Short questions (even shorter answers)

What did the other guy say? Has anyone noticed a tendency in the mainstream media to report only or mainly what George W. Bush says, when covering a conference or conversation where he speaks, and not go into what the other participants said? Here's a recent blatant example: "President Bush had an 8-minute phone call Saturday with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora to discuss the truce." We find out what George Bush wanted to tell Fuad Saniora but not what Fuad Saniora wanted Bush to know. Do you really think they each got four minutes? In any case, why don't the reporters want to find out what both sides said? If the White House only wants to divulge Bush's side, then ask the Lebanese government. If the information is altogether unavailable, that's news, too. We get entirely too much of the imperial voice these days.

Are Lebanese deaths equal to Israeli deaths? Not in terms of moral weight, according to John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. That's what I read in an AFP dispatch on Yahoo, but clicking on the same link now gets me nowhere. (Cache still works, however, yielding this opening sentence: "UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from 'malicious terrorist acts'."

More comment here on this theme in the TPM Cafe. However, I cannot pretend to be surprised. There is nothing that some politicians won't stoop to in order to oversimplify complex situations and shift all accountability to the politically convenient "enemy." Actually, I am desperately eager for American leaders to confront the so-called Party of God (Hezbollah) on the sheer blasphemy represented by any group with that name shooting missiles at population centers. But our country cannot do that confrontation with any credibility whatever; we have made our cause with those who prefer to bomb civilians (and U.N. observers) first, and ask questions later.

Although "there is a democracy in death," as Billy Graham said at Richard Nixon's funeral, some deaths can strike us as particularly poignant. One example: Uri Grossman, son of the Israeli writer and peace activist David Grossman, was among the Israeli soldiers killed in the recent Lebanese ground campaign. (Haaretz story here.) Although David did not oppose the fight against Hezbollah, he is one of Israel's steadfast supporters of justice for Palestinians.

What is the definition of political insanity? Judge for yourself, based on this quotation from Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article on the Israel/Hezbollah war:

“Strategic bombing has been a failed military concept for ninety years, and yet air forces all over the world keep on doing it,” John Arquilla, a defense analyst at the Naval Postgraduate School, told me. Arquilla has been campaigning for more than a decade, with growing success, to change the way America fights terrorism. “The warfare of today is not mass on mass,” he said. “You have to hunt like a network to defeat a network. Israel focussed on bombing against Hezbollah, and, when that did not work, it became more aggressive on the ground. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.”

To risk an extension of the argument, one that Arquilla himself would probably not endorse: Violent military solutions to political dilemmas has been a failed concept for millennia and yet governments all over the world keep on doing it. Arquilla's recommendation for the "war" on terrorism, "hunt like a network to defeat a network," sounds to me like good police work ... the kind of work that might have prevented 9/11 and might also have been its most effective response.

Political sanity and insanity, part two: Why do people insist on spending lives and treasure on war, after millennia of evidence that it doesn't work? One ancient tradition points out the masculine bias in reaching for warlike solutions, and the relative feminine disinclination to try violence first. I was fascinated by a new expression of old insights in yesterday's post on Sean's Russia Blog, and the Haaretz article to which he links, about an Arab/Russian partnership for peace, represented by two Israeli women, Jana Kanapova, a Jewish immigrant from Russia, and Khulud Badawi, an Israeli Arab living in Haifa.

"The significance of Kanapova’s and Badawi’s gender is not the only unique aspect of resistance to this poorly planned and ill fated Israeli offensive," observes Sean Guillory. "Their respective ethnicities is what makes them attractive to the news. If they were two Ashkenazim, their presence and efforts on the Israeli Left would have perhaps been overlooked. Their presence allows for the peace movement to be conducted in three languages—Arabic, Hebrew and Russian—and according to Kanapova, this has allowed her to engage, and even convince some in her community to oppose the war."

---

Righteous links: Andy Stanley explains "Why I decided to cheat the church" and stop overworking in his church ministry. ~~ Archbishop of York John Sentamu decided to camp out in his church, maintaining a vigil in solidarity with war victims in the Middle East. Why isn't this more common behavior among religious celebrities? Yahoo News story here; Ekklesia's story here. ~~ I've been remiss in my Tangaroa coverage: the raft has reached its final destination! Congratulations to everyone involved in this wonderful expedition! See the English-language blog here. ~~ In the "thankful for good company" department, I was grateful for Bob Ramsey's commentary on the shameful political exploitation of the apparent liquid-bomb conspiracy uncovered by British investigators. I was going to say "shameful Republican political exploitation" except that the current leadership in Washington bears almost as little resemblance to historic Republicanism as it does to the Democrats.

