I really truly should be going to bed by now. But I haven't blogged for a month, and I have something significant on my mind. Justice and reason dictate that my first post back should be a response to the questions so kindly posed to me by Karl Thienes. I am in the middle of composing such a post. But some of the answers are taking me more time than I had expected, and I am currently excited about something else. So I will post, promising, as I have for a month now, that "next post" will include the interview.

This post owes much to my current courses here at Holy Cross (which have apparently been more thought-provoking than I had thought), especially to my Church History course with Fr. Thomas Fitzgerald and to the massive paper assignment from Fr. George Dragas. It also owes much to my Beloved Enemy and good friend Daniel Silliman and to our epic conversations regarding Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, to the recent joint statement issued by Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians regarding the Filioque clause of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and to a myriad of other influences. Mainly it's my overactive brain on overdrive. So...off to the races...

Since I was old enough to comprehend that it existed, I have abhorred the rift between denominations of Christians. While I was still Protestant, I sought to distance myself from denominational barriers and derided denominationalism as blasphemous to the name of the undivided Christ which we claim to bear. To this I still hold.

My conversion to Orthodoxy vastly improved my position and aided my image of myself. For now, I can claim to be a part of that true and complete Body of Christ from which the others have split off. I have been able to say to myself in good faith that it is not I that blasphemes Christ, not I that makes Him divided in the eyes of the world outside--it is THEM! And this has been pleasant.

Yet I have maintained, parallel with that view of myself, a pity for those outside--for the schisms and heresies which spawned this abomination which we call the denominational explosion all lie far in the past (and many even were spawned in good faith, with the intention of preserving the Faith and worshipping God in spirit and in truth). Moreover, I know all too well that those who today exist in schism with the Orthodox Church do so by default. They never left the Church; rather, they grew up outside Her, and know nothing of Her. So I have pitied them and tried to communicate to them the truth which they lack, that they too might partake of the wonder and blessing that lies constantly within my grasp here.

I have, however, been constantly frustrated in that many dear friends have failed to understand, failed to be interested, ultimately failed to convert. I have questioned what ailed them. Did they not see? Could they not hear? And I ultimately attributed it to the ineffable workings of the human soul and consigned them in prayer to the far more ineffable mercy of God.

But I have recently understood something which had before escaped me. I came to college and encountered Orthodoxy with a mind and heart purposely wiped clean of a theological vocabulary. I had intentionally shunned preaching, teaching, books and church attendance itself in a desire to rid my mind of preconceived notions and expectations and approach Scripture truly openly, that I might understand what God said to men, not what men said about God. And consequently, I had far less of a theological system to shed as I embraced the Eastern theological system by which Orthodoxy is expressed. I found in it the fundamental truths of the Scripture in which I had immersed myself for the past two years, and knew of a certitude that here I belonged within three months of my first encounter.

But others cannot be expected to do so. Others have far too much invested in a system of thought that is existentially Western and English, as opposed to Eastern and Greek. Moreover, there exists the ever present handicap to the modern American mind of the inprecice nature of the English language theologically speaking. There have been so very many writers who have bandied so many words so differently that it is truly possible for thousands of differing denominations to confess the very same creed as I do (save the Filioque) and mean something utterly divergent from Orthodox Christianity.

This was not the case 1500 years ago in the Eastern Roman Empire. There, there was a literature, a dialogue on papyrus and parchment, a refining fire in which words were tested and tried--so that when a catechumen stood up in the Church and confessed "Pistevo eis ena Theon, Patera Pantocrator..." those receiving him for baptism could be confident that, if he spoke in good faith, he truly held the Faith once delivered to the Apostles, that he truly believed in one God, the Father Almighty...

It is a matter of fact that language is by nature an imprecise and fluid thing. A word means practically nothing removed from its context. Just so, a word, a sentence or a creed mean nothing when removed from the larger context of literature in which they were spoken. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed itself expresses little of the faith--but it represents countless volumes which carefully define every single word within it, so that, on that imagined day 1500 years ago, the newly baptized Christian knew precisely what it was to which he had committed himself. He knew that his confession of Christ as "homoousion" denied the belief that the Son of God was a mere creation. He knew that a distinction existed between the word "ousia" and the word "hypostasis;" that three of the latter could exist in one of the former, and that this was how the Trinity was to be described. And this he knew because Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius, Arius, Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius, Eutyches, Origen and countless other Saints and heretics had fought long and hard over each word until there could be no doubt of the meaning of the Creed. Indeed, the Creed is the summation of the entirety of Holy Tradition--and its translation in each language must needs be based in a similar corpus of literature.

The strange thing to realize is that it will not suffice simply to translate that older corpus. For the distinction between ousia and hypostasis and the heresy that spawned it is a Greek distinction and heresy, not an English one--and any English translation will have its own issues, countless and myriad and each a latent heresy. After all, English is its own language, with its own history and an already vast corpus of literature. Rather, the same battles which defined the early centuries of Christian history must be each re-hashed, re-examined, re-fought. And new battlefields must be created, new battle lines drawn. There will be heresies. And it must needs be so.

But for the moment, it is too early to begin pointing fingers, to begin issuing anathemas. The language is far too imprecise. I cannot in good faith point a finger at any random Anglican or Roman Catholic at a first encounter and call him a heretic. His belief may be heresy, but I cannot know that so soon. Indeed, so many of my conversations are primarily semantic--the entire time is spent defining and redefining terms. And all too often, in the end, we realize that that which divides us is far less than it had seemed.

This is not to say that heresy cannot or does not exist in this English-speaking land. But in the past, the wisest among the Fathers always took very great care to ensure that a man was not condemned for his heresy until he understood the meaning of the words he used and nonetheless stood by them--it was only when a heretic, fully understanding that in his belief he differed from the decision of the council in question, refused to renounce his beliefs, his terminology, that he was finally condemned. The instances of Nestorius and Eutyches come particularly to mind.

It also must be borne in mind that the Fathers were this merciful to the heretics themselves, the first originators of the false doctrines. Who are we, who am I, to point my finger at my estranged Christian brother (a Pentecostal, for example), reared in the West, ignorant of history, ignorant of any church but that in which he took his first steps in Christian thought and philosophy, and accuse him of heresy. The kernel of his faith may well be as Orthodox as mine, if not more so. If he does not understand the consequences of his individual beliefs, can I condemn him? If the language I use to speak to him is incomprehensible or, worse, is that which he associates with a Mormon, a Buddhist, or (as this is very common with those among whom I grew up) a Roman Catholic? He has been conditioned to reject these from his birth--he took in the reflex reaction with his mother's milk.

But he, and indeed no devout Christian upon this earth intends to be a heretic. After all, even the heretics thought that they was upholding the fullness of the Orthodox Faith. Were it not so, they would not have been so recalcitrant. And so, in this age especially, as the Orthodox Tradition, that which most completely possesses the faith of the early Church (for it is organically connected to that Church, both in history and in language) finally is introduced into the sphere of English and American Christianity, what is most needed (next to a genuine faith and a heartfelt prayer on the part of each and every one of us) is a dialogue, a literature, the beginnings of a corpus of verbiage that will give precision and depth to the language we use to speak of the things of God.

But we who are Orthodox must not think that it will suffice to dialogue only amongst ourselves. Amongst ourselves, we already share a vocabulary, much of it taken from those few Orthodox who have written in English, much more simply borrowed directly from the Greek (such as Logos). In many ways, we ARE Greeks, speaking Greek in English. We cannot expect the average American to do this--we must begin to speak in English, and that requires that we begin to address the misunderstandings and problems arising in English. For that, we need controversy, we need contention--we need our estranged brothers in the Anglican and Roman Catholic and Calvinist communions, and perhaps even in the further removed denominations of low-church Protestantism.
We already know that we share many beliefs, even many words with them. There are similarly many matters upon which we greatly disagree. In many cases it remains to be seen whether the beliefs behind the words truly differ--or if they would if we each comprehended what the other side understood us to be saying, what they thought those beliefs implied. I have no doubt that there are hoards of heretics in modern America--but equally I have no doubt that, once all understand what the words mean, far more than those hoards would be Orthodox.

This, then, is what I propose, in my hubris and vanity as a first-year seminarian. Let us ourselves begin such a dialogue, begin intentionally and in earnest the long work of refining English as a theological language. Let us not abandon the roots from which we have sprung, but let us rather begin to remove those seedlings from the temporary pots in which they have for so long remained and begin to transplant them into this new land. The goal is not to condemn, not to immediately establish who is in and who is out--it is simply to talk, to understand, to develop a common vocabulary, so that, whether we end in agreement or not, we KNOW where we stand.

For the Orthodox--I do not propose that we admit that the denominations of America are Orthodox--I merely suggest that we at least extend as much to them as the ancient Fathers did to the heretics. Let us talk to them, crunch terms with them, and understand them. For you who are not Orthodox, I do not ask you to accept Orthodox definitions and schemai--rather simply to at least consider them, critique them, converse with them and seek to understand them. Let us together seek to ensure that, 200 years from now, if there are still denominations in America, those denominations will at least know with certitude what divides them.

For this purpose I offer my papers blog, Pilate's Question. The reference to Truth seems to me a fitting title, and a fitting place to begin. Let us, indeed, see a great conversation begin between Hillsdale's League of Extraordinary Bloggers on the one hand and the Ecumenical Council of Orthodox Bloggers on the other. I suspect it will be most expedient if I remain the sole administrator, posting such things as others may send me. But details may be worked out later.

