I recommend the film, “Green Zone.” It has flown under the radar for some reason, but Matt Damon does an excellent job, as does the rest of the cast. With the same pacing as the Bourne films (also directed by Paul Greengrass), Green Zone is sometimes hard to follow, but it is always exciting and interesting. It takes the point of view (probably now a consensus) that Iraq had ended the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction program) in 1991 and that the US knew that, but went into Iraq for other reasons. The main character, Warrant Officer Roy Miller (US Special Forces), commands a squad given the task of locating the WMD’s, but he soon realizes that there are no WMD’s. Much of the plot centers on whether the US should incorporate the Baath (Sadaam Hussein’s party) political and military leaders into the governance of the country.
The film represents a number of different points of view. Baath Sunni General Al Rawi (Yigal Naor) seeks to make a deal with the US; Freddy (Khalid Abdallah), who knows the lay of the land and serves as Miller’s translator, is a Shia Iraq-Iran war veteran who lost a leg and who harbors deep anger toward the Baath leaders; Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) is a state department official who wants to destroy the Baath and kill as many of them as possible in order to install those whom the US favors; Poundstone backs Shia Ahmed Zubadi (Raad Rawi, presumably an allusion to Ahmed Chalabi whom the US probably thought it could install as leader of Iraq), but Zubadi has little support among Iraqis; Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) is a CIA agent who apparently supported the Iraq war, knew that the US lied about WMD’s, and wants to make a deal with the Baath; and Lawrie Dane (Amy Ryan) is a Wall Street Journal reporter who wrote stories on the Iraqi WMD that lent support to the US invasion of Iraq.
For an action film, there is a lot of subtle commentary, with different points of view presented on whether the US should have allowed the Baath into the governance of the country. Most action films do not show the complexity of real-life contexts, but this does so with flair. General Al Rawi is an intimidating charismatic leader who wants to make a deal. His physical presence in the film oozes suppressed rage and violence that could explode under the right circumstances. Both Freddy and Martin Brown expose the naivete of Miller. Freddy’s wounds and suffering give him credibility and moral force, as encapsulated by his words to Miller: “it’s not for you to decide what happens in Iraq.” Brown was well aware of the US deceit and lies from the outset, but has a realistic understanding of what could work in Iraq. Poundstone is an oily power-grubbing political climber who has no clue about Iraq and only cares about his own advancement. Zubadi is a lackey. Lawrie Dane is a dupe. And Roy Miller is caught in a web which he only begins to understand at the end of the film.
Green Zone’s depiction of the chaos of Iraq and the hellish environment in which soldiers operate attempts to give viewers a picture of events from the point of view of soldiers and Iraqis. Green Zone clearly takes the position that were no WMD’s in Iraq and that the US knew that, but it also leaves open the question as to whether the US should have invaded Iraq and whether it should have incorporated the Baath leaders into the governing structure of the country. The film intimates that, if the US had incorporated the Baath into the new Iraqi political system, one of the goals of the invasion might have come to fruition more quickly: an inclusive, democratic Iraq that could serve as a political model for the Middle East. But obviously there were those with other ideas, including both Americans and Iraqis.
The film does not give easy answers, and that’s what makes it special.
Embracing life means embracing the hard stuff too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/dining/14deli.html
This article makes me hungry.
Gratitude: breathing, eating, shelter, consciousness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFAly6G5cA&feature=player_embedded
I’ve always wanted to try something daring. e.g. parachute jumping or bungee jumping. But walking the kooza wheel of death sounds like even more fun. Who wants to try it with me?
Taking time to meditate and pray is one thing. Living in meditation and prayer is quite another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiqVygN-w0
This is definitely at the forefront of new approaches to exercise. Whole offices can do this.
One further positive on government: the environment. If we didn’t have federal mandates, Lake Erie would still be burning, chemical and other toxic waste producing companies would be doing more damage to our soil and water, I and lots of others would be suffering from more severe asthma-induced air pollution (I’m personally still waiting for more restrictions on air particulates–it would help me to breathe), we’d continue to enjoy the benefits of DDT in our food, etc. Sometimes the mandates are too strict (I’ve seen that with our own small family property in the Boston area), but all in all I prefer to be able to eat, drink, breathe, and live on a healthy planet. If you want it the other way, take a look at Love Canal and other similar locations: that’s what we have to look forward to without government “improvements.”
