, giving homage to the almighty white, blue-eyed, blond-haired, American, capitalist Jesus and talking about how he saved me from the horrible fires of Hell. Soon enough I have gained everyone’s trust and can begin infecting them with evil, of-the-devil, abhorred principles like: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness and Self-control. Pretty soon, they’ve all been infected by my venom. They no longer solely pursue their own selfish good at the costs of others; they start thinking about their neighbors and how to be kind and considerate. Oh, it works so devilishly well. I make Satan proud.

Essentially, this project is an exercise in self-idolatry. Those working on the project are rewriting the Bible with themselves as the main character. They are God. They are Jesus. They are the Holy Spirit. The god of the bible they produce will be themselves, as every line of scripture will reinforce their own personal biases. They are making themselves into a golden calf, that their singular worldview will become the authoritative truth. This bible is not their source of truth. They are the source of truth for this bible.

Well, if they are going to rewrite the Bible, I feel obligated to respond. I’m officially writing my own Bible. I’m changing the part where Jesus said, “Love your enemies” to read, “Love your enemies.” The passage that reads, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” will now read, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The part that goes, “Do good to those who hurt you,” will be updated to, “Do good to those who hurt you.”

Edgy. I know. Thank goodness he didn’t actually say that stuff. Otherwise, I’d be obligated to give a damn about anyone besides myself.

The Olympics and Homelessness. Why I’m glad Chicago lost the 2016 Olympic bid.

Today the Olympic committee rejected Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympic games. Chicago was one of the four finalists. The city has been pumping out propaganda about how hosting the Olympics would be a good thing. It would mean more jobs and more money. In an economy such as this, who would argue with that? The message we keep hearing: “The Olympics would be good for us.”

Unfortunately, history seems to suggest that not everyone will get to reap the benefits. History shows that for our sisters and brothers who are homeless, the Olympics are bad for us.

During the Olympic games in Atlanta, a number of organizations implemented a program called “Homeward Bound.” The name recalls warm, fuzzy feelings and nostalgic memories of a movie about the adventures of two loyal dogs and a cat trying to return to their loving owners. Homeward Bound was actually a mass deportation. Homeless individuals were rounded up like Jews and deported. Those who weren’t deported were thrown in jail. The police mass-produced warrants with the following description: “African American, male, homeless.” The blatant classist and racist motives are undeniable. All that was missing as a gas chamber.

Apparently, people learned their lesson when Salt Lake City won the right to host. There was no documented case of deportation, although allegations were raised. The city actually secured temporary housing for about 80% of the homeless population during the games. Nevertheless, as soon as the games were over, everyone was kicked back out on the streets.

Not surprisingly, the homeless in Beijing fared far worse. Official Chinese numbers state that only 6,000 were displaced by the games. Everyone else’s estimates put that number at anywhere between 1 and 1.5 million. I’ve heard from multiple independent eye-witnesses that Beijing literally built a wall around the Olympic city to keep everyone out.

Salt Lake City seemed to display the most civility and compassion towards its homeless. However, estimates put Chicago’s homeless population at over 70,000 (compared to 2,000 in Salt Lake City). The sheer magnitude of that number would have made it a much more serious issue. Of course, with the miles and miles of sprawling urban ghettos, it might be easier to turn Chicago’s homeless into internally displaced persons (IDPs). Who’s going to do anything about an extra couple thousand homeless people in the hood? Although you also have consider the tens of thousands who will lose their homes to Olympic gentrification, as did over 30,000 in Atlanta.

Olympic gentrification would have affected me personally. Our apartment is two blocks south of the proposed site for the Olympic village. Our entire community would have been destroyed as property values would rise and the barely affordable housing in our neighborhood would become utterly unaffordable. Those who own their homes would have lost them. Those who rent their homes wouldn’t be able to pay. Forced migration would ensue. Any remaining traces of the community that exists now would wither and die. Our community would have become an urban, hipster paradise at the expense of the families and individuals who live here now. The desert would be reinvigorated into a booming white metropolis of the empire. But the desert wouldn’t actually be gone… only removed, forcibly relocated in a disguised death march.

So while it certainly would have been fun to host the Olympic games, I for one am glad that we lost the bid. A community should not operate according to a philosophy in which ends justify means. What is good for an privileged sector of society at the expense of a marginalized sector ultimately hurts the community as a whole. Good for all, or none at all. We should never ignore the hurt and hardship that we inflict on others in order to benefit ourselves.