---

Paul L at Showers of Blessings mentions Hibbard Thatcher in his post of earlier this week. I loved visiting with Hibbard and Ruby Thatcher back in my days of circulating among Midwest USA Friends for Friends World Committee and Friends United Meeting. I knew Hibbard's health was failing, but it's still hard to say goodbye. I love the letter his family sent out upon his death:

Dear Friends:

Ruby, Alan and Jonathan Thatcher here, writing from Nashville. Hibbard Thatcher passed away on Saturday night, August 5th. He had taken a turn for the worse early in the week, developed pneumonia and apparently had a small stroke. His last days and hours were easy, and his last communication, on Wednesday, was blowing a kiss to Ruby.

In accordance with Hibbard's wishes, there will be no funeral, but we are beginning to plan a memorial service. We are just realizing the magnitude of such an event and how many people will want to come, taking into account the Nashville Friends Meeting, Nashville Country Dancers, Sacred Harp singers, and many others. It will take some time to arrange, and to coordinate schedules, so we are looking at a tentative date of September 10th for the service. We will let you know more as soon as the date and place are fixed.

As you probably know, Hibbard had made a partial recovery from the very damaging pneumonia and staph infection he had in January. Over the last few months he struggled to regain his strength, and through heroic efforts and determination, he made a lot of progress. But ultimately it seems his body had too much lasting damage for him to survive.

During these last several months we got to see Hibbard at his best. Nurses and aides at the medical facilities kept talking about what a wonderful patient he was and as one social worker commented, coming out of an interview with him, 'What an interesting man!'

Family and many friends were able to spend time with Hibbard at St Thomas, at Select Specialty Hospital, at Stallworth Rehab Center, and at NHC, during this long medical odyssey. During these visits he was often very llively and voluble, and I know many of you had wonderful conversations with him, as we did. And Hibbard especially appreciated those who came and shared their voices and music with him.

We would invite you to write down any memories or stories of Hibbard, recent or otherwise, to share at the memorial service. Or, of course, we'd be happy to hear them now if you'd like to email them to us.

Thank you all for your support and love for Hibbard. Please continue to hold him in your hearts, and, as the Quakers say, in the light.

Love,

Ruby, Alan and Jonathan Thatcher

Repentance

As Israel rubbishes Gaza and blockades Lebanon, I'm in the middle of reading the book of Isaiah. I'm bewildered by the Israeli government's behavior these days. Has either God or humanity given the nation of Israel impunity to declare a holy ban wherever it chooses, whatever the disproportionality, regardless of the loss of innocent lives? Is Israel's current behavior more like the holy obedience of Joshua at Jericho? ("Shout!—God has given you the city! The city and everything in it is under a holy curse and offered up to God.") Or more like Isaiah's first chapter, vv15-17?—

When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;
wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

These verses must not be quoted without adding the very next:

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool...." (v. 18; NIV)

In other words, repent!

Repentance is not self-flagellation, self-minimizing, or groveling. It's a change of heart and mind, a willingness to look at one's behavior and one's orientation relative to God, and to change that orientation Godwards. It doesn't require public humiliation—

Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for God is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and relents from sending calamity. (Joel 2:13 NIV, adapted)

—but it does require a change in direction. However universal God's grace might be in our carefully calibrated self-oriented theologies, I do not believe there is impunity for causing misery to others. Not for Israel, nor for Dick Cheney, nor for us.

Last week I wrote in some heat, defending doctrine. The closer a doctrine can be traced to Jesus, the more I'm bound to take it seriously, and it doesn't get any closer than this: "'The time has come,' he [Jesus] said. 'The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!'" (Mark 1:15.) I'm so grateful that the two requirements are paired: the deliberate, clear-eyed moral examination and redirection of heart/mind, and the acceptance of a joyful invitation of reconciliation with God made possible by that redirection.

Once I was a member of a meeting of ministry and counsel, and we were encouraging a thoughtful seeker to consider membership. I was startled by her response: "You don't require enough of me. You need to have a deeper and more challenging dialogue with me, or I might not believe either you or I are worth it." Since one of the ministry and counsel members at the time was uncomfortable with even the minor threshold we already had, her objection led to some interesting discussions! To risk a bit of overinterpretation (I believe I'm on solid ground), I heard her saying that invitation without repentance either demeans membership or demeans the member. Don't take me for granted!