Again, government (WE) sometimes does the job well and sometimes badly. That doesn’t mean we should either rely on government or remove it, but frankly we need to look to ourselves and ask ourselves what we’re doing wrong or not doing at all. It’s up to us. Government ineffectivenss, impersonalness, and bloat are just smptoms of our own attitudes and behaviors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html
An interesting approach to reconciling science and religion on the issue of natural selection and evolution. Personally I never had the conflict.
“Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, ‘The Source is present in this place, but I did not know it'” (Gen 28:16). Mindfulness is knowing it. Wake up.
An email response to a friend of mine:
————————————————-
A couple of points. You’re right. There is a distinction between government-sponsored social action and social action in a Jewish context. But the distinction is NOT between “government” and the “individual.”
For one thing, “government” is composed of individuals–just like you and I, they’re members of our communities. There is no “us” and “them” (i.e. goverment and people). That’s an illusion. The government is “us”; if we don’t like it, that’s our problem, and we should elect new reps who will change it (obviously campaign finance reform may be necessary, but that’s ultimately in our hands too). Posing government as some kind of demonic bogeyman is just another form of scapegoating. It tries to fob off our problems on some other entity or group of individuals. It’s another component of the victim mentality prevalent in Western culture. Usually we think of ethnic groups as engaging in the discourse of victimiziation, but those who blame the government for all of our ills do exactly the same thing.
Government does good things, and government does bad things. It built our highway system. The Voting Rights Act allowed African-Americans to vote in the South. It gave us the GI Bill of WWII, which allowed a whole generation of GI’s to attend college and buy homes and helped to produce the modern American economy from which we still benefit. For all its faults, affirmative action and diversity have produced work forces that include women and minorities–I think of universities where I have worked, and I know that they would look very different without the pressure of government (probably hardly any women or minorities). Of course, government does bad things as well. Look at our tax code. Look at the huge bureacracies. Look at the welfare system. Look at the Post Office. Look at the mess we have for an educational system. In the end, what government does well and what government does badly simply reflects on US. Good or bad, in the end we are responsible. Instead of blaming government or the “system,” we need to take a good, hard look at ourselves.
As to Judaism on social action. Judaism does not view individuals as completely separate from their communities. That’s why at Yom Kippur we atone for sins that we ourselves as individuals may not have committed. And Judaism always views indidiuals as part of a larger Jewish community. And the rabbis wrote the Mishnah, Talmud, and Responsa for the express purpose of governance. They always envisioned a Jewish society in which these laws (civil, criminal, and religious) would run a nation. That’s because Judaism isn’t solely a religion, but also a culture, a people, and a nation. It’s both indidivual and group. The two go together. Tzedakah, etc., are OBLIGATIONS that Jews have both as indviduals and as a community. The rabbis viewed those who did not do their share not only as making an individual error, but as disturbing the harmony and well-being of the larger group and even the cosmos. And there were penalties when such behavior got out of hand. I’m not personally a big fan of a rabbinic government, but, when we refer to the rabbis, we should be clear: THAT’S WHAT THEY THOUGHT. It’s fine to emphasize the individual over the group (though I myself prefer a more balanced and integrated approach), but in any case that’s not how the rabbis thought or think even now in Israel.
The individualism that some in our country emphasize reflects a very different tradition from the rabbinic one. It’s a wonderful tradition that has helped to make our nation what it is today, but (in my opinion) it owes more to the Enlightenment than to any earlier religious traditions. As for myself, I believe that we can exist both as individuals with our own personal goals and needs and as members of larger communities with whom we share group commitments and oblgations. It’s always a balance, but that’s the challenge we have to acknowledge and face.
I breathe. The earth breathes. The universe breathes.
I am a walking tree. I am ancient. I hear the voices of millennia.
Our bodies are mobile trees, our legs the roots, our torsos the trunks, our outstretched arms the branches, our necks and heads the tree tops. We are rooted in the earth reaching out to the stars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html
The Source is nothing. Nothing does not mean a vacuum, but no thing (no/thing). No/thing is pure energy.
A favorite quote of mine in this regard is from Dov Baer of Mezrich as translated in Lawrence Kushner,The Book of Words, p. 96 (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1993): “You need to think of yourself as nothing. Forget yourself entirely. Pray only for the sake of God’s presence. Only then will you come to transcend time and attain the ‘World of Thought.’ No contradictions. No distinctions between life and death or sea and dry land. All the same . . . This can only happen if you forget yourself entirely. But it cannot be the case while you are attached to the tangible reality of this world. Fixated on the distinctions between good and evil and mundane creation. How otherwise could one possibly transcend time and attain ultimate unification. Thus, as long as you remain convinced that you are ‘something,’ preoccupied with your daily needs, then the Holy One cannot be present, for God is without end, that is, ‘nothing,’ no vessel can contain the One. But this is not so when you think of yourself as nothing.”
