Inherit The Wind

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

-- Proverbs (11:29)

I'm about to take off on vacation for a week, so naturally, I watched the 1960 Stanley Kramer dramatization of the Scopes Monkey Trial this morning. I love Spencer Tracy's performances, especially his later ones, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone get the "grilling" scene right, when Henry Drummond (aka Clarence Darrow) coaxes Matthew Harrison Brady (William Jennings Bryan) onto the witness stand to offer expert testimony on the Holy Bible. Drummond sets up Brady perfectly, Tracy and Fredric March are energetic and powerful, and Harry Morgan is wonderful as the judge. But there wasn't quite enough play to the crowd, not enough sense of Drummond's ability to sway it just as easily as Brady, when opportunity permits, to fully represent this moment on the screen.

In my vision of this scene, Drummond turns to the crowd, and the jury, with his "Brady Brady Brady Almighty" mockery, and is completely successful at turning the audience against Brady, at least momentarily. They laugh raucously at the ridiculous image of the man who hands down his Revealed Word from God, like Moses come down from the mountain to his children. Brady is visibly affected by the laughter, looking confused and small, and cries out, barely audible, but enough that the crowd now remembers Brady their Savior, and becomes hushed and ashamed. It's in this silence that Mrs. Brady retrieves her dazed husband and leads him outside.

Perhaps the full impact of such mockery of religious smugness was softened for 1960, but the remake with George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon still fell short, as I recall. I would love to see this scene fully realized, because I think it's chock full of all the human elements surrounding some of our most enduring questions, and it's really brilliantly written. The right to think was on trial, and the scriptwriters, Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (really!), exposed the subjectivity, the all-too-human stamp upon any reading of Revelations that calls deeply into question all claims of authority over each individual's personal relationship with the miracle of creation. The depths plumbed in this climactic encounter will be radical, I imagine, as long as human society endures.

The right to think has always been on trial, and court is back in session. There's a new Executive Order floating around now, crafted by our President last week. It purports to lend legitimacy to the notion that the government can seize all property and assets of anyone it deems insufficiently beneficial to the Iraq War Effort. In the meantime, Sen. Clinton had made a request to the Defense Department that Congress' Armed Service Committee be briefed regarding Iraq withdrawal plans. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that, immediately following news of this order, Eric Edelman, Undersecretary of Defense, responded to Sen. Clinton brusquely to the effect that "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia". When the freedom to think and ask questions is opposed even for those in Congress charged with overseeing defense, one has to cast a wary eye at all the monkey trials that persist all over the country.

The old proverb is itself very Zen. We still trouble our own house, our own hearts, and until we are wise of heart, we are servants to those whose hearts are full of wisdom. Read carefully, its meaning bears no resemblance to that implied by Matthew Brady. It is like Socrates saying that the unexamined life is not worth living.

But back to the scene. Matthew Brady is revealed as a fraud when Drummond lifts the crowd, ever so briefly, into the rarified ether of independent thinking. It is the same fate for anyone who tells you what to think, once all the lights are switched on. The Zen master reveals the shocking truth to his pupil that "I have nothing to give you; and if I did, it wouldn't be your own." In much of life, we have each other, and we work together. But for the ultimate questions, we're absolutely, inescapably, on our own.

Oh, by the way, the Pope says Catholicism is the Only True Religion. Thanks, Pope!

I'll be away for a few days. Hope everything's still here when I get back.

Here's a little dark humor from GoLeft TV and Head Zup:

A Letter

I have sent an email to Congress, expressing my views for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The text of my message is reprinted here:

I confess I do not know the correct addressing with which to begin my comments, but I assure you I write this with respect and friendship:

I have lived my life as best I can, and have humbly tried at all times to follow my best and purest instincts in my words and actions. In recent months, I have been much involved in closely following the words and actions of the 110th Congress, and I am honored to be able to address you as individuals who are working so hard for the things that really matter to all Americans.

Because I see so much good in you, and because I have faith that there is sufficient concern on your part that someone, at least, will read my stammerings, I must open my heart to you at this time.

I listened to the lies that led us here, and tried to speak out against them. I have seen the framework of Democracy chipped away, and have protested. I have wept at the deaths of thousands, yet more die needlessly. I am moved now to the edge of fear, but I will not cower. I am watching the hopes and dreams of average Americans stolen from them while they sleep, and I say that outrage is not enough.

History has a very long memory. I am absolutely firm in my conviction that history will look upon the Bush Presidency as the nadir for American Democracy up to now. In that context, anything less than the most stern application of the law of this land can only be viewed as moral cowardice, to such a degree that our children's children, those who might still be free and have access to the lessons of their past, will find utterly repugnant.