The same is true of the church itself. I recall a biting commentary by Charles McCarthy on the Christian church's complicity in violence (from memory, can't find it anywhere): "Being church means never having to say you're sorry." Not true, as Pope John Paul II well knew. But most churches and meetings I know are better at identifying villains outside their own systems, and perhaps scapegoats within, and not so good at organizational repentance.

Step 4 of Alcoholics Anonymous's 12 Steps involves a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself in preparation for becoming entirely willing to have my shortcomings removed and make amends. Repentance is nothing more or less than this honesty and this willingness. As for the next steps, I believe that Jesus might be a lot more tender than AA.

The more recent doctrines of the church may be helpful in warding off power plays, elitism, mystical tangents, works-righteousness, and other exaggerations to which we're prone both as reformers and as traditionalists. The more we want to grow intellectually or spiritually in the faith, the more interesting those doctrines can be, both in what they say and what they don't say. But if someone presents me a doctrine or a book or a theology and calls it indispensable, I have to ask, "But what of those people who simply heard Jesus say Repent and believe the Good News, without benefit of your new doctrine or book? What if they can't follow the subtle intricacies of your reasoning, or are innocent of the distortions your doctrine seeks to correct?"

On the other hand, as Patti Crane reminds us writers, "Know your knowables." The things I don't know, and can be excused for not knowing, whether through historical accident or my own limited capacities, will not alienate me from God. But once I do know something and choose to act defiantly, I need to repent. Often conservative Christians emphasize personal—particularly sexual—sin as the prime example of the need for repentance. (In some cultures, any sin not known to be practiced by the speaker will do!) In contrast, many Friends resist being asked to repent on matters of personal behavior—but are we then sacrificing the certainty that we also have about not killing? Or are we safe from making the parallel case because we've arranged our affluent lives so that, in fact, we are so unlikely to be confronted by the dilemma? Charles McCarthy warns of the consequence of "moral laxism" in the Catholic context:

According to Catholic just war norms, which only have validity for Catholics within the acceptable moral systems of Catholic moral theology, if there is not strict moral certitude that a war is just and is being conducted justly—then the killing in it is unjust. In Catholic moral theology, intentional unjust killing is always intrinsically and gravely evil—it is always murder. It is never morally permissible. A laxist interpetation of the standards of Catholic just war theory employed in order to achieve a pseudo moral certainty that supports the unjust destruction of human life is itself a grave evil, which if participated in at any stage with full knowledge and full consent is mortal sin. [from "Christian Just War Theory and Moral Laxism: A Chronically Misleading Episcopal Witness"; pdf here.]

I don't have the expertise to present the Jewish parallel, but I'm utterly convinced that there is great moral danger in Israel's crushing the innocent and wrecking their lives in the search for national security. But with equal certainty, I know there is great danger for me in exercising a moral righteousness that is only externally directed, never internal.

---

A few more righteous links:

• Open Source Theology is a useful resource in considering the right use of doctrine. See, for example, the thread entitled "Defining evangelicalism."
• Tangaroa is at Raroia, having arrived last week. To see the position of the raft, go to this page; and visit the English-language weblog of the expedition, which followed the wake of the 1947 Kon-Tiki expedition.
• Recent posts in Robin M's "What canst thou say" weblog chronicles her recent explorations of converging Quaker dialogues, including sessions at the General Conference gathering in Tacoma and our own little gathering of bloggers in Newberg, Oregon, last Saturday.
• Friends Committee on National Legislation issued this press release on the Pentagon's declaration of intent to treat all detainees by Geneva Convention standards. The release includes a link to the Defense Department's memo on the subject. Please be vigilant: the administration continues to look for ways to undermine the spirit of Geneva. (Example. Example 2, added Friday.)

On being a calm alarmist

Do we need more evidence? As the G8 conference in Moscow draws nearer, the comments about Russian authoritarianism grow more frequent. (Example: "Lawmakers urge G7 to meet to rebuke Russia," a Reuters story in the Washington Post.) In a valuable, if a bit countercompensatory, essay in the Nation, "The New American Cold War," Stephen Cohen reveals how simplistic, inadequate, self-serving and actually dangerous this line is.