Here, “nothing” really means without boundaries and limits.
Dov Baer expresses his ideas more dualistically than I would (e.g. “attached to tangible reality,” “mundane creation,” and “World of Thought”), but his message is beautiful: To feel the presence of the Source, one must drop all categories, especially the self.
I don’t see God as an entity at all, as a thing. God is not a being, but an energy that pervades the universe and transcends the universe. For that reason, I don’t even use the word, “God,” but instead use “Source,” or sometimes “Source of Being.” To relate to the Source, one must transcend all categories (which are, by definition, finite and limited). The Source is neither personal nor impersonal, but the sacred energy/breath that underlies all existence.
This is not an easy place for me to reside. I only get there at moments. Often I am deluded by my own self and its desires, which get in the way. But I do get there at times–certainly more now than when I was younger. And that makes all the effort worthwhile.
The SOURCE is nothing. Nothing does not mean a vacuum, but no thing (no/thing). No/thing is pure energy.
Bird songs, leaves rustling, chainsaws, lawnmowers, sirens. Urban symphony.
Voices of birds. Hum of motorized vehicles. Urban symphony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGoRo-nPLOM
Now for something different and fun (via Dianne Bazell): Fiddler on the Roof in Japanese. It seems that the Japanese have a real affinity for this story dealing with the tension between tradition and change
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/europe/13poland.html
More on the theme of reconciliation: Here Poland and Russia
Love is the transcendence of self.
http://jta.org/news/article/2010/04/12/1011536/kaczynski-leaves-legacy-of-polish-jewish-reconciliation
May his memory be for a blessing. It’s very impressive how far Jewish-Polish relations have come over the last 75 years.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/talk-deeply-be-happy/
Substantive conversation and talking deeply leads to greater happiness. I have always seen meaningful discussion as the core of teaching and wisdom (which should be the goal of all learning)
http://www.truth-out.org/why-you-need-understand-political-psychology58214
This is a very interesting discussion of political psychology. There’s also a really cool set of surveys that allow one to see the different responses that liberals, conservatives, and centrists give to a whole variety of moral and political questions, as well as visual markers (dots, lines, triangles, colors, etc.): http://www.yourmorals.org/. Many of the questions are problematic and flawed, but they’re all intriguing. I’ve done about ten of the surveys, and my responses do not seem to correlate very well with any of the groups. In quite a number of instances, I’m considerably more liberal than the liberals, and other times I score more closely to conservatives. Sometimes I’m in-between. I call myself “radically independent,” and so this might make some sense. Thought-provoking.
Our bodies are poems, Every cell, tissue, nerve, muscle, bone, and organ are the words.
Our body are poems with beauty and meaning found in every cell, tissue, nerve, muscle, bone, and organ.
Our bodies are texts in which we write the stories of our lives.
My heart beats, a tiny pulsating cell in the heart of humanity, in the heart of all life, in the heart of the earth, in the heart of the universe, in the heart of the multiverse, in the heart of the Source.
Here are two very different views of Iran and the Middle East:
1) The first is from a conservative blog and discusses a book written by an Iranian, Reza Khalili, a CIA spy who was a member of the Revolutionary Guard of Iran. He is convinced that either the US (the preferred option) or Israel must attack Iran and that the Iranian people are hoping for such an attack. It is important to note that he does NOT advocate an invasion, but rather an attack on the Revolutionary Guard. He also points out that most Iranians essentially love the US and are not unfriendly to Israel. He opposes an invasion, because NOBODY wants their nation invaded. He is of the opinion that Iranians cannot stand the current government, but they have no power to overthrow it.
2) The second is by a left-wing Israeli journalist, Uri Avneri. He is of the view that there is very little the US or Israel will or can do about Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. Israel’s and Jews’ connection to Iran goes back several thousand years, and the positive relationship cannot be preempted by the group of crazies that now run the country. The effect of an attack by Israel would shut down the world economy, and the US will never allow Israel to do that. And, given Iraq and Afghanistan and the US’s own economic woes, the US is in no position to attack either. Obama is pushing Israel on East Jerusalem, because he wants Israel to make a choice between its building policy in the Jerusalem environs and a strong sanctions policy against Iran led by the US. If Israel pursues its current settlement policy, then the US will not pursue the sanctions. This is the choice that the US is presenting Israel.
