« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »

July 29, 2006

Maybe God Isn't a Republican Afterall

This is a great article in the Times about two vastly different congregations in the Twin Cities of Minnesota. The real hero of the story (other than Jesus, hehe) is Rev. Gregory A. Boyd of Woodland Hills Church. This is quite worth the read. Be sure to check out the multimedia section, linked on the left.

Posted by mattalexander at 9:12 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 28, 2006

Of Course, The Two Groups Are Both Soooo Oppressed

Amid rumors the Republicans are favoring a minimum wage increase, many thought it was to bolster support among middle- and lower-class voters in what is shaping up to be a disatrous November for the GOP. Well, the truth is out. Republican lawmakers will only support a minimum wage hike if it's coupled to a cut in taxes on future multi-million dollar inheritances. It's amazing how long greed has passed politically as a family value.

Posted by mattalexander at 10:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

They Call this Science?

Have you been convinced that a fair and balanced view of climate change is that there are still several sides of the debate, each with valid data? Don't be bamboozled. As I recently heard Al Gore say, the scientific consensus that human behavior is causing (potentially catastrophic) climate change is the largest consensus ever attained in the history of science. (That might be a bit of a stretch, given few people still argue the sun revolves around the earth, but I think he makes a pretty fair point!) The few dissidents are largely funded by the energy industry. Unfortunately, our politicians and media are in bed with this industry, so they don't do so well at pointing that out. Here's a Science Times piece on industry funding for one of the few remaining dissenting voices. It's tough for me to consider this guy a scientist. He's more of a shill for, one of many doing all they can to decrease the amount of respect I have for the Cato Institue. (Michael Cannon put my respecct at zero; is it possible to have negative respect for something? Haha.) I try to avoid partisanship (although I'm extremely wary of anything coming from the Republicans these days), but one of my hopes for the seemingly eminent Democratic majorities we'll soon see is that there could be a sea change in terms of the Washington's response to climate change. We'll see. Problem with that is it depends on Democrats actually winning.

Posted by mattalexander at 11:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Shame on Las Vegas

As if enough objectionable things weren't done in Vegas. It looks like San Diego isn't the only place where it's illegal to be visible while poor. Starting today, it's illegal to hand out food to homeless people in parks. Whatever happened to "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...?" Was that made illegal because of increased complaints too?

Posted by mattalexander at 11:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 27, 2006

Ten Commandments Remix

Thanks to Chuckp3 for this. Hilarious.

And while I'm posting videos, check out Stephen Colbert sticking it to the MSM. Fantastic.

Posted by mattalexander at 3:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 25, 2006

Read the Fine Print

Check out editorial on W.'s habit of signing statements. Glad to see this is getting some serious coverage since it's been going on five and a half years. His contempt for the legislative and judicial brances (except when he can cram courts with fellow neocon idealogues) has been going to far for too long now. Part of me feels like it's a bit surprising it's taken this long for such an authoritarian to come into power in this country. Another part of my, probably the remants of Matt the 7th grade civics class patriot, is still surprised it's managed to happen. Hopefully there will be enough righteous indignation to slow down this alarming trend. Remember, not all forms of fascism have to look like Nazi Germany.

Posted by mattalexander at 8:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 23, 2006

Violence in the Middle East

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Israel's military excursion into Lebanon and Hezbollah's return volleys of missiles into northern Israel. It's hard to not take sides, although I think it's important for Christians to do. There are few observations I think we can objectively make without takings sides. Even if Israel's retaliation is strategic and only direct in at terrorist targets, which I find a bit audacious to suggest, its technology and firepower far outweigh its opponent to thee extent that Lebanese civilians have perished at about ten times more than Israelis. Also, it'd be nice for the U.S. and its allies to learn a bit from the failed neocon imperial adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's awful tough to fight a relatively small hidden enemy through traditional means with a large military force. Israel's shock & awe approach is likely to embolden another generation of Islamic extremists, as if the U.S.'s actions in the region hadn't already done that enough. Keep in mind, Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982. Enough of my thoughts. Here are a few links. First, if you're looking for frustration on the U.S.'s reticence to push for peace in the region, check out this post on TPM. Also, (for those who have access) Kristof's latest Times editorial makes a good case for non-retaliation. Finally, below the fold I've posted Jim Rice's piece mailed out on Sojomail this week. It's an articulate explication of the events that reminds people of faith that our call is not to take sides but rather work for peace and justice.