Right now, however, as we approach July 4, I am equally concerned about the danger of denial closer to home. In commenting on today's Supreme Court decision against the White House decrees on military tribunals for Guantánamo prisoners, columnist David Ignatius gives us a blunt summary of the situation:

We can now see that after Sept. 11 there was a grab for unlimited executive power, led by Vice President Cheney and his lawyer, David Addington. They intimidated or ignored critics within the White House and created a secret system unchecked by the other two branches of government.

I have no doubt that Ignatius and other commentators who've been sounding similar alarms are not exaggerating. The question that haunts me on the eve of our most patriotic holiday is: have we ourselves crossed that authoritarian line that so many charge Putin with crossing?

The test cannot be my personal comfort, or even my personal freedom to sound off in this weblog. As Chris Floyd says (thanks, John Redman), "It's a not a drive toward totalitarianism; they don't want or need to repress and control everything. They don't care if bloggers rant, or Harper's fulminates, or Michael Moore makes movies, or Noam Chomsky sells books (or even speaks at West Point). They are perfectly happy to allow isolated enclaves of dissent to float around out there somewhere--as long they remain isolated and, above all, ineffectual." But if a national-stature newspaper publishes articles on illegal wiretapping and bank data-mining, then the subject of government invasions of privacy is quickly and dramatically obscured by a blustery chorus of treason charges and venomous legal threats against the newspaper.

In fact, robust dissent certainly exists both here and in Russia. We are far from totalitarianism. But an important reality test for democracy, due process, and the rule of law is how it deals with exceptions. Most of us are protected most of the time by a combination of benign neglect, due deference to our affluence or our race, administrative incompetence, and the persistence of a cadre of old-school civil servants, judges, and politicians who really do care about the integrity of our government. But watch what happens to the exceptions: for example, the people who are put on the terrorism "no-fly" watch list. They may try for years to get off the list, suspecting that they have the same name as a more legitimate target, or simply were born in the wrong country or culture. Even government officials admit the serious flaws, but they don't take the obvious step of cleaning off the list and only putting individuals back on by some kind of, well, due process. Meanwhile, the rest of us, whose freedom to travel remains relatively unimpeded, barely notice the affected people's predicament at all.

But this situation fades into near-insignificance compared to the way our government has treated detainees in Guantánamo, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows where else. And we are always told that these are bad people who do not deserve normal, civilized legal protections. If the word "bad" has any useful content at all, then it is also true that many people in our jails are "bad" people, but we are not allowed to impose consequences on their badness until AFTER due process. All of these niceties are beside the point, anyway; what distresses me more than these legal tugs-of-war is the backstory: Cheney and Co. already decided that 9/11 justified taking the gloves off, and all of the rest is a series of secondary consequences. Put the gloves of democracy and due process back on, trust that our democratic tools are robust enough to serve both justice and humanity, and the other issues will fall into place. But have we already been so warped out of shape as a democracy that even the fall of the Bush dynasty will still see us springing only partially back?

---

How do Christians respond? Realistically, I'm not sure. Most Christians I know are conflict-avoidant, somewhat passive, inclined to trust those in authority, and dubious about prophetic theatrics. Any strategy based on radical exhortations way beyond their comfort zone is likely to go down without a bubble. I believe that those of us who have the curse of being wired politically (and still want to be disciples of the Prince of Peace) will have to slog away, day in and day out, at some less than revolutionary tasks:

• Among those in church with us, find the energy and words to relate our concerns about due process and civil liberties to the plain language of the Bible and to the imperatives of discipleship. Lies must be exposed as lies, "For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret." (Ephesians 5:12.) "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22.) Always stand up for the "image of God" in every human being, and require politicians who act in our name to do the same.
• Refuse to give in to fear. Greet every appeal to fear with a Gospel answer, raise awkward questions about the way we treat detainees, the false frames and stereotypes with which our enemies and allies alike are portrayed, and for that matter, challenge every identification of an enemy. Would our fire-breathing patriots greet a foreign invader who claimed to know what was good for us, any better than some Iraqis have greeted our forces?
• Don't lose credibility by sentimentalizing Islamic anti-Americanism, especially the kind of fundamentalism that rejoices with every American death in Iraq. Any believer in the Gospel of grace has, or should have, serious theological issues with any version of Islam that I've ever heard of. But there is absolutely no reason that those differences could not be discussed with courtesy and love, at least insofar as it rests with us to do so.
• Consider at least token tax resistance. Some forms of resistance are unwise, but where we can say a clear "no," we should do so, prepared to use every subsequent encounter with authority as an evangelistic opportunity.