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1270319001/
At for the Khalili interview, I am not sure that an attack on Iran, which would include both the nuclear sites and the revolutionary guards without an invasion, would lead to the overthrow of the current government. There’s a lot of wishful thinking there, and I don’t necessarily buy that. It’s possible, but, even if the current government falls, the new government will very likely pursue nuclear weapons, although it will take them longer if the nuclear sites are destroyed. Khalili is no doubt correct about an invasion and the long-term negative impact of such an approach. Yet even a targeted attack on the Republican Guard and the nuclear sites could produce a understandably self-protective reaction on the part of a broad cross-section of the Iranian people. You might hate your oppressive government, but you don’t want foreigners to do your own work for you. That just makes people angry. I do believe that Khalili is correct about the religious views of the Iranian leaders–that they believe that the use of nuclear weapons will initiate the public return of the twelfth mahdi and a worldwide victory for Islam. Many in the West find this hard to imagine, but all we have to do is listen to late night radio and hear what many in the conservative Christian community believe. It’s pretty much the same thing, with victory coming to Christ and Christians instead of the Mahdi and Muslims. We should take very seriously the religious views of Iranian leaders, because they actually believe what they say.
The second piece is correct in its analysis of the US view of the Jerusalem situation. I believe that the Obama administration and many US foreign policy analysts (including those from a variety of prior administrations) believe that progress on the Israel-Palestinian conflict will give the US more leverage in dealing with Iran. Whether this is actually true or not is another matter (whatever the merits or flaws in the Obama admin’s position on settlements). Arab governments are terrified of Iran regardless of Israel, and progress on Israel-Palestine will likely not change the behavior of the Iranian government and of those who fear it. The Middle East is much more complex than Israel-Palestine, and the US should not be fixated on that as some kind of cure-all. It might buy some time, but that will end quickly. We are dealing with governments in the Middle East that, except for Israel, are, for the most part, corrupt dictatorships (often despised by their own people, as in Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia), and that makes the situation volatile no matter what happens with the Palestinians (For Arab countries, see most recently the democracy report card of the Arab Reform Initiative: http://arab-reform.net/IMG/pdf/annual_rep_010_english.pdf , where Palestine, by the way, scores rather low).
This is a very difficult environment. I have no idea what the solution is. My own sense is that Israel will attack if it appears that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons, even if the US opposes such a move. This could have profound consequences for the US-Israel relationship and, of course, for Israel. That is why Israel has spent a lot of time cultivating its relationship with both India and China, both economically and militarily. In the end, this is an existential question for Israelis. Given the holocaust and the near decimation of world Jewry, Israel is acutely aware of what the consequences of Iranian nuclear weapons would be. Israelis will take enormous risks to prevent that from happening. The best possibility right now might be the continuation of covert operations to slow down Iranian progress on the nuclear front, but that can only work for so long. The effectiveness of sanctions is doubtful.
In reality, no one has a clear answer. The best approach is for those of us are observers to try to understand the complexity of the dynamics at play and the different points of view of the people and nations involved. At the same time, any kind of open dialogue is preferable. This is a time when the lines of communication need to be open and when people of different backgrounds need to be talking with one another, even if there is very little apparent progress and even if they are not talking about the Middle East. Sometimes just talking about gardening or sports builds the foundation for real understanding. And I know that this may sound pollyannish, but we need prayer and meditation to surround this region with imagery of peace and light.
The assassins of Archbishop Romero are revealed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503234.html
A tree rooted in the earth feeling the sun’s rays. The ground’s juices. Heaven’s breath. Two realms linked in an ancient creature.
A discussion of resurrection in a modern context:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/24/far-from-heaven.html
A great photograph is not a reproduction, but a distillation.
You can no more equate a person with an image than you can cup your hands to hold the wind.
Attachment is idolatry. Letting go is the opposite of idolatry.
Unconscious habits impede feeling. Conscious habits clarify and intensify feeling.
Conscious awareness of habits makes you more flexible.
We could all use this kind of mental flexibility.
http://laughingsquid.com/a-2-5-year-old-uses-an-ipad-for-the-first-time/
Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.