As I write this, I begin to fear that I am thinking too highly of myself, that I have no right to aspire to this. But, should I ever hope to have such a right, to be capable of writing coherently of the Christian Faith in this English language. I must begin somewhere. And this--this is a lofty goal. I recall something Jake Allen, the Ockhamist, wrote a number of weeks ago--that he had always thought to be a great man someday but had, for the first time, begun to doubt that he truly would, as a great cause in which to prove his greatness had failed to present itself. I have felt similarly. But this--this is truly a great cause, a great enterprise, a great life's work. It is one that could draw into itself even the highest of scholars, but still include the simplest of blue-collar workers, simply because that worker could pipe up and say, "I don't get it--what you said means this to me," or worse, "So why should I care?" So easily do the mighty fall�for the wisdom of the world is made foolishness, and this we must not forget.

So let us take care in our writings, working to always speak directly to the matter at hand, not losing our way in the ethereal heights of reason or rhetoric. Let us equally maintain a publishable level of quality--for this, surely, is something which could be published. Let us always carry on in charity and Christian love, seeking the edification of ourselves and one another, preserving the Faith but never using a particular formulation thereof as a weapon against one another. And let us pray, always pray--for the words of theolgians and councils are but the cloak of the inner life of Christianity, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Consigning ourselves to His guidance, and praying that the mercies of God may ever shown upon us and this land, let us then begin.

Come let us reason together...

Yeah, I know. I've been gone forever. I'm back to the "Cold Day in Hell" section of ~'s blog links, I haven't answered Karl's interview questions, I've not mentioned that I've had a birthday since I last posted, that I'm getting married in 11 weeks and have selected wedding rings with my fiancee, that the academics here suck, that my brother in Iraq's gotten a temporary transfer to a musical group in Baghdad that should keep him out of the line of fire for a few months, that I'm still happy to be here, that I'm really really out of it in some horrid malaise (though y'all probably could have guessed that), that my dad read and enjoyed my discussion with the Anglicans over at Pilate's Question, my paper's blog, that Boston is crazy when the Red Sox are in the playoffs or whatever they're called in baseball, that I am reading and very much enjoying Metropolitan Hierotheos' Orthodox Psychotherapy, or anything else that's happened to me since you last heard from me.

But I'm back now, and mean to stay back (yes, you've heard that before. Welcome to my life). This time, Prizio is to blame for my return (actually, he was last time too. Interesting...). He has an interesting and disturbing quote and link on his page. The link is to a weird and freaky page, but the quote got me thinking.

Here it is: "Despite what suntanned youth pastors, overproduced Christian pop stars, and columnists from glossy Jesus teen mags told me in my evangelical youth, it has never been very cool to be Christian. Imagine telling your peers, �I�d love to go to a forthcoming concert / party / film with you, but I can�t because there is this kind Jewish man with long hair and soft eyes who loves me more than his own flesh and he wants me to remain pure so I can spend eternity with him in paradise.� There is no register available on this earth that could count this as hip."

I don't like that answer (duh!). Here's my response, which I also posted in ~'s comments. But I needed some material here, so I'm plagiarizing myself--and also, I'm curious what y'all think.

Here it is:

"That's a fairly lousy statement of the reason not to go (even if such things are indeed better avoided). A better reason (or closer to better--my weird mind doesn't seem to know how to communicate with Joe Schmoe) would be something along these lines.

"The only reason I'd really want to go to any of those things anyway would be to escape, to hide, to run away. Heck yeah, I've got problems, but I'll be far happier in the end if I face them instead of hiding behind my appetites. The self is not located in the belly. Nor in the balls. Just as it's not in the brain, or the soul, or the spirit, or the heart, or any other element that the myriads of philosophers have invented in their efforts to dissect the human person. My self is in the comixture of all of the above, and I won't be happy, won't be myself, won't actually live a life worth living, until they are restored to their rightful places and actually united. Then I will be happy, then I will be healed, then I will finally be able to enjoy the gifts of creation without destroying myself"

"And Christ is the one who heals me."

As I said, I have no idea how to speak to the masses. I'm bad enough talking to people who have some inkling what I'm talking about. But it works for me. And those mannequins are freaky."

I apologize for the nested quotes. It's late, and I'm not in the mood to fix it. But do tell me what thoughts you have on the subject. Thanks. :) And good night. I have altar duty tomorrow. 7 will come far too early.

Something is messed up on my formatting now that it's been over a week since I last posted. So I'm posting something, just to try to get it back to normal.

Incidentally, I've had a lot more thoughts on the priesthood, sparked by several discussions with my bride-to-be and the recent necessity to write my application to the seminarian program here at Holy Cross. I hope to post some of them tomorrow. We'll see how the day's rest and evening work go.

Also, I need to respond to Karl Thienes' interview questions. That's also on the schedule for tomorrow.

I'll catch up...really I will. :)

Greetings, friends and neighbors.

I just put in the new comment system. Length is now no object. My apologies for the sudden loss of all old comments. I think it will be better this way--best to change when the loss is smaller, etc. So please, blogout, and quickly, so my blog doesn't look like nobody reads it. ;)

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

This is pretty cool. Perhaps there are perks from being owned by Google.

When one searches Google for Anthony Cook, my site is the first, yeah, FIRST to appear. I'm fourth for Arandir, and couldn't find myself for just Anthony. Nonetheless...that's very cool. I am happy. To my surprise, and not a little bit to my dismay, I appear sixth when one searches for "greek orthodox" blog. That puts me up above Pensate Omnia, St. Stephen's Musings and many others who represent the faith far better than I. May God forgive me. Anybody who finds my site under that search, visit my friends at those links.

More on the priesthood later--Danielle Miller asked a question that made me remember some things.

But I can't write it now. We have Orthros and Liturgy starting at 6:30 tomorrow...and I'm on altar duty, so I have to be there at 6. Hence up at 5, so I'm going to bed now.

But, God be praised, it is very good to be here.

NOW TRANSMITTING FROM BOSTON...

It's been almost a week since we arrived. So far the refrain has been "better than Hillsdale." Above all the chapel has been better--certainly the cafeteria and library are better, and even the student body has proven itself quite competitive with the institution which recently saw fit to give me a degree. I suspect that this school and these people will be a very great blessing in my life over the coming years. Glory be to God for His great mercy.

Today they split off the potential candidates for eventual ordination from the rest of the new students and laid out the requirements for the next four years leading up to ordination. My reactions to their presentations were mixed (though tending towards the positive), but the topic reminded me of something I've been thinking about for at least the past year.

How does one discern a calling to ministry? My answer to anyone who asks (including myself) has been that I cannot imagine myself truly content in any life but that of a priest--that is, I WANT to be a priest. I don't know whether that answer suffices--for the moment, it has brought me here, and I pray that all will be well.

My concern is that I do not possess the proper dread of the lofty calling I seek. St. John Chrysostom fled ordination--I am seeking it, and that blithely, regardless of my many sins and failings. In every way, I am utterly unworthy. Yet these are merely words which I write because I know in my mind that I should say them. They do not flow from my heart. That lighthearted approach to such a weighty office is perhaps the single greatest barrier to my eventual ordination.

Which is strange, because one would think that I would consider the myriad of sins themselves a greater barrier than the awareness of my unworthiness--instead, I consider (and I think rightly) that awareness the single greatest prerequisite for this calling. In the larger sense, the sins themselves are almost negligible.

Why is this? Simply put, because the conquest of my own sinfulness itself is not, strictly speaking, my department. A man on his own WILL sin...period. This is a law more immutable than that of gravity. Only God can purify a man--but He insists on our consent before He will act.

In order to clarify what I mean, let me reference the life of Elder Joseph the Hesychast of blessed memory. He spent several years in grueling warfare against the demons until he was finally rid of the passions. He writes of fighting so closely that one demon "left the sensation of his hairs on my fingers and the smell of his stench in my nose." His descriptions can leave us with the impression that the Elder was fighting a direct war in which, by the power of HIS sword and HIS lance, he vanquished the adversary. But that impression forgets the very nature of the sword of the Elder.

The Jesus Prayer--Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me--is precisely that sword. In his months of battles with the demons, the Elder's sole means of fighting was constant, heartfelt, impassioned repetition of this prayer. His victory was won only when he ceased to speak the prayer in any conventional sense and began, in every fibre of his being, to LIVE it. Which is to say, the sword of the man who is saved is turned inward upon himself, until he dies to himself and is resurrected to God. Only when the whole man stands naked before God, utterly and willingly dependent upon the mercy of God, can the Almighty enter in and vanquish the enemy.

Which is to say, there IS indeed a work demanded of a man for his salvation: to accept the grace and mercy of God. That acceptance is essentially and fundamentally a complete death to self, a recognition of one's utter impotence against the evil one and a desperate cry for aid. But when the man cries out "Lord have mercy" with all his being, at that moment the clay finally submits to the Potter and can begin to manifest the manifold glories of the All-Holy Trinity.

For me in my aspirations to the preisthood, then, sin is only a symptom. The root problem is my separation from God, zealously protecting my own identity, reserving those aspects of my person which I am unwilling to surrender--and thus I fall, inevitably, hideously and often. But if I truly am called (and we are all called to holiness), then I must learn to discern my unworthiness and dread the calling (for "I am a man of unclean lips")--and then turn to God with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind and beg his mercy on me, a sinner. And then the Light will dispel the darkness.

All I have to do is open the window.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.

I should not be posting this. It is far too late (rather early) on this last day I will spend in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I need to finish packing and get to bed so I can finish out my summer job tomorrow and have time to finish all those little things that have to be done and get to bed early so I have sufficient sleep under my belt to drive 14 hours or so to Boston Thursday. I'm packing my computer as soon as I post this.