It is perhaps true that many Americans still sleep despite the very personal violations inflicted upon them, but I can see that the very honorable members of Congress whom I now address are fully alert, and I am grateful for your vigilance. But who will absolve us if we continue only to jab obliquely at what must, by moral imperative, be diametrically opposed?

Most of the time, we see the world in shades of grey, and I have myself been described as one who tries to address contrasting perspectives. But today, July 20th, 2007, we are confronted with such perniciously absolutist attacks on our ideals that we must respond appropriately.

Most assuredly, it will matter very much to history which side is successful in this confrontation. I submit that it will matter just as much whether we tried. I would be greatly relieved if it were found that my stance is hasty and unwarranted, but I know in my heart that it is not, and I believe you know it, too.

Congressman John Conyers has said: "I have a choice. I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act." This expression of the choice before us is inarguable, its conclusions inescapable. I implore you to, without further delay, make this valiant stand against the forces that press against us, or we may indeed fall.

Thank you for your time.

Time for comics! This Modern World, by Tom Tomorrow.

Thought For The Day

I'm still finishing up Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. If I tried to list all the memorable quotes and passages that have affected me, I would overload this blog. But the following passage belongs in these pages, I think. This is from the 1933 autobiography of Chief Luther Standing Bear (From the Land of the Spotted Eagle) , and appears on page 525 of Zinn's book:

True, the white man brought great change. But the varied fruits of his civilization, though highly colored and inviting, are sickening and deadening. And if it be the part of civilization to maim, rob, and thwart, then what is progress?

I am going to venture that the man who sat on the ground in his tipi meditating on life and its meaning, accepting the kinship of all creatures, and acknowledging unity with the universe of things, was infusing into his being the true essence of civilization...

From this tipi, this is the Zen Hodgepodge, signing off for now.

Common Sense

I don't like to talk much about Zen itself. Zen flees from the compartmentalization of language. So if I talk about some aspect of Zen, I'm just suggesting that's one way to look at things. With that in mind, I'll say that I think I'm more likely to use my common sense when my Zen practice is relatively strong. When I am composed, I can look at a situation more clearly and be more effective. So, I'm trying to have strong practice.

The term Common Sense has suffered some undeserved abuse. Still, it was the title of the pamphlet published by Thomas Paine in 1776. You can read the complete text by clicking the link above. In that pamphlet, Paine spoke plainly to defend the rights of the people on the new continent, and described some of the architecture of the new government being created. In noting the absense of a king within this framework, Paine offered:

But where, says some, is the King of America? I'll tell you. Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony, be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

The sense on which America was founded was that the law OUGHT to be King. This is common sense. From these 18th-century beginnings, we have arrived at the 21st century, and the law has been commuted. From warrantless wiretapping, to shameless lies, to signing statements, to blankets of secrecy, to dismantling any semblance of a functioning Department of Justice, and on and on, and finally to torture. I say finally, but this seems to have been nearly the first place the scoundrels took refuge, not the last.

I am calm. I am composed. I have meditated. But look -- compare the two paragraphs just above, and come back and talk to me about common sense. And now, just like icing on the cake, the administration that has turned its back on the law has:

1. commuted the sentence of its friend, who was convicted of the same crimes (albeit in far more serious circumstances) for which the last opposition president was impeached
2. thumbed its nose at congressional subpoenas, going so far as to entirely ignore the requirement of former Counsel Harriet Miers to appear before the investigating committee.

I saw a president assassinated. I've seen two presidents effectively impeached. I have never seen anything like this. So I appeal to our common sense. The law seems to have failed us, but it need not. In fact, it absolutely must not. There cannot be sanctioned disregard of the law, not by any branch of our government, for if there is, it will become precedent. In that case, I fear we will not be prepared for the complex and violent world we've helped to create.

Bill Moyers' Journal last weekend aired a rather breathtaking discussion on impeachment. The speakers were the liberal author and columnist John Nichols, and the conservative Constitutional law scholar Bruce Fein, who had served in the Justice Department for Ronald Reagan, and who had authored the first article of impeachment against Bill Clinton. Both guests argued passionately for impeachment, but they also argued, very often, with what I consider Common Sense.

Please click the link above and watch the broadcast on pbs.org. There is much that needs to be said, and I have many thoughts of my own to share as this drama unfolds.

Why I Write This Blog

I'm trying to keep up my entries on this blog, although I needed a couple of days away from it just now. If you read this, you might wonder why I bother. I'll have more to write on that, I'm sure, but suffice to say, it doesn't matter to me whether anyone actually reads this. That doesn't mean I'm just talking to myself. I write in the spirit of reaching out to others. But if, in the end, it's just an exercise, that's fine with me. I'm practicing. If you want to develop any skill, you have to practice. I don't so much hope that you read my blog, as that you write your own. It's good for the soul. And you never know what may come out. I'm trying my best.

One way to describe what's been bothering me is the way we relate to each other. Technically, we're all looking out for each other, and we want what's best for everyone. But the chasm between what each of us believes can seem unbridgeable. I don't want to believe there's no hope for dialogue. I do believe the vast majority of us want to work together. But we get separated by the way the arguments are framed. Instead of talking about the things we can agree on, the media trumpets the ways we disagree, and everyone gets mad. Some of that has to happen, unfortunately, because things are so bad. Come on, I know you agree with me on that one. We've got some big problems!

Sometimes, the way to start might be on a topic that hasn't been "spun" too much yet. For me, sometimes it's the less-publicized things that set me off, because to me they seem indicative of how we continue to mistreat each other. As an example, why don't you watch this video from GoLeftTV? It's called "The Attack On Mothers", about issues surrounding the recent increase in cases of autism. Just watch and listen, and see if there's anything here that might concern you. I'll be back later to practice some more.



Since I'm providing links today, here's one more. This is Al Gore (courtesy of YouTube), giving a speech on May 29th of this year on his new book The Assault On Reason. If you read only one book this year, please make it this book.

Inherent Contempt

I've been feeling pretty strained by conditions at large. I'm having trouble meditating, and trying to be objective. I think you'd have to be devoid of emotion not to be stressed by the climate today -- not just the political climate, but the whole "existential" condition of living through these eerily hot summer days, divining the impact of the Homeland Security Secretary's intestinal condition, seeing Michael Moore and Sanjay Gupta duke it out, watching an anti-hero go for Hank Aaron's record, trying to keep track of all the societal upheavals, genocides, and executions. Sometimes, I wonder if the human race is worth my, or anyone's, concern. So, I've been feeling sort of down.

I had AirAmerica on the radio while driving, and heard John Dean on the Randi Rhodes show discussing something called "inherent contempt". For a moment, it sounded like a diagnosis of what I was feeling. Then, I realized he was describing a process whereby a party behaving in contempt of Congress could be charged under the moldy heading of "inherent contempt". Here's the Wikipedia entry. This entry may have been updated very recently. Just my gut feeling, but those things can be important, you know.

When someone is charged with inherent contempt of Congress, they are literally arrested, brought before the Senate, or the House, by the Sergeant at Arms, and immediately tried. This is a little attention-getter that was last used by Congress in 1934 to try a Postmaster General. Ostensibly, this could be used to force testimony from someone such as Harriet Miers, who apparently intends to be flamboyantly in contempt of Congress for tomorrow's scheduled hearing. There is an excellent write-up on this by another blog. The first link (click on "I find this to be a tad bit encouraging") will take you to the web site of the Speaker of The House (Ms. Pelosi), and a copy of the response to Ms. Mier's attorney, specifically noting this option as a potential consequence of refusal to appear.

It's pathetic that it took something like this to brighten my day. But it could be a hopeful sign. At least it indicates that there are ways, if there is sufficient will, to rip through the red tape and get to the heart of the matter with some speed. Ms. Miers can be summarily compelled to appear, without filing standard contempt charges through the Department of Justice, where they would likely languish. The inherent contempt authority of Congress has been thoroughly vetted, and upheld by the Supreme Court. It appears to be a very significant weapon against the obfuscation and stonewalling of this administration.

It's almost 100 degrees in Seattle, for goodness' sake. My concentration sucks, my writing sucks, but things will get better. There are a couple of nice links here for further reading. It's going to be a long haul, I'm afraid, even with potential godsends like inherent contempt to speed things up a little. Watching an Executive Branch disintegrate in slow motion isn't something you should have to get used to as the New Normal. I've been looking at this too hard, and I'm not the only one. This is a pretty uninspired blog entry, and I apologize. But for those looking for a flicker of hope in this surreal landscape, I found something for you.

Survival of the Fittest

For the last several days, I've been engrossed in American history. I've been reading simultaneously William Miller's A New History of the United States, and Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. In the first, I have only one chapter remaining, covering the period after World War II up to 1968, when the book was published. In the second, World War II is about to begin, but there is much more yet to read in that book.

I strongly recommend A People's History of the United States, especially if you're already roughly acquainted with the finer details of our history, or are willing to review, as I have, with an alternate text. Because Zinn's book doesn't focus on all the details you might expect, preferring instead to focus on the minor players, your ancestors and mine. If you'd like to read up on Howard Zinn, here's a link to his biography in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

The Wikipedia entries are extensive enough to provide a balanced view of Zinn. The consensus is that his views are "radical". One of the most interesting critiques was written by Georgetown University history professor Michael Kazin, in a 2004 article for Dissent magazine. Kazin argued that the book focuses too much on class conflict, and falsely attributes sinister motives to the political elite. There may be some truth to Kazin's critique. That's one reason I've balanced out my reading. But I don't think you need to draw the same conclusions as Zinn to appreciate the book. Zinn is widely recognized as a great scholar, and the events presented in the book, and the quotations used, are demonstrably true. To this point in my reading, any conclusions Zinn may be drawing are inferred, not stated. As I read, I'm reminded of John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath more than anything. These are true stories, culled from our history. They have a meaning to me, and another to you.

So, if I recommend this radical's book, and Michael Moore's new film, and question the sentence commutation of Scooter Libby, then I must be radical, right? Well, if the shoe fits, I suppose I'll wear it, but my heart won't be in the role. I still have plenty of faith in capitalism, I think the individual is as important as the community, I love my country, and I love Jesus. Do I fit in now?

I'm not always so big on the details about changes I'd like to see. Because I believe it's all part of trying to live in a more enlightened state, trying to take seriously the task of loving my neighbor as myself. I've always believed if we could get better at that one thing, the details would fall into place. I haven't drawn up plans for the perfect society. We'll know it when we get there.

I do believe that books such as Zinn's are extremely relevant right now. I know that the full story of history, even such a brief one as ours, can never be told. Those who controlled money and property participated in our lurching march toward civilization, and often had good motives as well as bad. But for those less fortunate, the world has all too often looked exactly as Zinn describes. And I know that much of their suffering might have been eased, had those in power really lived the life revealed to them by their Savior.

If I see our current maladies as an extension to Zinn's America, I think there's some justification.I see great wrongs being committed, and the will of the majority dismissed. The voices on the news alternately soothe and frighten, as occasion befits, but just as a game. The truth is somewhere between the soporific mass media and the radical journalist. But the story has been told again and again, through history. And most of the time, it's been about survival of the fittest.

We don't have equal justice, that's obvious. We don't have equal rights, and what meager rights we have we've gained by force. But my Jesus, and my Zen masters, aren't about force. I believe that in almost every instance, force is self-defeating. I believe we are going to redefine what we mean by survival of the fittest, in terms of America, and the human race.

As we've seen this week-end, our planet is warming. Some of you may believe that's not a certainty, but with over 90% of researchers in agreement, I'd say we have a consensus. Pollution has always been a bad thing. We've all said all along we should be cleaning up the environment. Now, with every reason to believe that cleaning up Mother Earth isn't just a good thing, it's the only thing, we can stop putting off that cleanup we've been meaning to do. If it turns out to be a false alarm (don't bet on it), so much the better.

In the face of climate challenge, we will redefine survival. For humans, it's always been so much more than mere survival of the fittest. We have fine, noble dreams, and they aren't radical, they aren't Socialist. They're just Over The Rainbow dreams.

We need to end the nightmares, and begin to dream.

Quid Pro Quo

Quid pro quo, an ancient Latin phrase meaning "something for something", was originally used to describe an offering to the gods. Romans, being very pragmatic people even in their religions, expected that the gods would respond, quid pro quo, to the offering. On Monday, Scooter Libby's gods answered his prayer.

It did seem so odd, during Libby's trial, with all the hushed expectation that star witnesses -- Libby's boss, Dick Cheney, among others -- would be called upon to testify on behalf of the Scooter. But the big names were never called to the stand. In what seemed a precipitously abrupt change of course by the defense team, the case for the defense was terminated, leaving Libby to the mercy of the court, and a jury who had heard a never-ending stream of damning testimony against him. His conviction was a foregone conclusion.

The Scooter showed little emotion beyond a faint smile. It was hard to imagine he had suddenly become resigned to his fate. Unless, of course, he knew he didn't have to worry.

Most presidents have loved giving out pardons. Clinton seems to have enjoyed it. So did Bush 41. Bush 43 has been less enamored of this presidential power than his predecessors, and even on Monday, offered only commutation of the sentence, reserving the right, it should be noted, to fully absolve the Scooter at some later date.

But sometimes, even a President can't have any fun. Like when the President is under a cloud of suspicion related to a crime. As Thom Hartmann pointed out today on AirAmerica radio, there was an earlier President who dabbled in this kind of quid pro quo behavior -- and it became a primary element in the articles of Nixon's impeachment.

The President cannot take this kind of action to aid in obstructing an active, ongoing investigation. This has been tried before, and it didn't go well. There will, in fact, be an investigation into this very matter by Congress next week.

I watched Dan Rather Reports this morning on HDNet. He was holding a round table discussion on the current Constitutional crisis. At the end of the show, in summarizing, he stressed that we're examining, not just the constitution and the law, but "who we are as a people." And his voice broke. He teared up pretty good, and I wasn't sure if he could continue. But he toughed it out, and closed the show.

I'm feeling like I've been through all this before. Except this feels worse.

Over The Rainbow

Thanks to my satellite dish and my DirecTV subscription, I get a nice little channel called LINK (Channel 375 in the Seattle area). There's an excellent, though very low-budget, daily newscast called DemocracyNow! hosted by syndicated columnist Amy Goodman. Today, July 4th, 2007, the news reporting portion of the program was minimized to spend more time with Pete Seeger, the legendary folk singer. Pete is 87 now, and sings with reluctance as the formerly clear, crisp voice now wavers with age. It was a wonderful show, particularly if Pete is as much of your past as he was mine. You can watch it today at http://www.democracynow.org, if you like.

There aren't many points of difference between my own views and those expressed by Pete in that broadcast -- or most anything he's said over the years, for that matter -- but there was one thing. He told a little story near the end of the show about The Wizard of Oz, and the discussions over whether or not to include the song Over The Rainbow. There is something a little seditious, I suppose, about wishing for a better place, but you know the rest of the story.

Pete loves the song, of course, but complained that the last line, rather than the words "Why, oh why can't I?" should instead be "Why can't you and I?". I appreciate the wish to include us all in this lovely lament, but I would never find the change acceptable. And I think it's emblematic of something uniquely American, something we can add to Zen, something we have added to the social equation, something I think that's still worth defending. It's "I". Had the song been changed, it would have become some sort of Socialist manifesto, and been lost to time. It lives on because it expresses something at a uniquely personal level, and it's the uniquely personal quality of American culture that's at the heart of much of what's been right about this country.

We do need to work together, and we do need to plan for better health care, stronger unions, sensible regulations that discourage and punish systemic abuse, we do need to join hands and work for a better future. But I think we also need plenty of elbow room. That's why it's so important to take a breath when things happen that make us angry, and move carefully with the instruments of change.

I'm going to go now, and sing Over The Rainbow to myself. I love singing it, and wouldn't change a word. But give a listen to the songs Pete Seeger has sung and popularized over the years, songs of the people, Howard Zinn's People's History set to music. I love those songs. And I love Pete Seeger.

SiCKO

I saw Michael Moore's new film SiCKO this weekend. It's an engrossing look at America's health care system and how it compares to that of Canada, Europe and, um, Gitmo. Unsurprisingly, the American system doesn't come out of the proceedings smelling like a rose. As a matter of fact, no justification at all remains for the status quo. The rest of the world is getting by quite nicely, thank you, with its task of making sure its sick and wounded are well cared for. Only in America do we see families destroyed by the cost of illness, and health care expenses bankrupting the economy patient by patient.

What astounds me is how little aware we are of the situation around us. We live as on an island, oblivious to creative solutions on all sides. I think it's in part because we're so narcissistic (hey, I call 'em like I see 'em) that we don't notice what goes on elsewhere until it affects us. Michael Moore grabs us by the tops of our heads and twists our necks around to look at the bigger picture. It's basically an open and shut case. Our system sucks!

It's a strange mentality, and far more unnatural than we realized, that turns the ravages of disease into a profit center. I've been extremely fortunate myself, through my software company, to enjoy probably the best employee health care in America, but the time will come for me as well. We have the ability as a nation, and a plethora of successful models to follow, to care for our sick out of our humanity and compassion rather than our projections of the bottom line. We have a robust structure already in place called Medicare, which could be improved and extended to all. One system, one payer, no health insurance companies at all. Imagine!

I don't feel as if this little movie review strays in any way from this blog's focus on spirituality. Jesus, after all, is the Great Healer. What in the world do you think He would say about our current system? Tell me!

Reading assignment progress report:

Hope everyone's reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I'm reading my twin American History books (A New History of the United States, A People's History of the United States), and am beginning the Civil War chapters in both books. I just finished reading a chapter in the People's History called "We Take Nothing By Conquest, Thank God", covering the 1840's Mexican Wars that gave us Texas, California, et. al. I think before I give much credence to anyone's thoughts on the immigration issue, I'll ask about their knowledge of our glorious history from this era.