shades: on
windows: down.
radio: broken.
solution: me.
every time i hit a red light the guitar in the passenger seat accidentally ended up in my hands and i practiced jack johnson's banana pancakes. and when i was driving i'd sing out at the top of my lungs.
i wish that drive had never ended.
although of course as i'm singing banana pancakes im worrying about how there really is a reason to listen to the alarm when the whole world fits in your arms, cuz you hae to protect it and care for it. and me being me i get all thoughtful thinking about how banana pancake hippy happy music doesn't seem to address the problem of when there's no money for banana pancakes, and no bananas anyways even if you had the money.
from hippy happy to major downer...
although it did kind of make me laugh. in high school my friend christina was playing banana pancakes and she was telling me make up some words to it, cuz i had never heard the song before. and of course i come up with some sad song about poverty and needing to change the world. and like four years later she taught me how to play the song. and it makes me happy until i start thinking about poverty and needing to change the world.
But then I get happy again. Because during my brief career as an independent contractor for Nu Image, i.e. a door-to-soor saleslady, I MET Jack Johnson. And got his signature.
Of course, it wasn't THE Jack Johnson, and his signature was to get ATT television. But details are unimportant anyways. I'm a big picture person.
I just thought. Wouldn't it suck to be known as the other "your name here." Talk about identity theft. Like that poor guy on Office Space, Michael Bolton. There's other Sarah Rohrers. I've found them on google. I've got competition.
Crap.
Too bad none of them have met Jack Johnson like I have.
Suckers :)
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bush's Farewell: peace or privilege
Driving to school along bumpy Ugandan roads, my thoughts were interrupted to hear Bush’s voice giving his farewell address. The first words I heard? “…liberty and justice light the path to peace.”
My heart grieves. Bush is a man, with good intentions, trying to do what is right. But he makes me sad. When the radio announcer concluded the speech saying, “So that is it. Bush is gone. Good-bye!” I couldn’t help but laugh, much to the amusement of my family. Whether Obama’s promised change will be come, and whether it will be good or bad, I cannot say. But I am refreshed by America’s desire for change, and by the Ugandan excitement I have experienced for that change.
I, like Bush, sympathize with Jefferson saying, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” However, I do not think it is possible to simply put the past behind us without critically searching for the good, so as to build upon it, and finding out the bad, so as to publicly confess and repent from it. With that in mind, here are parts of Bush’s speech and some response. Because I think Bush focused too little on finding out the bad, that is my focus, but it is not because there is not good also to be found. Here are my responses and opinions. And please I invite other opinions and responses!
*******
The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.
For me, I do not think we should try to polarize the issues in this way! Man has always done this, trying to demonize the Other. While I am concerned with that, it is more how we portray ourselves that concerns me. We believe that liberty and justice light the path to peace? I am confused. Is it peace we are after, true peace, or simply a return to the status quo where we maintain our privilege at the expense of others? Because in the next passage, he seems to be saying the motivation comes from our own needs first:
In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.
At least this one sounds more familiar. We are the saviors of the world, but for our own sake, and so not really. I know selfishness is normal, and to some degree maybe necessary. But really? Don’t pretend in the first passage that we are fighting some jihad holy war, when really our primary motivation was looking out for our own interests. If it was not so, then why did we wait until 9-11 to go into Iraq again?
Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.
This is an excerpt from further along than the one right after, but it is not out of context. Once again, I thought we were acting in our own defense, giving liberty to others only to maintain privilege of our own. And again, is it peace or simply the status quo we are after? If freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right, why is THAT not our PRIMARY motivation and guide in foreign policy?
***
I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.
I agree. And I think Bush would also agree murdering the innocent to advance or protect your own interests is wrong every time, everywhere. And yet we have Hiroshima. And yet we follow similar policies, though not as extreme, as Israel with Gaza. Terrorists do not authorize us to count civilian life as less valuable. IF it may be necessary, at least still weep at such a high price.
This is why I am finding the nonviolence argument more and more strong. Even Gandhi taught that “Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.” But many times, violence IS the choice of cowardice, when one is unwilling to risk their own lives to find a better way. They would rather value their own life at the price of 20 or 100 or 1000 Other lives.
Between the two there can be no compromise. But there can be struggle, within a people, and even within an individual. If one would be so black and white in judging one’s enemies, should we then use a double standard on ourselves?
***
This is a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a Nation where citizens show calm in times of danger and compassion in the face of suffering.
Yes, we are a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And for many that dream has come true. But too often we are also a Nation that then crushes those dreams of freedom by refusing to pass legislation protecting the human dignity of those immigrants who were so inspired that they came illegally, bypassing a bureaucratic system that turns a blind eye.