Brief introspection to follow...

This has been a strange summer. I should feel as I leave it that it has been a tremendous blessing, to have work and a place to stay and food to eat and opportunity to grow closer to my bride-to-be. And I do...but I feel as though I have largely wasted the summer. The job I finish tomorrow is less than we had hoped to do--I will finish probably about 20 hours short of what I had planned to work. I have talked for hours with Elisabeth, but far too much of that has been pointless bickering. Instead of improving my discipline in a consistent schedule of sleep, work, study and prayer, I have gotten worse. I have become even more accustomed to living a mediocre, selfish and dissipated life.

And yet, 26 hours from now, I will get in my car to drive to Boston, starting on a road that will lead to marriage in four months and ordination in four years. If ever there was a time for me to grow up and lay aside the lifestyle I have indulged in all my life, this is it. I fear, indeed, that I have set patterns now that will haunt me in the months and years to come. I know that this need not be so--and yet that is precisely why I fear. For the fact that it still remains so bears witness to the fact that I do not actually want it to change.

That fact will only change, I know, by the gracious working of God in my heart. And for that, I must be willing. So please pray for me. This is the time, this day and this hour, for my childish ways to die.

And yes, I know...posting this instead of packing is precisely a failure to grow up. So this ends now.

Hurrah!! I now live out my bloggerly existence in both the "Cold Day in Hell" AND the "Business as Usual" categories of Adam Prizio's blog rankings. Perhaps he knows my penchant for working in spurts and wants to save himself trouble restoring my name to the Cold Day in Hell section when my posting falls off, as it probably will eventually. Or perhaps he will have more faith in me and actually remove my name from the list of the damned. I wait with bated breath...

I just posted another installment of the Anglican/Orthodox debate on my papers blog. Peter Geromel wrote me a very long email, which I responded to as briefly as possible, addressing what I thought the key points. There are at least some very helpful links in both emails...please check them out.

This will probably be the last from me on this subject until I get to Boston and again have time to devote myself to such things as theology and other things that really matter. For the next week and a half, my life will be lost in such mundane things as medical files and sleep and packing. *sigh* Such is life. Work first, then play.

My good friend Konrad LaPrade now has a blog. Most excellent, to borrow a Hugger-ism. Check it out. And a thousand happy welcomes to Kons. May he blog forever in peace and prosperity, and his Jack bottle never run out.

The Orthodox/Anglican discussion continues over at my papers blog. Monday morning I received a lengthy email from another Anglican friend from Hillsdale, Peter Geromel. He goes through in detail why precisely the Anglicans claim to be fully legitimate. His email, and my response, are posted over there. Please check them out.

It is currently 3:40 on a Sunday morning. I just finished a lengthy discussion with Daniel Silliman examining the issues dividing the Anglican Church and Orthodoxy. I have posted it on my papers site here in its entirety. There are valuable points on both sides. I am very grateful for the opportunity to finally hash out the issue with Daniel, and even more grateful simply for the opportunity to talk with him for such a long time. I had forgotten how much I had missed him and everyone else at Hillsdale.

As a man who thinks that he thinks, and thinks fairly well, I like soapboxes from which to share my well-thought thoughts. I also like to read other people who seem to think that they think when they get up on their soapboxes. Thus, in hopes that it will bring me back to this blog more frequently and draw my small readership back, I am adding a new feature over there on the left side of your screen for those people who use the blog soapbox well, with relatively good writing, original thought or humor. Hopefully the list will not stay this short.

I ran across this link when I logged on today to check blogs, news and email. I could not help but remember Dr. Stewart's suggestion soon after September 11 that the way to fight the war on terror was to "McDonaldsize" the Palestinian people and militant Islam at large. The idea, of course, was that if the people there had the money to spend on and the access to an American-style pursuit of instant gratification, they would quickly lose interest in blowing themselves up.

My first thought was that this new, American-style shopping mall in Ramallah looked like the first step towards something like that. But the idea looked less and less like what I had imagined as I continued to read. For one thing, it's funded by Palestinian businessmen, not by Israeli or American businessmen trying to cause the Palestinians to sink into apathy. Not that it couldn't still have the same effect, but it's not what I had expected. The Palestinians here WANT peace...they don't have to be tricked into it by their appetites. Which surprised me.

Or rather, I should say, I was surprised by my surprise. I had not realized the extent to which I viewed the whole nasty situation as primarily and fundamentally the fault of the Palestinians, with the Israelis as victims, though admittedly as larger and stronger victims. But every time I passed such judgement, I did so by means of referring the situation back to the beginning...which is pretty much completely beside the point. Those who "started" it are dead now...so perhaps both sides are victims, locked in a self-perpetuating morass of violence, death and destruction.

You will say, "So...Duuhhh. Everybody knows that." Yeah, I know. Somehow I missed the obvious. Mebbe I'll blame the media for that one.

At any rate, I think this shopping mall is a hopeful sign for the future. It may still work for ultimate peace, increasing the desire of the Palestinians for peace and prosperity as they taste some of its fruits, and simultaneously reminding the Israelis that far from all those living under the constant threat of their raids are madmen with bombs strapped inside their clothing. Perhaps those on both sides who are willing to lay aside hate will one day come together and forge a peace in which the enemies are no longer Israeli or Palestinian but those on both sides who deal in bombs and rockets and hate.

Come let us reason together...

SINE QUA NOT MUCH WORTHWHILE

Some political musings collected from the dust-bin of my mind over the past few months.

I made the case to a close friend several weeks ago that American military might and economical oomph are currently maintaining and protecting modern civilization worldwide in a manner not dis-similar to Rome's maintenance of ancient Hellenistic culture during the Pax Romana.

Obviously to say that Rome was the source of civilization is ridiculous--even the statement that Rome maintained ancient civilization is a bit oversimplistic. But Roman rule does seem to have been the sine qua non of civilization until they both fell fairly simultaneously in Western Europe.

In a similar manner, though America is certainly not either the source or the sole protector of modern civilization, I suspect that much of what is taken for granted as normality in civilized countries worldwide would disappear were American influence around the globe suddenly to vanish. America, I think, currently acts very much as the sine qua not much for modern civilization.

One the other hand, I recently read Orson Scott Card's latest addition to the cycle which spun off from Ender's Game--Shadow Puppets. It was a fun read while stuck in O'Hare International overnight a few days ago, but I was surprised that Card paints the world of the future with America, and indeed, all English speaking countries playing a quite insignificant role in the power plays of the day. He calls it, in fact, "an old and tired civilization." The significant players in Card's universe are China and a newly united Muslim Caliphate. And the Muslims are the good guys. (boy do I love science fiction)

So I wonder--is America rising or falling? Much as I enjoy Card's writing, America still feels fresh to me, with much life left to live. I am full of hope for the future of this nation...hope even that there might one day be a spiritual renewal such as has not been seen since the glory days of Orthodox Russia. I see no reason it couldn't happen.

But even if it doesn't, I suppose it doesn't really affect anybody today very much. Certainly not me. If anything, this summer has reminded me what sort of things do really matter. And politics is near the bottom of the list.

So thanks for humoring me in a pointless bloviation on an inconsequential subject. Feel free to come back and take a load off yourself here someday. The comments section is open.

One more thing...at the end of last semester, I posted my two largest final papers to my paper blog. I put a lot of work into those two, and posted them in hopes that some people might read and comment, positively or negatively. So, if anyone has time or inclination, do please check them out and give me some feedback. Even a fool would prefer to be told he is a fool than to be ignored. ;)

Here I am again, back from another long absence. I just had the pleasure of traveling back to Arizona for a few days with my bride-to-be to visit my family. The visit was certainly a success, despite my parents' busy schedule and lack of time to actually sit down and talk much. Perhaps it will be better next time. And at the least, we had the privilege of spending a lot of time with my various and sundry siblings.

At any rate, the visit proved once again that a highly developed sense of direction is for some reason naturally present in the Gugg genes, while woefully absent in the makeup of the lovely Elisabeth Dyess.

While home, you see, it happened that my sister Martha needed to be picked up from her ballet class. I was elected for the job, but was uncertain of the location of the ballet studio. Remembering that Elisabeth had attended a ballet class when we last visited a year and a half ago, I asked if she knew how to get there. Instead of answering, she just laughed at me for asking her, but her amusement was suddenly interrupted by a very small voice, informing us that one must simply "go into town until New Frontiers, turn right there and then turn left at the third driveway" to reach the desired location. It was my sister Abigail. Who is not quite four years old. Needless to say, Elisabeth was not a little shocked.

It is funny to note that she received equally competent directions from my sister Martha during that previous visit. Martha was, at the time, only 8. As I said, it must just be in the genes.

So, for the sake of our future children, we must simply hope that my directional genes are the dominant ones, while of course praying very hard that hers are dominant in those areas pertaining to beauty and intelligence and work ethic...actually, to everything EXCEPT sense of direction.

FRAGMENTS OF A SUMMER

I just received an email from Mr. Adam Prizio reminding me of the existence of this long-neglected corner of the web which I have dedicated to myself and my bloviations. He encouraged me to write something on it again lest I be consigned to the "Cold Day in Hell" portion of his upcoming list of friends' blogs. So I'm back now. I'll try to keep more up to date.


The last few weeks at Hillsdale were a bit of a marathon in terms of writing. I turned out several papers (two of which are posted at my other site, which it seems I am turning into a place for papers and such longer things) and generally wrote my brains out. I've thought about writing some since graduation, but haven't really been in the mood. I hope, however, that the month-long break in my writing has served to permit the juices to flow once again.