---

Religion and American politics: It was interesting to read the coverage of Sen. Barack Obama's speech to the "Building a New Covenant for America" conference (example here), compared to the speech itself. Not at all confining himself to the strategic use of religion for political gain, however sympathetic the user, Obama seems to have put a lot of his own spirituality up front in the speech, and equally importantly, he connected the dots:

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

In that last example, he touched on on one of the central reasons I oppose capital punishment in spite of the murder of my sister. Through all my anger at her murderer, I can see that there was a hole in his heart, and in mine, that government (executioner included) cannot fix.

---

Flag desecration as hate speech: At first I was very opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment against flag-burning. I tend to agree that it was politically motivated. In addition, I'm against investing patriotic symbols with an aura of holiness. And if flag desecration had been illegal when we carried out our social-exorcist flag-washing ceremony in front of the Federal Building, I suppose we would have been arrested.

However, there is another side of the issue. It is not true that prohibition of flag-burning would be the first restriction on free expression. Hate speech is more or less criminal behavior in many places because of its incendiary potential. Even where it is illegal, allegations of racial slurs have cost people their jobs. A few months ago I observed Christians urging secular newspapers not to publish reproductions of the offending Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed, out of respect for a taboo they did not themselves share. If I could be charitable enough for a moment to put myself in the shoes of someone whose regard for the U.S. flag had similar weight, I might be less inclined to be so dismissive of the flag-desecretion amendment's advocates.

---

Righteous links: In the New York Times, I liked Lawrence Downes's refreshingly titled primer on immigration "reform," "The Terrible, Horrible, Urgent National Disaster that Immigration Isn't." An eloquent sample:

To militarize the border, to turn illegal immigrants into felons, means trying to reverse the polarity on the American magnet, to repel the people who have struggled, dreamed and died to get here.

It means turning this singular country into just another industrial power with a declining birthrate and a self-defeating antagonism to the foreign born. It means defining down what America stands for, no matter what the cost to the American economy, its traditions and values and moral standing.

Narnia and Right Sharing: Here's an interesting brief review of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that touches on both "living generously" and the empowerment of children.

Brian McLaren makes some interesting comments on the fortunes of the emergent church movement during the past year. (Pssst, danger: some Christian leaders say that McLaren is dangerously unsound. He promotes ... *shudder* ... contemplation! More next week, if I dare.)

And Martin E. Marty observes bloggers influencing religious politics.

The Tangaroa continues its Kon-Tiki-repeating Pacific voyage, now logging sixty days at sea.

In the too-painful department this week: the Israeli collective punishment of Palestinians for the pathetic acts of a few. Righteous anger raised to an idolatrous level. Interestingly, Israelis are quite capable of a thoughtful discussion of their government's ruinous tactics. Over here, mostly silence.

Dreams

During the past few days of travel in and near Ramallah, I've been reading Olga Grushin's delicious first novel, The Dream Life of Sukhanov. I've never read anything that expresses the power, fragility, strange continuities, and illuminating capacity of dreams as well as Grushin's novel.

The regretful backward look at a life begun with great promise, but then devoted to creative mediocrity, safety, and personal advantage, is not a new theme. Grushin adds great humanity, humor, a nuanced context, and an uncertain ending relieved by hints of redemption. She shifts believably in and out of dream mode, and in and out of first person. In fact, that first person voice makes this a realistic rather than surrealistic or "magical realism" book for me. At face value, this intricate story is entirely believable to me.

Grushin's novel traced the fine line between dream and reality. While I was reading it, I saw the unreal becoming real in Ramallah. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has canceled normality, and has systematized unreality into the details of everyday life. Apartheid—enforced separation of peoples and discrimination in services—has become the norm; the technology of maximum-security prisons is placed wherever the rulers see fit; punishments are ruthlessly transferred from the inconveniently dead terrorist to his family, community, and nation; whole groups of people, defined solely by social categories rather than individual behavior or merit, experience blocked roads, confiscated lands, economic strangulation, extrajudicial assassinations, and the indignity of their own taxes being held hostage by the occupier. And my taxes as an American are used to subsidize these numerous violations of our own precious principle of due process and the international laws governing the behavior of occupation forces.