The new war in the Middle East
by Jim Rice

What is the proper, appropriate response of a nation to violent attacks by terrorists or other radical extremists? We have seen one model illustrated in the response of the British government to last year's attacks on London's public transportation system, in which 52 people were killed and 700 injured. The British rightly understood the attacks as terrorist acts, but responded in a measured manner, dealing both with the investigation of the terrible crime and the need for enhanced security in its wake. Pointedly, the British did not opt for a military response to these acts of terror.

We have also, of course, seen an altogether different model of response, perhaps most clearly exemplified by the U.S. invasion of two countries - one of which was an actual source of the terror - following the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, it seems to be in the latter spirit that Israel responded to terror attacks in the past fortnight. Provoked by the Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, Israel not only invaded the northern Gaza Strip but also destroyed a significant portion of Gaza's infrastructure, including airstrikes against Gaza's power grid.

Likewise, days later, when the Syrian-backed terror group Hezbollah seized the opportunity to raid northern Israel and capture two Israeli soldiers, Israel responded with a massive attack on Lebanon's civilian structures, from the Beirut airport to a dairy factory, civilian buses, bridges, power stations, and medical facilities, according to reports. Hezbollah responded by firing hundreds of rockets a day - more-modern, longer-range rockets than in the past - aimed intentionally at neighborhoods in Haifa and other Israeli cities. The result, not surprisingly, has been the death of many civilians on all sides.

The situation is clearly complicated by the role of Hezbollah as a part of the coalition government of Lebanon, which seems unable or unwilling (probably both) to disarm Hezbollah, which effectively controls the southern part of the country. The new warfare in the Middle East is also made worse by the sinister political manipulations of both Syria and Iran, who seek to increase their own power in the region no matter the human cost.

But Israel's use of military attacks in response to acts of terror raises many questions. The most important, perhaps, revolves around the issue of legitimate self defense vs. collective punishment. Israel is indeed surrounded by sworn enemies, including many who are demonstrably willing to violently destroy Israel. But does the real need for security justify the massively disproportionate response to an act of terror? Is the collective punishment of an entire population ever morally and ethically justified? As Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican Secretary of State, put it in statement July 14, "The Holy See condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other," stating that Israel's right to self-defense "does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations." The statement said further, "In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation."

Even apart from the ethical questions raised by Israel's massive retaliation, there are significant issues of efficacy: Does it work? Is Israel made more secure by a militarized approach? Israel has destroyed 42 bridges in Lebanon this week, along with 38 roads, communications equipment, factories, runways and fuel depots at the Beirut airport, and the main ports of Beirut and Tripoli. And along with the material devastation, the attacks constitute a terrible, possibly even fatal, threat to Lebanon's fragile and fledgling democracy.

Does the destruction of much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, so painstakingly rebuilt after years of civil war and occupation by both Israeli and Syrian forces, bode well for future peace between the neighboring states? In sum, will the Israeli attacks bring long-term security for Israel, or will they further ensure that the next generation of Lebanese and Palestinians - across the theological and political spectrum - grow up with an undying hatred in their hearts?

The violence of Hezbollah and Hamas should be unequivocally condemned and opposed. It cannot be ignored or underestimated that the two terrorist organizations have as their goal the eradication of Israel. However, much U.S. media coverage of this new Middle East war paints a misleading picture of a tit-for-tat equivalency between the two sides: Hezbollah explodes a bomb in Israel, Israel responds in kind. While their intentions are indeed malevolent, the two terrorist groups have nowhere near the military capability of Israel, which wields one of the most powerful military forces in the world (with the aid, of course, of more than $3 billion per year from the United States). The death toll in Lebanon in the first six days of the war has been tenfold that in Israel - according to The New York Times, 310 people, most of them civilians, have died in Lebanon while Israel has suffered 27 casualties, 15 of them civilians, since Israel began its attacks. (Similarly, 4,064 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis have been killed since Sept. 29, 2000, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the Israel Defense Forces, respectively.)