It is strange to me that my time at Hillsdale is over. Every summer for the past four years, I have been accustomed to the assumption that, whatever I may be doing, by the end of August I will be back in Hillsdale, among old and new friends, favorite professors, old haunts and everything else I associate with the Capital of Nowhere. It has been my home for my entire adult life. Indeed, I grew into adulthood there. But this fall, I will be at school in Boston. In January, I will be married. After that, who knows? More debt, children, ordination, ministry, pain, joy, death�the stuff of the rest of my life. And as it moves inexorably on, I still half-expect to go back to Hillsdale.


A few days ago I spoke with my old roommate. His wife is pregnant. They found out just last week that they have a little girl. She is due in November. They never expected to have a child so soon. My friend is a father. I could well be one myself in less than a year.


This summer, I am working with my wife-to-be. I had thought that I knew her almost as well as it was possible to know another person. Now, I spend at least eight hours with her every day, and I realize that the depths of her person reach almost to infinity. I realize how it is possible for two people to love each other very much and still argue, even fight. I begin to wonder if it is possible to love at all without fighting. I think I am grateful for the opportunity. This summer, we have the chance to make a good beginning, working through the fights, slowly achieving together that strange thing called one-ness�not a dreamy fairy tale, but a gritty, dirty reality built on blood, sweat, toil and tears. I think I am learning what love really is. Childish dreams are stupid.


Re-reading this, I decide it is atrocious. It�s corny, sappy, fragmented and over-introspective and contemplative. Anyone who knows me would probably say it�s very Guggian. Which is true�this is me this summer. This is my life. I think it�s a good life. I don�t thank God for it anything like I should. I squander my time on frivolities and hurt those who love me the most. And there�s no non-cheesy way to end that rhetorical train, so I�m just going to stop. Suffice to say that I am pretty happy.


Perhaps the next thing I write will be a little better. For now bear with me. Welcome me back to the world of blogging. And, if it crosses your mind, pray for me.

The nefarious Mephistopheles (aka Dr. H. David Stewart) has finally rid himself of the life-consuming responsibility which has plagued his every hour for the past four years. Having lain aside the leadership of the Honours Program and its sundry nutsos (including yours truly and almost all my friends), he has returned to matters which truly matter.

Such as freeing Koon.

How beautiful is that?

Occasionally it occurs to me what a strange thing this life is--for some reason we naturally think that others are feeling and thinking the same things we are.

And then reality hits.

Here I sit, in the (for once) fairly clean living room of The Beat, recently awakened from a nap but still strongly feeling the strangely expectant, quiet, mournful-yet-not spirit of this Great and Holy Saturday, imbued in me by the hours of intense liturgical worship in which I have been blessed to take part over the past week--my belly is empty and my heart is full of strangeness, of wonder, of expectation and at least some small part of the awed, silent worship which should be present on such a day. I have not felt so well for months. The Hour of the Resurrection is near. Awake, you that sleep!

One friend is sitting upstairs surfing the web and laughing at earthy jokes. Still another just left for a pig roast. Two more just came in with Oakley! subs, about to watch a movie. And the neighbors next door are drinking it up, shouting at passing cars and attracting loud honking in response.

None of which is bad. But today? This strange day when all Creation is silent and waiting for the wonder of the approaching Dawn? How can there be such noise today, of all days?

And the Synaxarion reading still echoes in my mind.

Awake, you that sleep! Your King is come!

I do not understand.

Here is my most recent piece for the Collegian. It ran as the Weekly unsigned editorial. I was fairly happy with it...do tell what you think, whether you agree or disagree with me.

THE TENUOUS FUTURE OF IRAQI DEMOCRACY

As everyone now knows, the war in Iraq is essentially over. And with its swift and easy end, the world as we know it has changed. Hawks in the media and the administration are venting their rhetorical ire at Syria, Iran and North Korea in threats ranging from veiled suggestions that these nations beware to barefaced exhortations to change Syria�s regime as we did in Iraq.

Indeed, the ease with which the American military has prevailed in Iraq may prove the bane of the United States in coming years. Despite our obvious superiority, it is na�ve to assume that every military encounter from this moment on will fall to our advantage as quickly as that of the past month. Our overconfidence may well lead to situations far more costly than the invasion of Iraq. Hubris is always the worst enemy of a powerful people.

This will most likely be proven, however, not in war, but in a supposed peace, in the reconstruction of Iraq. The challenges facing the American occupation are all but innumerable.

It is a fine line that the coalition must walk in Iraq. Despite the hopes of the Bush administration that a strong democracy might be established in Iraq to serve as a beacon of civilization and moderation to the Arab world, it is simply not possible to establish the form of a democracy and leave the people to govern themselves. Democracy cannot be imposed�it must be chosen. Yet we cannot trust the Iraqis to choose democracy for themselves.

After all, that which we call democracy is a peculiarly Western phenomenon, depending on the conflicts, philosophies, religions and societal innovations of over three millennia for its continued propagation in the nations of the West.
The notions of individual rights, responsibilities and autonomy are fundamental to our very existence�we take them in with our mother�s milk. To put it simply, tribal societies such as Iraq�s do not. Yet democracy as we know it in America cannot exist without an almost universal recognition of these principles, and our demand that Iraq immediately adopt democracy is hence incredibly na�ve.

This experiment has been tried before, in the myriad colonies of the British Empire. So long as the British occupied those colonies, they abided in peace and prosperity, apparent havens of Western civilization amidst the brutality of the Third World before it even was the Third World.

But the moment the British withdrew, the Western system they had established dissolved into political corruption and tribal infighting, as seen in the transformation of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe described by Theodore Dalrymple in his sobering article �After Empire� in the Spring 2003 issue of the City Journal.

With this in mind, it is safe to say that almost any conflict between the cultural norms of a people and a government imposed upon them will inevitably end in the dissolution of that government. Therefore, the development of democracy in any nation must have organic roots in the history and culture of that nation and people. If that connection is absent, the institution cannot survive except at gunpoint.

This is not to say that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. The very fact of the location of Tuesday�s meeting in ancient Ur gives cause to hope that the Iraqi people may yet find their way out of their dark age�for after all, as any Hillsdale freshman knows, the oldest roots of the rule of law are found in the Code of Hammurabi, which governed the very land now occupied by modern Iraq. The London Times indulged in the same hope Wednesday, asserting that the symbolism cannot help but be powerful. By meeting in Ur, these disparate Iraqi factions have invoked their connection with the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, meeting �against a backdrop of 6,000 years of history.�

But the road will still be incredibly hard. Such a thing, after all, has never before been done.

Therefore, let us shun hubris.

This piece is a sobering reminder of the difficulties and perhaps impossibilities of nation-building. Much remains to be seen in Iraq, but all indications suggest that the next several years are going to be very difficult. I wonder how right I was in my support of this war--I always said I was aware of the difficulties that were likely to present themselves after the war ended (or at least I always thought it), but I don't think I realized the half of it. I wonder how many other hawks find themselves in a similar state.

Do read the article, though--it is a fairly powerful reminder of the essential problems of colonial nation-building, as I said. And, I must add, the manner in which this enterprise has begun does not bode well for the future.

Well...the throes are over. This semester seems to be winding down more quickly (to be frank) than I'm quite ready for. But last week was still a great success--in one unexpected way as well as all the other things. My senior Honours thesis presentation went well when I delivered it a few weeks ago--I got some very positive feedback. Now I only have to do a little more research and expand the silly thing, and it'll be done. Perhaps I'll post the presentation up here sometime--or at least a link to it. It's fairly long. My recital went fairly well also--it was weak towards the beginning, but got better as it went on. I passed my Greek comprehensive exam strongly, according to Dr. Jones, and Dr. Holmes has decided that she'll give us an extra week off from Greek class to study for finals, so this Thursday's class will be our last. Finally, Holy Cross gave me another 10 days to submit the financial aid applications, which is perfect for me--things should be much more sane from now on. Not to mention (speaking of Holy Cross), I received my acceptance letter a little over a week ago. So I'll be starting there in September, God willing.

But the biggest news is that I finally asked my longtime girlfriend Elisabeth Dyess to marry me last Sunday. To which proposal she gladly consented. :) If you want to know how it happened, drop me a line and ask. It's a bit much to explain online. The date for the happy event remain undecided, but, God willing, it will be fairly soon. No later than a year from now, methinks. And, speaking of the Almighty, His mercy has been abundant towards me and, indeed, towards us, of late. Thanks be to Him.

So, while this is not precisely a post of substance, I submit the plea that I have been otherwise occupied in matters very important which, had I neglected them, my life would be in a much less satisfactory state. :)

More later.

Yes, I know, it's been a long time. I have been in the throes of preparing a presentation of my senior Honours Thesis which I will present at 2 pm today, of rehearsing for a cello recital to be held next week, and the usual race to get ready for Greek class. I hoe to post something of substance soon, but until then, I will pacify my rabid audience (nonexistent though it may be) with a joke.

Thought for the day:

If Saddam loses a leg, but survives, how mad do you think his
doubles will be?

And so it begins. Before too much time passes, I wanted to post an addendum to my last post. While I am not exactly comfortable with some of these statements by the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, I am humbled and my hawkishness chastened by the dedication to peace evinced by the bishops, priests, deacons and laity who have signed the statement. This war is only justified in the slightest because it seeks to save life--to establish a truer peace than has existed in Iraq for many years, and to increase the security of the United States and the entire world.