I'm familiar with the Israeli security-based arguments for their treatment of Palestinians, but all of these arguments seem to require a suspension of disbelief, a willingness to tolerate logical sleights of hand. So, for example, they argue for a secure wall, but they build their wall on disputed territory in active use by Palestinians. How does security excuse outright theft? They argue that Hamas wishes the destruction of Israel, but Palestinians could well argue from Israeli actions and the statements of prominent politicians that the elimination of Palestine (at least as a viable country) is Israeli policy. The most unreal reality of all, to me, is that Jewish people are the last people in the world who ought to be ghettoizing anyone. Tony Judt reviews some of these incongruities in his jaundiced but useful article, "The country that wouldn't grow up." (Ha'aretz, May 5.)

An interesting op-ed article appeared on the evangelical Assist News Service a few days ago. Entitled "Hamas' Achilles Heel," the article points fingers at both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides, argues the author, are crippled by an inability to forgive.

---

Eight of us met for worship this past Sunday in the beautifully restored Friends meetinghouse in downtown Ramallah. An attendance of eight, of which two were members. But there's so much sentimentality about that meeting that awkward questions about why it is so small would probably be ruled out of order, or at least the awkward answers might be. Jean Zaru, long-time clerk of the meeting, observed correctly that, with all the activism in Ramallah, the meeting has an important role of reminding people to stay spiritually balanced.

One of last Sunday's eight attenders was Rosemary Radford Ruether. She spoke from the silence on her experience of the previous Wednesday, when she and a Swedish delegation were in the meetinghouse when an Israeli raiding party came into town; the resulting clash left four dead and about fifty injured. Ruether summarized an article that she wrote in the aftermath of the lethal clash, describing the dangerous and contradictory consequences of an obsession with security.

If you think the oppressive application of power ensures security, dream on. 

---

Speaking of dreaming, Yusif Bashir has a persistent vision for peace. After being shot by an Israeli soldier during the occupation of Gaza, Yusif went on to participate in a Seeds of Peace event, and at age 17 promotes the vision of nonviolence and conflict resolution wherever he can. He's now just finishing up a year at Friends Boys School in Ramallah.

It was very thought-provoking to share an apartment with Yusif over the last few days, and to hear him speak about his experience being shot, and then cared for by Israeli doctors. There's an article about Yusif on the CNN Web site.

Meanwhile, another dream is coming true: The Tangaroa raft is over a third of the way into its voyage. Follow the news here.

Are you a relic? Karen Street's blog has had a stream of useful (actually more than useful, urgent) articles on climate change and the factors that make for credibility in a scientist.

The first rule of gracious correspondence

. . . is to answer the letter you actually received, not the one you wish you'd received or might receive in the future!

Does anyone else have a sense of unreality about American reactions to the letter (here in pdf form) that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, sent George W. Bush? It's not only Bush and Condoleeza Rice who've completely and utterly missed the point, but even journalists are caught up in this distortion. In the New York Times:

State Department officials who read the letter suggested that it offered an interesting window into the mentality and thinking of Iran, especially because it seemed to reflect a inclination to dwell on myriad grievances of the past rather than on the problem at hand, namely Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Although American officials said they intended to use the letter to make the point that Iran deserved to be isolated internationally over its alleged intransigence over the nuclear issue, they seemed sobered by the letter's tone as an indication of the uphill battle to change attitudes in Tehran.

The AP report gives this summary: "The document gives rare insight into a man who has largely been a mystery to the West, showing him as fixated on a long list of grievances against the United States and seeking to build on a shared faith in God."

This is what passes for journalism? Do reporters apply the same standards to Western leaders—are they described as "fixated" on their agendas? Is Bush "fixated" on his counterfeit righteousness? Do commentators meekly accept that only the U.S. gets to define "the problem at hand"? But my first and main point is this: when you receive a letter, you deal with it on its own merits. OK, stick with me. After years of no genuine communication, you get an unexpected letter from a head of state whom you've described in unflattering terms and whose government is taking actions that make you uncomfortable. Wow, a perfect opportunity to (1) gain insights into the other leader's motivations, and (2) open a dialogue. Instead, the man whose actions and reactions inevitably color the world's view of our country chooses to insult the head of state of that other country, by not engaging courteously with the letter's contents, as befits one civilized head of state communicating with another, and by telling the world what topics that unexpected letter should have covered!

There's nothing wrong with Bush and Rice and Cheney wanting more information than that initial letter contained. That's why you reply! You politely ask for more! Is there nobody within the highest circles of our government who can even speak up for elementary good manners?