One of the most difficult aspects of trying to be a peacemaker in the Middle East context is the "separation wall" of understanding between the two peoples. The very definition of what is happening is understood in vastly different ways by the two sides. Supporters of Israel see the country attacked by its sworn enemies, and see in its response a necessary and justified act of national self-defense. Others see the region's most powerful military force (supported by the world's most powerful military force) illegally occupying Palestinian land and engaging in massive, disproportionate attacks on innocent civilians.

As Christians committed to the cause of peace, our role is not to "take sides" in the struggle, in the traditional sense, but rather to constantly stand for the "side" of a just and secure peace. We can ignore neither the horror of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (including direct attacks on school children) nor the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories (with all its "collateral damage" to Palestinian children). We must have the vision and courage to stand against the acts of violence by terrorist organizations, as well as the massive state violence by the region's military superpower, while avoiding the trap of positing a false "equivalency" between actions that are not equal.

We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the political, strategic, and moral complexity of the situation to stand back and do nothing. A first step toward a more comprehensive resolution is an immediate operational cease-fire. But that must be followed by a new way of thinking because, as a U.N. official put it yesterday, "The Middle East is littered with the results of people believing there are military solutions to political problems in the region."

Jim Rice is editor of Sojourners magazine.

A few things that can be done:

Be consistent in denouncing the violence of both sides - especially when it is deliberately aimed at civilians (or targets where great civilian "collateral damage" will be the result).

Pray for the emergence of new political leadership on both sides - both of which seem bereft of creative, courageous, moral, or even pragmatic leadership.

Challenge any religious voices that seem utterly one-sided, completely neglecting the suffering and legitimate grievances of both sides.

Pray for new ways for Christians and our churches to join our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters in finding real and practical solutions for a just peace in the Middle East where two states can live with security and democracy.

And pray for better solutions than endless war to solve the real threats of terrorism in our world, because if we fail, all of our children will be at risk.

Posted by mattalexander at 5:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 19, 2006

Bloomberg Takes on Homelessness

I can't seem to find much Republicans do these days that please me, but the last two mayors of NYC, both Republicans (albeit Manhattan Republicans), have done great things for this city. This story in the Times is quite encouraging. I never expected to read such words about a politician, "Mr. Bloomberg said that many people have long assumed that having some amount of people living on the streets was a fact of urban American life. He said that thinking has to be reversed." Hopefully all this will pan out in a beneficial manner.

Posted by mattalexander at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mark & Jenny's Wedding

I'm back from beautiful Salem. Seriously, the Pacific Northwest is the best kept secret in the world. Don't tell anybody! However, Salem's allergens did seem to have it out for me. Fortunately nobody noticed when I snotted all over the bible during my scripture reading during the ceremony. Anywho, here are my pics.

Posted by mattalexander at 4:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 14, 2006

When Friberg Comes to Town

Currently blogging from Salem, OR, where I'm staying for Mark & Jenny's wedding. Thanks to the free wireless in our hotel, I uploaded the pics from Friberg's trip to the city last week. Much fun was had playing catch in Central Park, zipping through the Met, checking out NYU & The Village, Matt kicking a concrete block with his left big toe, seeing Dontrelle Willis crush a grand slam at Shea stadium, picnicking along the Hudson, and wandering around Columbia. Good times. Enjoy the pics.

Posted by mattalexander at 1:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 11, 2006

Lizzie Takes California

Sorry for the lapse in posts. We spent a few weeks in California showing off the baby. Thanks to David, Ma & Pa, Chris, and others for the photos I stole. (Consider this your Matt's-not-plagiarizing citation. : D ) See the set on Flicker here. Also, Friberg just left town, so he's been keeping me from catching up on the blogosphere. Underwhelming pics from his great visit should be up soon.

Posted by mattalexander at 11:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack