Louisville Jug Band Music 2
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
Did you know that Jug Band music originated in Louisville, KY?
Friday, August 11, 2006
This Just In...
According to the Washington Post:
======
So, Mr. Gonzales, perhaps the Geneva Convention isn't so "quaint," after all?
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean....
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan...
======
So, Mr. Gonzales, perhaps the Geneva Convention isn't so "quaint," after all?
Friday, August 4, 2006
Have a Blessed Peace Sunday
The following was written by Gary Kohls. I'm sharing it here because this Sunday is Peace Sunday, the time we stop to recall the devastation of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to rededicate ourselves to the work of peace.
Gary is a Christian peacemaker whose writing I've read as a result of my connections to Every Church a Peace Church (www.ecapc.org). It's a timely history lesson.
Nagasaki is famous in the history of Japanese Christianity. Not only was it the site of the largest Christian church in the Orient, St. Mary’s Cathedral, but it also had the largest concentration of baptized Christians in all of Japan.
It was the city where the legendary Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, established a mission church in 1549, a Christian community which survived and prospered for several generations. However, soon after Xavier’s planting of Christianity in Japan, Portuguese and Spanish commercial interests began to be accurately perceived by the Japanese rulers as exploitive, and therefore the religion of the Europeans (Christianity) and their new Japanese converts became the target of brutal persecutions.
Within 60 years of the start of Xavier’s mission church, it was a capital crime to be a Christian. The Japanese Christians who refused to recant of their beliefs suffered ostracism, torture and even crucifixions similar to the Roman persecutions in the first three centuries of Christianity. After the reign of terror was over, it appeared to all observers that Japanese Christianity had been stamped out.
However, 250 years later, in the 1850s, after the coercive gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry forced open an offshore island for American trade purposes, it was discovered that there were thousands of baptized Christians in Nagasaki, living their faith in a catacomb existence, completely unknown to the government - which immediately started another purge. But because of international pressure, the persecutions were soon stopped, and Nagasaki Christianity came up from the underground.
And by 1917, with no help from the government, the Japanese Christian community built the massive St. Mary’s Cathedral, in the Urakami River district of Nagasaki. Now it turned out, in the mystery of good and evil, that St. Mary’s Cathedral was one of the landmarks that the Bock’s Car bombardier had been briefed on, and looking through his bomb site over Nagasaki that day, he identified the cathedral and ordered the drop.
At 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was boiled, evaporated and carbonized in a scorching, radioactive fireball. The persecuted, vibrant, faithful, surviving center of Japanese Christianity had become ground zero.
And what the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds. The entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out.
Gary is a Christian peacemaker whose writing I've read as a result of my connections to Every Church a Peace Church (www.ecapc.org). It's a timely history lesson.
Nagasaki is famous in the history of Japanese Christianity. Not only was it the site of the largest Christian church in the Orient, St. Mary’s Cathedral, but it also had the largest concentration of baptized Christians in all of Japan.
It was the city where the legendary Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, established a mission church in 1549, a Christian community which survived and prospered for several generations. However, soon after Xavier’s planting of Christianity in Japan, Portuguese and Spanish commercial interests began to be accurately perceived by the Japanese rulers as exploitive, and therefore the religion of the Europeans (Christianity) and their new Japanese converts became the target of brutal persecutions.
Within 60 years of the start of Xavier’s mission church, it was a capital crime to be a Christian. The Japanese Christians who refused to recant of their beliefs suffered ostracism, torture and even crucifixions similar to the Roman persecutions in the first three centuries of Christianity. After the reign of terror was over, it appeared to all observers that Japanese Christianity had been stamped out.
However, 250 years later, in the 1850s, after the coercive gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry forced open an offshore island for American trade purposes, it was discovered that there were thousands of baptized Christians in Nagasaki, living their faith in a catacomb existence, completely unknown to the government - which immediately started another purge. But because of international pressure, the persecutions were soon stopped, and Nagasaki Christianity came up from the underground.
And by 1917, with no help from the government, the Japanese Christian community built the massive St. Mary’s Cathedral, in the Urakami River district of Nagasaki. Now it turned out, in the mystery of good and evil, that St. Mary’s Cathedral was one of the landmarks that the Bock’s Car bombardier had been briefed on, and looking through his bomb site over Nagasaki that day, he identified the cathedral and ordered the drop.
At 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was boiled, evaporated and carbonized in a scorching, radioactive fireball. The persecuted, vibrant, faithful, surviving center of Japanese Christianity had become ground zero.
And what the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds. The entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out.
Thursday, August 3, 2006
Analogies grown here
We grow analogies here at Payne Hollow like other folk grow corn: tall and sweet. (Okay, I don't really understand that one...)
How's about this on the personal/communal responsibility issue as it relates to the personal auto (but the principles may carry over to other issues):
We recognize as a society (for the most part) that drunk driving is a big wrong. Drunk drivers - especially ones that end up hurting someone - are universally reviled.
Is that because every person who's had a few drinks is going to drive irresponsibly? As I understand it, no (I'm a tea-totallin' Baptist, so no real experience to speak of on this matter).
There may well be some folk who've had a few drinks who could (and do) navigate themselves safely home without killing or injuring a single soul.
But in general, the odds of someone causing an accident increases when they drink. Therefore, at least in the US, we've pretty much made drunk driving a social taboo. We've collectively decided that there've been way too many people maimed and killed by drunk drivers to allow anyone to drive drunk.
That would be an example of the people collectively acting responsibly when it may not really be an issue for any one individual, am I correct thus far?
Would this not be akin to driving in general? We recognize that any one driver may not be hurting anyone or anything by driving. It's not the individual that is a problem.
But when half a billion (there are roughly 600 million cars in the world currently) people drive nearly everywhere, we begin to have all sorts of consequences. Three million dying annually from air pollution (not exclusively from autos), over one million dying annually from auto wrecks. Tens (hundreds?) of millions maimed or otherwise damaged by auto wrecks and pollution at a cost of trillions of dollars. Every year!
To say that this is no small problem would be an understatement.
Would it not behoove us, then, to implement a bit of communal responsibility? Or, put another way, when does the realization that a communal act is so damaging that it becomes a matter of personal responsibility to take action?
And before the accusation is cast, I'm not advocating a ban on driving. Just as there are times when it may be appropriate for a drunk to drive (if someone were injured and the "drunk" in question were only mildly intoxicated?), there are reasons for driving.
I'm advocating that, just as drunk driving should not be the norm, neither should the personal auto be the norm for general transportation needs. And when they are used, greater care must become the norm (not driving cars that pollute like hell, driving much more slowly, less pavement, etc.).
For me, it's a matter of communal responsibility - and with so much evidence of the damage caused by the personal auto that it has become a matter of personal responsibility.
What say ye?
How's about this on the personal/communal responsibility issue as it relates to the personal auto (but the principles may carry over to other issues):
We recognize as a society (for the most part) that drunk driving is a big wrong. Drunk drivers - especially ones that end up hurting someone - are universally reviled.
Is that because every person who's had a few drinks is going to drive irresponsibly? As I understand it, no (I'm a tea-totallin' Baptist, so no real experience to speak of on this matter).
There may well be some folk who've had a few drinks who could (and do) navigate themselves safely home without killing or injuring a single soul.
But in general, the odds of someone causing an accident increases when they drink. Therefore, at least in the US, we've pretty much made drunk driving a social taboo. We've collectively decided that there've been way too many people maimed and killed by drunk drivers to allow anyone to drive drunk.
That would be an example of the people collectively acting responsibly when it may not really be an issue for any one individual, am I correct thus far?
Would this not be akin to driving in general? We recognize that any one driver may not be hurting anyone or anything by driving. It's not the individual that is a problem.
But when half a billion (there are roughly 600 million cars in the world currently) people drive nearly everywhere, we begin to have all sorts of consequences. Three million dying annually from air pollution (not exclusively from autos), over one million dying annually from auto wrecks. Tens (hundreds?) of millions maimed or otherwise damaged by auto wrecks and pollution at a cost of trillions of dollars. Every year!
To say that this is no small problem would be an understatement.
Would it not behoove us, then, to implement a bit of communal responsibility? Or, put another way, when does the realization that a communal act is so damaging that it becomes a matter of personal responsibility to take action?
And before the accusation is cast, I'm not advocating a ban on driving. Just as there are times when it may be appropriate for a drunk to drive (if someone were injured and the "drunk" in question were only mildly intoxicated?), there are reasons for driving.
I'm advocating that, just as drunk driving should not be the norm, neither should the personal auto be the norm for general transportation needs. And when they are used, greater care must become the norm (not driving cars that pollute like hell, driving much more slowly, less pavement, etc.).
For me, it's a matter of communal responsibility - and with so much evidence of the damage caused by the personal auto that it has become a matter of personal responsibility.
What say ye?
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Corporate Responsibility
[NOTE: And when I say "corporate," I mean it in the sense of "communally - all of us," I'm not talking about corporations/business entities.]
In an earlier post on environmental responsibility, Chance (Zoo Station, whose url is http://sadastronaut.blogspot.com/ - and why is that, Chance - Sad Astronaut?) made the following excellent comment:
Concerning the individual, we can sin due to lack of moderation, like drinking too much, eating too much, etc... On a global scale, this is more difficult, because now we must make decisions for other people. I am not saying we should avoid such collective decisions when environment is involved, but how we decide what is moral for other people? "Don't" morality is easy on the individual or collective level (don't kill, don't steal), but "moderation" morality is very difficult on the collective level.
I responded by saying:
An excellent point, Chance. And part of why I think these issues are so difficult for us to come to grips with.
We're all for personal responsibility (most of us) but when it comes to corporate responsibility, things get blurry.
The individual responsibly driving a car, for instance, does no serious damage. There's plenty of oil in the world for one person to drive and the environment can handle a certain amount of smoke.
BUT, can 2 Billion people all drive every day and not have a negative effect? No. And so, the individual is doing no real harm there, but the collective IS doing serious damage to the world. How do we create a sense of corporate responsibility?
One thought I'd have is to work to ensure that ACTUAL costs are reflected in our purchases which will, to some degree, allow the Market to help things (how about that?! A capitalist answer from me!).
It doesn't cost us $3/gallon to drive our cars at the rate we do. It costs $3/gallon PLUS the 3 million killed in auto wrecks, PLUS the 1 million killed by air pollution, PLUS the loss of clean streams, PLUS the loss of tourism dollars that result because of the dirty streams, PLUS the loss of clean air, PLUS the days lost from work due to the effects of dirty air and on and on and on...
Our gas prices are WAY artificially low. If they reflected actual costs, then people would drive less, consume less, pollute less corporately and individually.
And that would be a start.
What do you think - what steps can we take to encourage corporate responsibility?
In an earlier post on environmental responsibility, Chance (Zoo Station, whose url is http://sadastronaut.blogspot.com/ - and why is that, Chance - Sad Astronaut?) made the following excellent comment:
Concerning the individual, we can sin due to lack of moderation, like drinking too much, eating too much, etc... On a global scale, this is more difficult, because now we must make decisions for other people. I am not saying we should avoid such collective decisions when environment is involved, but how we decide what is moral for other people? "Don't" morality is easy on the individual or collective level (don't kill, don't steal), but "moderation" morality is very difficult on the collective level.
I responded by saying:
An excellent point, Chance. And part of why I think these issues are so difficult for us to come to grips with.
We're all for personal responsibility (most of us) but when it comes to corporate responsibility, things get blurry.
The individual responsibly driving a car, for instance, does no serious damage. There's plenty of oil in the world for one person to drive and the environment can handle a certain amount of smoke.
BUT, can 2 Billion people all drive every day and not have a negative effect? No. And so, the individual is doing no real harm there, but the collective IS doing serious damage to the world. How do we create a sense of corporate responsibility?
One thought I'd have is to work to ensure that ACTUAL costs are reflected in our purchases which will, to some degree, allow the Market to help things (how about that?! A capitalist answer from me!).
It doesn't cost us $3/gallon to drive our cars at the rate we do. It costs $3/gallon PLUS the 3 million killed in auto wrecks, PLUS the 1 million killed by air pollution, PLUS the loss of clean streams, PLUS the loss of tourism dollars that result because of the dirty streams, PLUS the loss of clean air, PLUS the days lost from work due to the effects of dirty air and on and on and on...
Our gas prices are WAY artificially low. If they reflected actual costs, then people would drive less, consume less, pollute less corporately and individually.
And that would be a start.
What do you think - what steps can we take to encourage corporate responsibility?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Self-Defense or Self-Destruction?
I think there is sometimes a confusion in the minds of some about pacifists. My guess is that most pacifists are not opposed to a nation actually defending herself (even though we may choose not to fight violence with violence, ourselves). Rather, it is deadly violence applied in the course of something other than defense that we typically reserve our criticism for.
I bring this up in light of both our Iraqi invasion and the ongoing violence in
So, to clarify at least my position, I'm not opposed to
What I'm opposed to, here or in
Allow me to elaborate.
After 9/11, Al Qaida was a pariah around the world. The world was united behind the
But instead, we invaded a nation that had nothing directly to do with these criminals. We validated the terrorists' position that the
We are losing a popularity contest to thugs and terrorists!
By attacking and killing innocent people (and I know neither the
We've aided and abetted the enemy by attacking people in their vicinity.
And so, while I support a people's right to self-defense, I reject the notion that
The tools of destruction are only good for one thing.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Blackbird Attack
Blackbird Attack
Originally uploaded by joyjiang.
I have rarely posted other people's photos here, but I came across Joy's photos this week and thought she had some magnificent pictures. Take some time for a visit to her flickr site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)