As for the second sentence. How did we show calm and compassion in our response to 9-11? As individuals, this is true. But as national policy? Calm and compassion, prudence and wisdom, these things I do not feel I saw. I believe we tried to show calm and compassion. But the fact is, we were SCARED. And we wanted to feel better. We wanted action. And we got it. And now we have to deal with the aftermath of wanting Shock and Awe.
***
Perhaps I did not see these things because I did not know where to look. I know I was still in Jr. High 9-11 happened, and even still I can only see so much from where I am. So please I ask again if you have a different opinion to share it with me and explain it to me. If something I say seems short-sighted to you, or skewed, let me know. I wear glasses, so I cannot pretend my vision is perfect. But maybe together we can say that the elephant is indeed an elephant instead of just a leg and foot and so on.
My heart grieves. Bush is a man, with good intentions, trying to do what is right. But he makes me sad. When the radio announcer concluded the speech saying, “So that is it. Bush is gone. Good-bye!” I couldn’t help but laugh, much to the amusement of my family. Whether Obama’s promised change will be come, and whether it will be good or bad, I cannot say. But I am refreshed by America’s desire for change, and by the Ugandan excitement I have experienced for that change.
I, like Bush, sympathize with Jefferson saying, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” However, I do not think it is possible to simply put the past behind us without critically searching for the good, so as to build upon it, and finding out the bad, so as to publicly confess and repent from it. With that in mind, here are parts of Bush’s speech and some response. Because I think Bush focused too little on finding out the bad, that is my focus, but it is not because there is not good also to be found. Here are my responses and opinions. And please I invite other opinions and responses!
*******
The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.
For me, I do not think we should try to polarize the issues in this way! Man has always done this, trying to demonize the Other. While I am concerned with that, it is more how we portray ourselves that concerns me. We believe that liberty and justice light the path to peace? I am confused. Is it peace we are after, true peace, or simply a return to the status quo where we maintain our privilege at the expense of others? Because in the next passage, he seems to be saying the motivation comes from our own needs first:
In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.
At least this one sounds more familiar. We are the saviors of the world, but for our own sake, and so not really. I know selfishness is normal, and to some degree maybe necessary. But really? Don’t pretend in the first passage that we are fighting some jihad holy war, when really our primary motivation was looking out for our own interests. If it was not so, then why did we wait until 9-11 to go into Iraq again?
Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.
This is an excerpt from further along than the one right after, but it is not out of context. Once again, I thought we were acting in our own defense, giving liberty to others only to maintain privilege of our own. And again, is it peace or simply the status quo we are after? If freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right, why is THAT not our PRIMARY motivation and guide in foreign policy?
***
I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.
I agree. And I think Bush would also agree murdering the innocent to advance or protect your own interests is wrong every time, everywhere. And yet we have Hiroshima. And yet we follow similar policies, though not as extreme, as Israel with Gaza. Terrorists do not authorize us to count civilian life as less valuable. IF it may be necessary, at least still weep at such a high price.
This is why I am finding the nonviolence argument more and more strong. Even Gandhi taught that “Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.” But many times, violence IS the choice of cowardice, when one is unwilling to risk their own lives to find a better way. They would rather value their own life at the price of 20 or 100 or 1000 Other lives.
Between the two there can be no compromise. But there can be struggle, within a people, and even within an individual. If one would be so black and white in judging one’s enemies, should we then use a double standard on ourselves?
***
This is a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a Nation where citizens show calm in times of danger and compassion in the face of suffering.
Yes, we are a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And for many that dream has come true. But too often we are also a Nation that then crushes those dreams of freedom by refusing to pass legislation protecting the human dignity of those immigrants who were so inspired that they came illegally, bypassing a bureaucratic system that turns a blind eye.
As for the second sentence. How did we show calm and compassion in our response to 9-11? As individuals, this is true. But as national policy? Calm and compassion, prudence and wisdom, these things I do not feel I saw. I believe we tried to show calm and compassion. But the fact is, we were SCARED. And we wanted to feel better. We wanted action. And we got it. And now we have to deal with the aftermath of wanting Shock and Awe.
***
Perhaps I did not see these things because I did not know where to look. I know I was still in Jr. High 9-11 happened, and even still I can only see so much from where I am. So please I ask again if you have a different opinion to share it with me and explain it to me. If something I say seems short-sighted to you, or skewed, let me know. I wear glasses, so I cannot pretend my vision is perfect. But maybe together we can say that the elephant is indeed an elephant instead of just a leg and foot and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