I see plenty in the Iranian president's letter that deserves reply—either in agreement or in disagreement. But to dismiss it as not addressing issues in the way that the addressee might have wished betrays the habitual rudeness that comes with a worldview completely distorted by imperial arrogance. How I've yearned for the U.S. leadership to move into the arena of world opinion and state our case against the accusations of radical Islam with courtesy and humility, but also with an intelligent presentation of our side of each controversy. Now, Ahmadinejad has thrown a softball right down the middle, a perfect opportunity to engage with that task in the court of world opinion, and we more or less give him the finger.

---

Another American political pastime: scolding the Russians. In our ceaseless efforts to tell the world how to be better Americans, our leaders have raised Russia-scolding to new levels of stupidity. Many times in the last two years I've readily stipulated that Vladimir Putin and his colleagues are authoritarian power politicians who will (and in their view, given the challenges they face, must) grab every lever of power available to them. So much of what goes on in Russia is completely outside the control of the Kremlin. Russia is, after all, a country where people have centuries of experience saying whatever they need to please the powerful, and then doing pretty well what they want. Russia has severe deficiencies in Western-style due process, opportunities for corruption in elections and every other citizen-to-state transaction, and powerful grassroots forces that favor both unfettered individual initiative and a restoration of Stalinist-style dictatorship. But good hardheaded common sense is what most Russians are gifted with most of the time; why can't we put more effort into recognizing this?

Once we assume that (in the light of perceived national interest) common sense, the shortest point from A to B, is at least often the basis for Russia's policy decisions, then things begin to look different. Asking trading partners to forgo historic subsidies in favor of market prices is not necessarily the same as bullying those partners. Yes, the timing may smell, but if we look at the whole picture, subsidies (such as concessionary oil prices) may reflect a mutual congeniality that may long ago have been trashed by the other country. Russia may not always have taken the first step at alienation—think of that! If Ukraine or Georgia wish to assert a greater degree of national independence, they may be absolutely justified, but how can they object if Russia makes reciprocal decisions?

The U.S. should be the last country to criticize Russia for the use of economic measures to signal pleasure or displeasure. Our attempt to strangle the Palestinian Authority financially is only the most recent example. The vindictive U.S. campaign to extend extraterritorial regulations on other countries' relations with Cuba, military sales to Venezuela, the exclusion of U.S. personnel from international courts, the string-pulling to line up a "coalition of the willing" for Iraq ... in sum, our country has played hardball on the international stage so often to line up allies and punish dissidents that the finger-wagging at Russia seems laughable.

Perhaps I sound one-sided, but the habits of imperial arrogance don't just cloud our leaders, they endanger all of us. It has become standard practice to assume that, in judging an act by Russia's government, there's never any more to the picture than the narrow slice we get. I don't object at all to an honest, assertive analysis of Russia's failures to live up to its own constitution, its horrible mistakes in Chechnya, and, in general, its political and spiritual weaknesses, as long as that analysis presents the full picture including honest coverage of the options actually available to its leaders, and some clue as to whether the analyst actually has the Russian peoples' best interests at heart. I object to analyses that measure Russia's worst realities against our best intentions, and completely fail to account for the ways our government has abandoned its own ideals. For example: Dick Cheney said a few days ago, concerning Russia,

Democracy starts with citizens casting their votes, but that is only the beginning. Elections must be fair, and regular, and truly competitive. . . . And election results must yield the voluntary and orderly transfer of power.

The man who said all this was the co-beneficiary of the U.S. presidential "election" of 2000, in which scandalous irregularities, including the disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters, tipped the process into the lap of a biased and unprepared U.S. Supreme Court! Again, the habit of lecturing the world without fair comparisons with our own performances is another example of the decay in honesty and humility that comes with an imperial worldview.

---

Catching up on intriguing links:

• Janiva Magness, who has just headed up to the top of my list of awesome blues women, thanks to the exposure The Roadhouse gave her in two recent podcasts.
• Smith Eliot's newsletter, first of a new series. Keep us updated, Smith. Your work is amazing.
• Behind the Wall, a very promising online magazine originating in a wonderful collaboration between students at Ramallah Friends Schools and students in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA.
• Last but not least, the latest from the Tangaroa raft, 500 nautical miles into its journey across the Pacific.
• Saturday PS: Check Russian Blog's comments posted on May 9 for some eloquent reflections that show how engaging and persuasive our scolding of Russia can be.