With that said, I would like to point you to one more Orthodox statement on the war, this time from the Holy Eparchial synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. This official encyclical exemplifies the position of the Church on any war: a recognition of the reality of this fallen world, a cautious support for those in service of the country, intense prayers for a swift and bloodless end to the conflict, and, most of all, for the salvation of all.

Amen and amen. Kyrie eleison.

Much has been written of war and peace in this small circle of the internet by many with a far better knowledge than I of history, philosophy and the fine line where theology must weigh in on political matters. I hesitate to disagree with the prevailing opinion that Bush is committing a heinous crime against the people of Iraq, that his war is a sin against God and against humanity.

The sheer volume of evidence and argument both for and against war is such that I find myself completely at a loss to condense it all into a convincing argument that this American president is acting as he ought, or at the least as he must. Nor can I reconcile the apparently inevitable clash between the moral and the necessary for this president. Before I venture to pass judgement on him, it seems I ought to come to some conclusion regarding the interaction of morality and necessity; I would far rather state an absolute moral rule (Thou shalt not kill) which forever subordinates the necessary to the moral. But I find myself unable to escape one simple fact.

George W. Bush is the leader of the United States of America. He carries directly on his shoulders the burden of millions of lives. For these four years, his sole concern is the safety and security of the American people. In that capacity, he will inevitably be forced to kill�worse, to order others to kill.

This is an office which I could never dream of seeking for myself. I have no desire to be bound by duty and necessity to decide for myself which imperative I hold higher. And yet it seems that the office is necessary to human society�necessary, indeed, for the sake of peace. All I can hope is that he who rules also bows before a higher Ruler and will not abuse the power given him�and that he will also hold sacred the trust given him, and will not unnecessarily risk the lives he has sworn to protect.

For, after all, one can always find hope for peace�that hope can never be killed if one is determined to find it, to never fight a war until every chance for peace is exhausted. Such determination, however, binds one to fight only defensive wars. Moral theorists�who do not rule, who do not bear the burden of a hundred million lives�can commit to this. A ruler cannot.

Especially in these sad times, such means accepting as a matter of course that anyone who chooses can have one good crack at killing your people before you act against them. With nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, millions could die. A good ruler has no choice but to act first. And again, the people he rules can only hope that he has the wisdom to see clearly who must be dealt with.

In theory, I think Bush is doing well. His policy of preemption is far from universal. It simply redefines those actions which the United States will�and I say must�view as attacks upon its people. If a nation supports terrorists, Bush will view it as an act of war. So too with pursuit of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps my only objection is to his choice of first target. Saddam Hussein simply does not appear to pose a threat comparable to that of North Korea.

And yet I have little doubt that Bush feels himself bound to do as he now does. Every decision he has made since September 11 has been one he found necessary to his task of preserving American lives. For all it appears hasty at first glance, there is no way for him to turn back now. Consistency, reputation and strength are all, unfortunately, necessary considerations for a ruler.

Yes, pride is a sin�but what if humility were to show weakness that would jeopardize a million lives. Vengeance is a sin�but what if turning the other cheek might end with a mushroom cloud over Chicago? So many sins�so many duties�small wonder rulers are so seldom saints.

May God have mercy on them.

Incidentally, the matter of the Orthodox bishops of the world, the majority of whom condemn this war in no uncertain terms. I fear that they are right--the deaths of civilians that will inevitably result from an American attack on Iraq are blood that will rest upon the heads of Mr. Bush and the American people. But I would that they were more hesitant to condemn Mr. Bush when they do not wear his shoes. And I remain grateful that, whether Mr. Bush be right or wrong, the Orthodox people of this nation will continue to pray for him and for all those in service of this country, both here and around the world. And, indeed, for all men, for those who love us and those who hate us. Including Saddam Hussein.

YOU WANT TO KISS ME HOW??

Now this is funny. The cafeteria for the House of Representatives decided it was going to be patriotic, replacing old mainstays with "freedom fries" and "freedom toast." The idea (and it is very stupid, I opine) is to boycott France in every way possible. Ridiculous.

Cut to Louisiana, where signs welcoming visitors to the state are written in French and the language is actually spoken by a significant number of natives. There, Elaine Clement, president of the Cajun heritage group Action Cadienne, objected to the congressional name change with this pithy query.

"Are they going to change French kiss to freedom kiss?"

A probing question indeed.

I am tired of posting political junk to this blog. Political arguments annoy me. In an effort to avoid argument and limit myself to the facts that actually matter, I have created another blog (you laugh that I don't sufficiently update ONE blog, much less two--I nod in tired concession to your biting point).

Called Pilate's Question, it is intended to be a place for bare facts, indeed (hopefully) truth. As such, the idea is to keep my opinions out of the way, but post only those "facts" of whose veracity I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt. The idea is also to figure out precisely what place politics play in the Christian life. I fear that they must be addressed in some manner, but hesitate to wade once more into the mess I got myself into with my speculations about the best manner in which to address nuclear proliferation. So once again, welcome to my self-searching musings.

MENTAL MASTURBATION: THE FINAL MOVIE RANT

From my presentation at Fairfield Society here at Hillsdale College last month, here at last is the final version of my argument that movies damage the human soul.

First, allow me to refer you, dear reader, to this article by Wes Moore of Disinformation.com . Although his argument is scientific, and mine is not, it nonetheless serves as a good jumping off point for me, for they run roughly parallel to my philosophical objections to the medium�that it serves as an escape from reality, an addictive sating of base passions. Even more importantly, we are agreed that, regardless of its artistic quality, television, and, by extension, movies at large, by their very nature, have a vegetative effect on humanity.

My argument, of course, is much more difficult to establish than a scientific study asserting that the brain is not as active while watching television. I must convince my readers that entertainment is, by its very nature, spiritually destructive. My own belief that this is the case is based in personal experience and a degree of intuition�that is to say, I�m following my gut. Being a more-or-less rational human being, I am trying to determine if my gut is right in this situation, reasoning my way through various arguments to try to explain why precisely I am so certain that movies are destructive. In my search for the Logos behind my rejection of entertainment, I think I can at least rule out subliminal manipulation by television�no television advertiser, movie director or book author would have an interest in causing me to completely reject their products. Although, of course, as a child of the �80�s, television and movies played a significant in the formation of my personality and character, I think the examination of how precisely that relates to my current rejection of the medium is a matter for another to research. A perverse, sick devil would such a one be, but I digress�

In examining such an issue, dealing with matters destructive to the human soul, let us go back to the beginning and look at the nature of God and the nature of man as created in His image and likeness. If something is destructive, it will run counter to man�s telos.. I take my text (not that I�m preaching or anything) from the first epistle of St. John the Theologian.

�Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.� (I John 4:7-8) God is Love, three distinct persons in one essence, existing in eternal communion of self-emptying love. Hence man, created in the image of God, is created to love. This is the sum of all good, the very purpose for our existence. I call attention to Matthew 22:36-40: ��Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law?� Jesus said to him, �You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.��

And what is love? Love is communion. Let there be no confusion on this point. There can no Love without communication, relationship, communion and unity, without knowing another so well that you set him above yourself, willing even to die for him. Seeing another as he truly is is fundamental to Love. �Beloved, now we are children of God; and it is not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.� (I John 3:2) And such knowledge means that our life, our very existence, becomes tied up in the other�s�in some way, we begin to dwell and have our being in one another. �Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us His Spirit.� (I John 4:11-13). John is saying that, even though God has never been seen, through love for one another we may abide in Him and actually come to know Him truly.

If we know that we abide in him because He has given us His Spirit, let us look at the descent of the Spirit. �When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in the same place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing might wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit�� (Acts 2:1-4)

They were there with one accord�that is, they were unified in love. And at that moment, the Holy Spirit descended on them with power, elevating that formerly motley crew to the heights of human existence, enabling them to be sons of God in the image of Christ Himself�men as men were created to be. To love is to be in one accord, to commune one with another in a unity without confusion, in oneness without any loss of distinction. Human love is to be divine�in our love for one another we imitate and reflect God Himself, who is three persons united in one essence without confusion and without loss of distinction. Such love, such communion and such unity are the fundamental reason for our being.

Movies and all entertainment are all diametrically opposed to this. This seems self-evident to me�it is not possible to really get to know anyone while watching a movie. The screen takes all of your attention. And, of course, it is even less possible to pray, to commune with God, at the same moment as one seeks fulfillment, happiness and rest from mere pictures on a screen. In so doing we turn away from Him, the source of all good, seeking mere gratification of our desires.

Not that our desires are bad�God created us with them, and, fallen or not, they are, at root, good. But they are intended to draw us closer to one and another and to God. The perversion of television, movies and most entertainment is that they offer at least some degree of fulfillment of those fundamental human desires without requiring the work inherent in any relationship. Even when we watch them in company with others, they isolate us in our own desires. We can just sit down, relax, and get a quick fix for our desire for romance, for example. No need for sacrifice, no need to open ourselves to anyone, no need to risk being hurt. We just enjoy the story, feel all the emotions, get the endorphins to release, and we�re done. It�s like mental masturbation.

This sort of thing is murder on the soul. It isolates us, confuses our hearts, messes with our sense of reality, and skews our expectations of the real world. It works to enforce our culture of instant gratification�I can feel good right now and experience anything I desire without having to put any work into it, without risking hurt, without any danger�so why should I put the work into getting to know my friends, why should make the effort to pray? I�m happy enough alone, so why do I need anyone else�.and so it goes.

Some may say that movies and their like help us to better understand our culture, enable us to better relate to people�some may say that they are a necessary and edifying tool to integrate us into our society. I do not necessarily deny this�they are a human creation, and thus, without exception, inherently contain a germ of truth and show us something of the image of God in man. But then, so does pornography.

St. John Climacus relates a story about this sort of thing:

�Someone told me of an extraordinarily high degree of purity. He said: �A certain man (NOTE: St. Nonnus, Bishop of Heliopolis), on seeing a beautiful woman (the harlot Pelagia), thereupon glorified the Creator; and from that one look, he was moved to the love of God and to a fountain of tears. And it was wonderful to see how what would have been a cause of destruction for one was for another the supernatural cause of a crown.� If such a person always feels and behaves in the same way on similar occasions, then he has risen immortal before the general resurrection.�

(St. Nonnus� tears, of course, were shed in shame that this harlot spent all her energies in beautifying herself for her customers, yet he himself, the beloved of the Lover of mankind, was so lazy in his zeal to please Christ the Bridegroom.)

This demonstrates rather well the fact that even in the most vile thing on this earth there exists the possibility for redemption and edification. All is but a perversion of a creation that was once perfectly good, and if you can see through that perversion, you see something of the Divine. But still, who among us will seek out pornography as an aid to bring us closer to God or our fellow man? Or movies, for that matter? The reality of life should be more than enough for us�after all, it was created for us. In creating for ourselves artificial means of fulfillment, happiness and rest, we will in the end only destroy ourselves.

Here are two excellent pieces on the impending war with Iraq: one by Richard Cohen and the other by Philip Bobbitt. Between the two, they outline what are to my mind the bare essentials of the Iraq issue. In many ways, this is what I have been trying to say so badly over the past few weeks. This is why I support the war on Iraq. For the rest of Bush's pre-emption strategy--I'll have to see. I certainly see his point. I think the policy's detractors overestimate both the success of former strategies and the probable problems inherent to Bush's ideas. And with that, perhaps I can make myself leave this issue be.

And, while I'm posting articles, this is an excellent argument against my post below. At the least, it creates an extremely compelling argument for seeking international cooperation before going into Iraq. Beyond that, I'm still thinking about implications.

*sigh* So much for leaving politics alone.

In regard to the impending war upon Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, I submit this article. Setting aside the matters of foreign policy, prudence, national sovereignty and risk, I'd like to at least attempt to lay the moral issue to rest. The claim is not in the least that America is morally unstained. Simply that the removal of Saddam Hussein will be the payment of a debt we have owed the Iraqi people for 12 years, since the day we failed to remove their unholy dictator as we should have.

Having a comment feature here would be rather nice. I'm not sure if I've got it working, but this is a test. My apologies for a non-extremist post.

Jonathan Metzger recently posted this parody of a number of Hillsdale-related blogs. Below is his parody of mine.


"3) So, how about the environment then? I�ve been thinking about it, and I think we should just start clubbing baby seals over the head as quickly as we can. First off, they�re cute. This is a seductive danger of the world, which leads us away from our calling to communion with God and our brethren. While their big, soulful eyes may look innocent, we must remember that they don�t actually have souls, and the seeming innocence and love in their eyes distracts us from the maintenance of our immortal souls. Puppies do this too; we should start killing them as soon as we can as well.

Secondly, we should kill the baby seals because they and other wild-life are blocking the pipeline paths to precious oil in Alaska which we�ll need for the two weeks or so that Iraqi oil will be unavailable to us while we�re conquering them. If a baby seal were to wander into one of the pipelines while they�re being constructed, it might die in there unnoticed and its corpse could block desperately needed oil at exactly the wrong moment.

I realize that this may not be a popular position, but I�ve reasoned it out very carefully, and I think this is what we have to do."

Quite humorous, Metzger--but you give me reason to pause and consider. I seem to have managed to paint myself as quite the extremist over the past month. Which is quite a feat, considering the infrequency of my posts over that period--especially considering the fact that I don't really think myself very extreme at all.

Hence (in pursuit of a more civilized moderation) a brief explanation of my basic motivations for what I've had to say. First: the movies issue. My objection is based purely in my personal experience. Entertainment, with its central place in our culture, tickles our fancies but gives no fulfillment. Something is awfully wrong with human life as we see it lived and live it ourselves in this world and age. This is not how men were meant to live. Myself, I have at least some idea what the good life looks like. Movies still threaten to keep me from that life. So I try to avoid them, and try to explain why. If that makes me an extremist, then so be it.

Second, the war thing. That's not so defensible, I suppose. I rather regret writing it at all.Nonetheless, I don't really see much hope for the world down the road if the powers that be in this world do not act decisively in whatever fashion is most effective (and moral) to end the proliferation of those all-too-cliched weapons of mass destruction. My argument below is a primarily a musing (that is, a thinking aloud) on how that might be accomplished--an optimistic musing, hoping that the current American president has in mind this end and has a comprehensive game plan for its accomplishment. This because I am an optimist--I'd like to think that the relative freedom, security and what I honestly think is a concern for the rest of the world and a charity towards it that is unique in human history might endure and spread. Or, for a much less ambitious optimism, I'd like to think that the nations of the world can somehow forestall the sorts of holocausts that such weapons can create. But then, optimism is generally foolish and blind. And pessimism is usually overrated. Perhaps it will all pan out. I really don't know.

With that, I'm going to leave politics alone. It's a generally annoying and imponderable subject that fosters a lot of anger and excessive rhetoric (not least in myself) with little profit. Pretty much, what happens happens politically. We're left mainly with living with whatever may come as best as we can. Which, incidentally, brings us back to movies. Funny how that happens. ;)

So that's where I've been coming from. Now, I'm off to go bash some seals. Nasty, smelly, anti-capitalist buzzards. And they make those gosh-awful noises too. Sure as heck a species worth exterminating.

Oh...one more thing. As an actual threat, Saddam may well be negligible. Nonetheless, I submit that, if Mr. Bush is to pursue the policy he has outlined in his speeches since September 11, 2001, he has no choice but to attack Iraq first. Otherwise, every "enlightened" commentator, European, American or otherwise, will charge him with inconsistency in keeping a blind eye turned to the violations of the nation that is already the primary example of American apathy in the '90's. If we count the nations whom we have allowed to flaunt the strictures of the past few decades, Iraq tops the list. North Korea may pose the greater threat, but Iraq has flaunted itself against vain American threats for far longer. If this nation is to regain any semblance of credibility against so-called rogue nations, it cannot allow Saddam Hussein to successfully win another toss.

This is not to say I am happy with the policy of the Bush administration thus far towards North Korea. But it seems that, at this early stage in the game, one must admit a certain degree of pragmaticism--as things currently stand, we simply are not capable of dealing with both North Korea and Iraq without suffering high casualties in men and political capital. To win, and win well (that is, with the least damage either to us or the nations we liberate), we need to be able to throw overwhelming force against our enemies. I hope and pray that Bush has a plan for North Korea (after all, my family lives near the west coast, and the range of North Korean missiles is only increasing)...but taking Iraq on first seems to be Bush's only choice.

In my humble opinion, that is.

Hmmm...many many people--that is to say, Daniel Hugger, Daniel Silliman, Jonathan Metzger and Seraphim Danckaert--have written negative comments and refutations of my recent war commentary. Their many criticisms demand a response, but I unfortunately currently lack the time to reply in detail to each of their charges. Here, at least, are a few thoughts.

First, contrary to Mr. Silliman's assertions, I do not like war. It is ugly, brutal and horrific in all its forms. And most of all so in its latest forms as it has developed over the past century. It is first of all a desire to avoid war and preserve life that sparks my musings about potential methods to avoid nuclear holocaust.

Second, my suggestion that the United States is the only force capable of achieving any sort of nuclear disarmament, limitation and security worldwide is based in the fact of the utter impotence of the United Nations in pursuance of that end. My suggestion for a forced disarmament by a single police power is born of a search for an alternative to a bankrupt policy and fifty years of dashed hopes. There is enough cause for fear in the world in which we live today--I shudder to think of the perils of the world we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren in we fail to address the inescapable conclusion of today's nuclear proliferation.

Third, any claims that the United Nations is a legitimate or workable means of achieving world peace and security are nothing but balderdash. You should know better than that, Metzger. The United Nations gives equal voice to every nation in the world, and the most common interest shared by those nations is a desire to be rid of America's limiting influence on their ancient feuds with one another. The best thing I can say about the United Nations is that it provides the pithiest example of a bitter irony I can think of--the nations which have perpetrated the vast majority of histories atrocities, the nations deterred from continuing those atrocities by American might, lecturing America in the words of America's founding philosophies about the rule of law and national sovereignty. And we Americans, caring so much about doing the right thing, shrink and cower and back off, fearing the shrill, empty rhetoric of the impotent powers of the past.

Fourth, I am no imperialist. I would much prefer to sit in a nice, small nation that nobody cared about, living my life, raising my kids and striving towards God, than to live in a nation hated the world over for being powerful enough to save the world's ass whenever some potheaded dictator takes it into his head to raise hell. I refer readers to Kipling's Tommy. "Yes, making fun of uniforms that guard you when you sleep is cheaper than those uniforms--and they're starvation cheap...And it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy, 'ow's your soul...but it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll."

Whether or not America ever admits that she is an empire (and I doubt that it will), she will continue to serve as the backbone and muscle of the United Nations or whatever foolheaded council takes its place, and will continue to spill the blood of her sons and daughters on whatever barren battlefield the cowardly nations of Europe, Africa or Asia beg her to fill when their greed and moral turpitude finally leave them at the mercy of threats they ignored for far too long.

More later.

Ok then. How �bout this so-called war?


First off, I�ll admit candidly that my tendency, born of my conservative upbringing and personal recklessness, is undeniably hawkish. But I also plead that I am not blindly so�even the thought of what war means, to the Iraqi people, to the world, etc, gives me pause. After reading Jonathan Schell's latest piece against the war on The Nation�s website, I was quite dovish for a long moment.


Schell paints a picture much starker than any I�d allowed myself to entertain since I first heard of the atomic bomb and Mutually Assured Destruction in elementary school. The picture of rampant nuclear proliferation and inevitable use of the bomb is possibly the most hopeless thought I have ever had. Disarmament began to look quite attractive.


For a contrast, look at this piece, Paul Greenberg�s latest in the Washington Times. He makes telling comparisons (which had not escaped my notice last Friday as I listened to NPR�s coverage of the inspectors� presentation at the U.N. Security Council meeting) with the policies of western Europe in the �30�s when faced with Hitler�s growing threat in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Europeans seem bound and determined to forget history and pursue peace at any cost. I honour their commitment to the protection of human life, but decry their stupidity and bad memory.


Hitler should be remembered well by the world as it faces Saddam Hussein. Likewise, the entire 20th century should be kept in mind as the world considers what to do in the post Cold War world of nuclear proliferation. A century has shown that inspections simply DO NOT WORK. Disarmament is a wonderful dream, but there is no hope that it will actually happen. As was pointed out to me last night by a friend, the argument for disarmament is the same argument as that made by gun control advocates. It would leave us with a lot of powerless nations terrorized by a few nuclear criminals.


Disarmament, however, remains the preferred method for many of preventing nuclear holocaust. The theory is that gradual, bilateral surrender of nuclear weapons could eventually reduce the nuclear stocks of the nations of the world first to a less dangerous quantity, then to a negligible quantity, and finally to nothing at all. A nice idea indeed. But one entirely overlooking the realities of human existence. If the technology exists, someone will use it. Ensuring that the civilized, law-abiding nations of the world do not possess it only guarantees that, when (not if) rogues such as North Korea or Iraq acquire such weapons, the rest of the world will be at their mercy.


The alternative to America leading the way in peaceful disarmament (which common sense assures us is a recipe for disaster) is ensuring that the only people possessing the bomb are trustworthy. Which, ideally, would mean that only we would have it. Unfortunately, we don�t. The one opportunity we had to ensure that passed over 50 years ago. (yes, I am suggesting that it would have been better to invade Soviet Russia the moment it became evident what they were seeking; yes, I am suggesting that we should have seized empire the moment World War II ended, when it could have been done relatively easily and peacefully with the threat of the bomb and our overwhelming conventional military superiority).


But we didn�t, and now the situation we face is far worse than it ever was with Russia. It seems that practically every nation with the slightest beef against us has, or is in the process of acquiring, the technology for nuclear weapons.


But we retain an overwhelming superiority to the rest of the world in both nuclear and conventional weaponry. Our culture and ideals are sweeping the world. There is at least the theoretical possibility of a true new world order, enforced by America, not for imperialistic gain, but for our own simple security.


Thus, Bush�s National Security Directive of last year makes a lot of sense. Recognizing September 11�s writing on the wall guaranteeing that, sooner or later, someone will acquire and use nuclear or chemical or biological weapons against America, Bush is seeking to commit the United States to maintain completely unmatchable military superiority over the rest of the world. In this way alone can larger nuclear nations such as Russia or China be deterred�in this way alone can we possess the ability to safely neutralize rogue nations such as Iraq or North Korea.


But this path will lead to empire� it demands the manipulation and abandonment of the United Nations, NATO or any former alliance that stands in the way of American interests. And it is a path for which, if the last few weeks are any indication, we may not be ready.


This for two reasons. First, while we are powerful, most would admit that we are not powerful enough to take on the entire world in an all-out rumble. And even if we were, that price is far too high. Second, the American psyche is not adapted to the notion of empire. Isolationism is still a strong force here�and too many Americans cannot stomach the idea of running roughshod over the nations of the world in pursuit of our self-interests, even if those interests are simple survival. The true peril of our position still escapes the vast majority of Americans, as it does the rest of the world.


But the facts remain. Nuclear weapons will continue to proliferate among the nations of the world. The mini-arms race between Pakistan and India over the last few years bodes ill for the future. Eventually, someone will use the bomb again�probably in a regional conflict. Then someone else will�a smaller nation against a larger, even against Europe or the United States. The crossed sabers of past military maps and conflicts will be replaced with little mushroom clouds all around the world. And the only force with even the slightest hope of stopping this is the United States.


For Schell�s point, that proliferation is a natural and inevitable consequence of possession of nuclear weapons, might prove to be untrue in only one situation. If one nation possessed such superiority that it would be pointless and wasteful for any other to even make the attempt�and particularly if the good will of that nation was well established�others would cease to seek the bomb. The others could be brought to give them up if it were clear that they could gain nothing from their possession.


So essentially, I am still arguing for disarmament�but disarmament forced by the United States, which would remain the only nuclear power. Indeed, I admit the necessity of a one-world government�but it is clear to me that that government must be controlled by, and indeed BE, the United States. Such is ultimately the only way to ensure our security.

Yes, I know, I'm talking far too much about movies. The topic has taken on a life of its own--but I am happy to say that it looks like it's about finished. I am fairly content with my most recent argument against the things, and got a lot out of last night's Fairfield Society presentation and discussion. I presented against movies, Daniel Silliman for, and then the entire society hacked the issue out for awhile. I think my position is less extreme than before, better considered and more liveable. Which is to say, I'm ready to stop blathering about it and go on to something more important. I'll post the basics of my presentation sometime in the next few days, and call that sufficient. I need to do some thinking about the nature of faith, and this seems as good a place as any to get some thoughts out. Expect that in the next several days.

Until then...

Here is my revised reply to Jonathan Metzger's lengthy reply to my piece against movies.

You rightly note that my real argument against movies in general does not come until the end of the piece. The rest of the it is fairly standard stuff objecting to bad movies. Hence, your refutation of those with examples of good movies work perfectly well. My extremism is intended--the sweeping generalizations are included for shock value in hopes of provoking thought. Myself, I have numerous favorite movies which have helped to mold me into who I am today. I think their effect has been positive.
Incidentally, I should say that my objection to so-called Christian film is opposed precisely to the mere moralizing to which they stoop, indoctrinating instead of inspiring. Very few people need to hear the 10 Commandments rehashed yet again--most of us know them fairly well by now, and they don't much speak to the heart. The law never does. But enough of that. Suffice to say, I think we at least agree on this point.

Your final refutations, however, don't work so well. I don't deny that one could be said to converse with a movie's director and actors while viewing said film--but it is a faceless conversation, in which you see only as much of those people as they put into the movie. As I said earlier in my piece, a movie communicates a man's worldview divorced from the man. There may be a conversation, but it goes on only in your own head--the director has no further part in it once the final cut of the movie is complete. As viewers, we are affected by the movie, but give nothing in return. It's a one-way relationship, or rather, it is no relationship at all, for it does not result in a deeper communion between two human persons.

As far as your charge that hearing a sermon is just as impersonal as watching a movie, I completely disagree. In the course of listening to a priest, or a professor, or anyone for that matter, one does not merely hear facts (or opinions), but sees the whole man, his expressions, his eyes, his mannerisms, and so forth. In such a situation, two psychosomatic persons are present, talking, listening and communicating. All the prerequisites for a human relationship are present, as they are most certainly not in the viewing of movies. I'm certain you agree that there is a fundamental difference even between a live lecture and one recorded on video--it is precisely this potential for relationship.

Your implication that Scripture is not absolutely true is, at least in my case, beside the point. My beef with fiction is not with the absence of historicity, but with the false perspectives and philosophies that creep into most fictional work--the false understandings of the fiction's author that taint the worldview presented. Whether or not Scripture is historically factual, the faith of a Christian trusts that, as its creator is God, it is at least a true myth, accurately representing truths through story. The claim, at least as it would be made by a typical enlightened Protestant, is that the story told in Scripture, whether factually true or not, is true in a loftier sense in that it corresponds perfectly with the higher reality that is God in his relation to His creation. I would have made this point in the piece itself, but it was already a bit long for the Collegian.

For the other matters in which you charged me with inconsistency (or hypocrisy), I might grant you working for the Collegian (though I think an argument could probably be made that such work is not necessarily anti-personal), and will certainly grant you Kipling, but all the rest are the stuff of authentic human life, interaction and relationship. The attending of the Divine Liturgy in particular does not apply in the least, being by its very definition the ultimate experience of communion with others AND with God. Whether or not you accept that definition is beside the point.

Judging from the final portion of your retort, I guess I failed to communicate that, to my mind, true communion with one's fellow man and true communion with God go together...you cannot have one without the other. As Christ said himself, "If you did it not to the least of these my brothers, you did it not to me." (paraphrased from memory) That and that the sum of the law and the prophets is to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength and to love one's neighbor as one's self. I do not deny that I should spend more of my time in caring for the orphans and widows, bandaging the wounded, and in meditation and prayer--all I can say in defense is that there are more ways of caring for those in need than those obvious ones to which you refer, including simple presence and conversation with those whom I encounter in my daily life. Beyond that, I point my plans for the future--the priesthood is nothing if not a life of just such ministry as that to which you refer.

Which is to say, I admit with sorrow that I AM in fact hypocritical, still playing the occasional video game, still watching the rare five minutes of the Simpsons or the not-so-infrequent movie with my housemates--but I utterly deny that my daily interaction with my close friends and girlfriend are a contradiction.

And, for myself, while I can accept your statement that movies do more to encourage you to love of others than any sermon you have ever heard, my own experience with them has been quite the opposite. Which is why I undertook to write what I did in the first place.

I have seemingly stirred up even more controversy than I intended, before the piece against movies even runs. Jonathan Metzger, a senior philosophy major here at Hillsdale, has posted an exhaustive refutation on his web journal. His examination of the issue is enjoyable reading and rather illuminating as well, as he comes at the subject from the perspective of an avowed lover of fine film. It's helpful to see the matter analyzed from a different angle. We still disagree, of course, but the distance between us is not so great as one might think. I have written a response to his refutation that I will post probably sometime tomorrow, after I edit it a little bit.

Daniel Silliman has posted his defense of movies, not so much a response to my rant as an opposing view. We are thinking that we might co-present on the topic at the Fairfield Society here at Hillsdale College sometime in the future, but for now, our thoughts are limited to cyberspace and print. Do read what Daniel has to say--he makes some good points, though I disagree with his final conclusions.

Having been challenged by my good friend Seraphim Danckaert to post something substantial, I submit below a rewriting of last month's post against movies. Originally written in one sitting between the hours of 1 and 5 in the morning, I reworked it and included it on the Editorial page of the latest issue of the Hillsdale Collegian. With Daniel Silliman's opposing view and a nifty cartoon, courtesy of Jordan Irish, the spread was rather nice. Do check it out.

I think movies are destroying humanity.

Not just bad movies. The cinema itself is the worst offender in the slow poisoning of the human soul by a myriad of entertainment media.

Think about it�a good movie stands or falls on its ability to draw us into the world it creates, a world that is a work of fiction. It is a man�s view of the world divorced from the man himself, a world predicated on certain assumptions which insinuate themselves, often unnoticed, into our own view of the world.

This is fine, so long as those assumptions are true to reality--but this is very seldom the case. Consider, for example, the vast number of romantic movies produced every year, and examine how many of those stories portray with any truth the joy, the sorrow, the sacrifice and companionship of the relationship between a man and a woman. To depict such a thing with the ring of truth is incredibly difficult. A rare few dare to try, but most present a picture of starry eyes and happily ever after that is eaten up by the desperate masses longing to escape the daily drudgery of their lives. Whether tripe or art, the people will come�the only distinction is which makes more money. And so the movie theatre has become the hiding place of a generation, the bar and opium den of the common man.

You may say, �Of course escapism and addiction are bad, but not all are addicted, not all seek escape.� Yet all are still affected. For movies speak to our hearts, not our minds, shaping and molding us according to the vision of the filmmaker, speaking in a veiled and insidious language things that we would never tolerate in our own minds were they spoken in plain words in the light of day.

It is strange that we place so much important in rationally subscribing to the proper doctrine and in saying the right thing, yet pay so little heed to the state of our souls beneath those superficial statements of belief. A man may swear that he loves unconditionally and forever, but that love will die when emotions fade if he expects love to always bring him happiness�and this is what movies tell our souls. A man may say that he trusts God to work out his life for good, but that trust will fail when suffering comes if he expects that good to never hurt�and this is what movies tell us. A man may claim that he seeks beauty of the heart, not of the body, but when his eyes are drawn to a woman, he will assume that her outer beauty implies inner goodness�for this is what movies tell us. Movies have the power to look as real as life, and are unconsciously added to our corpus of experience, creating expectations and assumptions of how things are.

This power, I do not deny, has much potential for good�but far more for evil. We humans have enough difficulty assuring ourselves that we ascribe to the right creed, free of error and heresy. How much more difficult is to create an apparently living, organic cross section of life and ensure that it is completely true? The sorry attempts of the Christian media to create anything that really speaks to the heart of mankind testifies to the difficulty.

So instead, we watch what are often admittedly high quality, artistic films, those which best portray the greatest hopes, the darkest fears and the deepest yearnings of the human spirit�but the human spirit is fallen, and the films are full of lies, and who among us is capable of sifting the chaff out unaffected? Is it really worth the risk?

You may say, �Of course it is! The human spirit must be allowed to express itself, whatever the risk.� With which statement I do not quibble. Such artistic expression of the human longing for we-know-not-what�whether on film, paper or canvas�shows forth our very nature as beings created in the image and likeness of God. But that very statement implies something else which leads to the ultimate reason to avoid movies and, indeed, all entertainment.

If we are created to be like God, then the loftiest canvas for human endeavor is not celluloid, paper or canvas, but the human person himself�the only thing capable of truly reflecting the Eternal. And, as God�s nature is Love, then man becomes like God by loving. Love being not a matter of emotion, nor of even choice, but of unity, of communion. And this is found only through prayer. For through prayer we may enter into communion with God�and through prayer we may learn to see our fellow men as unique persons like us, created to love. Through prayer we may begin to empty ourselves in love for others.

But movies, and all entertainment, are the antithesis of love. They are self-centered, not self-emptying, impersonal, not communal, passive, not active. One cannot watch a movie, read a book or hear a song with another�only be present in the same room as another while experiencing the entertainment. One may talk as a movie plays, but it is impossible to converse while watching.

And most certainly, one cannot pray while engrossed in a movie or a book of fiction. Communion with Him who is the ultimate reality cannot mix with that which does not really exist. Man can truly live to the fullest degree only when he walks with God�insofar as entertainment keeps us from this, it is, in the final analysis, little more than an instrument of death.

Here's something of mine from the latest Hillsdale Collegian. I've wanted to comment on the Korean situation for awhile.

Were I a betting man, I would put money on the prediction that American soldiers will be on the ground in Iraq within a month�s time. This not based particularly on hard facts, inside information or anything save my own gut feel and a lot of wishful thinking. I look forward to the time when my daily dose of news no longer includes the latest in an interminable succession of utterly un-unique updates on U.N inspections, Iraqi intransigence and pseudo-enlightened European appeasement.
Much more, I look forward to the day when I hear the Bush administration�s true feelings on North Korea, the day when I understand what plan drives our dealings with our now-nuclear Asian friends. The daily double dose of official diplomatic smoothing of the crisis balanced with the investigative doomsday mutterings of every great news organ in the country is growing increasingly stressful. North Korea, at all accounts but that of the Bush administration, poses a clear and present danger, possessing perhaps the deadliest trio of attributes in the modern world: nuclear weapons, the means of delivery thereof and, apparently, the insane willingness to use them. And we don�t seem to be doing anything about it.
Admittedly the nutty North Koreans picked a particularly bad time to raise a ruckus. We�re in the middle of the whole Iraq thing, with thousands of troops already in the Middle East and many more on the way; diplomatically, we�re struggling to keep our ducks in a row with our allies and the United Nations�we simply don�t have the time, energy or resources to deal with a nuclear-equipped Communist anachronism with a nation-sized Napoleon complex.
I understand and support the game plan that puts North Korea on the back burner until Iraq is dealt with�the whole point of removing Saddam Hussein from power and transplanting Iraq from the �hostile� column to the list of American-friendly nations in the Middle East is to prevent her from ever posing the threat we now face from North Korea. I can even support a certain degree of diplomatic double-talk from the Bush administration to keep North Korea on the sidelines until such a time as we can deal with her. But my support depends on a certain degree of trust that George W. Bush and his advisors are sufficiently well-informed and competent not only to eliminate the threat when the time comes, but to ensure that the situation does not escalate beyond their control while they go about their business in Iraq. And that trust is being seriously tested.
Discerning any real plan from the official statements of the Bush administration has been all but impossible. Its policy has been first and foremost simply not to negotiate with Pyongyang until its nuclear development ends�but it was that very ultimatum that precipitated the current crisis back in October, when Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly informed North Korean officials that the United States was aware of its violations of former agreements and demanded that those violations stop. Intelligence insiders had predicted that North Korea would cooperate when confronted. Obviously, they were wrong.
North Korea is making a bid for recognition as a legitimate nuclear power�which Bush of course cannot give without destroying his credibility. Hence the current impasse, in which the administration is anything but consistent.
The only discernible pattern is one of delay: Bush does not want to deal with North Korea until Iraq is out of the way. And, almost as obviously, he wants to keep his options open for the future while maintaining at least some degree of consistency with his own articulated policies for terrorists and the nations that support them. Which is well and good, so long as the crisis doesn�t spiral out of control.
But one is forced to fear that it already has. North Korea effectively holds South Korea hostage, particularly now that it possesses nuclear weapons. A purely military solution to the problem seems out of the question. And the current haphazard policy does not seem well considered to give America the diplomatic upper hand in future negotiations. In all the analyses I have read of the crisis, I have yet to read any suggestions for how to deal with it; journalists are contenting themselves with fear-mongering. Criticism is all too easy, especially when solutions seem so elusive.
Keeping in mind Bush�s past triumphs with the United Nations, the Democratic Senate and the elections themselves, I hesitate to predict failure in this matter�others have underestimated his leadership abilities and political savvy before, to their own humiliation. And even if he does mess up with North Korea, as he is merely human, we must cut him at least some slack, right?
The unfortunate truth, however, is that when the game involves nutty Communist recluses with nukes, the permissible margin of error is very small, while the stakes are higher than ever. Let us all hope and pray that the President is on the ball�because if he messes up here, the consequences may well be greater than any of us can imagine.