“Today the clouds have lifted and people can see their future,”

Today, I read this article and it reminded me of an issue I think I may have blogged about in the past, but this occasion warrants a re-mentioning.

The title of this post was a statement made by Peter Hain, the British minister of Northern Ireland. The comment was made in reference to the compromise made by leaders of the Sinn Fein party and Protestant party in Ireland to accept terms that would allow Ireland to reclaim the precesses of many of the country's internal affairs from the custodial control of the British.

Local governance had been assumed by Britain because of historical conflict that made the two parties unable to work together. Sinn Fein's not-so-discrete connections with the IRA and its murderous terrorist actions and the retalitation of Protestant factions are a result of conflicts over religion and politics that started to manifest in bloodshed as early as the 1920s.

But, today compromise has been reached and we have come far from the violence that had long plagued Ireland. But, the issue of terrorism in Ireland has been an issue to which I have pointed as a possible model for the Middle East Peace process. The entrenched ideology that led to blood shed in Ireland is similar to the religious ideology that catalyzes terrorism in the Middle East.

When you look at the history of Irish terrorism you see that as long as diplomatic resources were closed to groups such as the IRA violence was their primary bull-horn, this occurred for most of the twentieth century, then in the late 90s the Sinn Fein party, who had ties to the IRA, established a voice the in Irish government. While protestant hegemony remained violence decreased. Suddenly, the method of violence as public outcry was less necessary and diplomacy was used. Hostility, some physical and some symbolic, has remained but this is a giant step forward because of the willingness for these two once bitter enemies to accept responsibility for shaping the future and who have laid down their figurative swords in order to accept control of their own fate, together. My question: is the radiclaism of the Middle East more malignant than that of Ireland's past, and if not what might be the outcome of relinquishing some of the same diplomatic resources to all of the conflicting ideologies of the Middle East? At least in the venue of diplomacy radicalism can be moderated, and perhaps each interest can be satisfactorily heard on a national and international stage.

Whatever, just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.........

Lastly, I want to say real quick that among a number of movies that will never come to a theater near you that I want to see the 2006 Palme d'Or winner, Ken Loach's The Wind that Shakes the Barley, the film takes place in the 1920s at the outset of the conflict in Ireland, that is why I mention it here.

Peace on Earth

The short animated film was made in 1939. It is a stunning piece of artistry. It is almost 9 minutes long, but I stongly encourage you to take the time to take a peak. I bet it will be the first cartoon you have ever watched that was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Queen Elizabeth

Recently, John Edwards has risen to the top of my presidential nominee list. He has laid out his agenda in a very explicit and user-friendly structure that has put ending poverty at the top of the list, with a sub-category under that bullet of creating a universal healthcare sytem. He is, as he has again and again alluded to, the first candidate to lay out a plan that maps out the creation and implementation of such a system. The only negative thing I have to say is that his new tough guy attitude seems to wear a little thin as an obvious attempt to cater to the machismo that is so precious to the right to garner swing votes, he has thus far won my vote. But, this blog is not about him.

Just yesterday, over breakfast, one of my friends argued that John Edwards' actions were deplorable for not putting down the rally sign and staying home and taking care of his wife whose recurrance of cancer has just been diagnosed. Stun and shock overwhelmed me. Now, since the intial press conference where she announced her diagnosis and Edwards announced that the campaign will continue I have not read or seen much news on the issue; maybe I should not be shocked, maybe this argument has popped up alot, but an avenue for a negative character evaluation had never crossed my mind.

To me, we should applaud the courage of woman who realizes that her own ailments are miniscule when compared to the ailments of a nation for which her and her's purport to have the cure. Elizabeth needs not be taken care of, she took care of cancer by herself the first time. It shames me that today in America we (or at least who ever is making the aforemetnioned argument) still perceive a wife as property to be maintained. These same objections come from the side of the aisle which degrades Middle Eastern cultures for their sexism, but it seems to me that wearing an hijab is not far removed from having your own independence veiled by deep seeded ideology.

What Would You Say to an Evangelist?

After its release at Sundance last year this doc had created quite a buzz, and I made a mental note after reading about it in Rolling Stone Magazine's Sundance issue that I wanted to see the movie.

Of course I forgot about the film, until April 2007 and the Academy
nominates for best doc feature-length. Finally, last night, after a
year of anticipation (though unconscious) I watched Jesus Camp.

Directly afterward I read Stephen Holden's review for the New York Times, dont read it it is pointless. He takes certain instances out of context and strings them
together in a more perfect narrative, I don't really like Holden.

Anyway, the review did hit upon one thing about the film that did interest me.
What was the purpose of the film? It is not an expansive study of
evangelism, it is not a look at the growth of evangelism in the United
States. Exclusively, the film deals with the teaching of children. It
follows three children (and others in passing) as they go through the
Kids on Fire summer camp. Where they are self admittedly being trained
to fight in God's Army to reclaim America. Children collapse in prayer,
speak in tongues, and cry uncontrollably . They are taught the evils of
Harry Potter and they, for the most part. are home schooled where they can be
taught, above anything else, that Darwinism is satanic and abortion is
a sin against God.

I must be honest with anyone reading, when I rented the film I got it because I thought I might find it humorous, and occasionally I laughed out loud, when the children's preacher almost cried with disdain for Harry Potter, but for the most part I was perplexed.

The one voice of moderation is a radio talk show host on Air America who claims to be a Christian but is obviously liberally aligned. The Pastor Becky Fisher of the children's camp (probably the film's main character) calls in and has a debate with him, and he claims to be blown away by "how crazier and crazier they get."

It does seem to me that their love for their children and their diligence
in raising them is admirable, but here is the problem Evangelist. Your
doctrine teaches only exclusion and only judgement of others.

The radio show host makes a valid point at the difference between teaching your children and indoctrinating your children, Ms. Fisher responds by saying indoctrination will happen somewhere so she opts for indoctrination through her church.

The most glaring trend that surfaces in the film is the language of war in
the practicing of their religion. Most of the kids seem pretty normal
outside of the confines of the camp and the church, but there will be
one day when they have to leave home and learn things with their own
devices, what will happen then?

Postscript:
The film is made with a compassionate lens, it does not seem to look down its nose at these people as I may be doing and as other reviewers have been doing. These are people motivated for a cause, a group of children and their parents travel from Missouri to Washington DC to protest abortion as Judge Alito is about to be confirmed. The political interest and political action that these children are being taught is valuable and dialogue is never bad, we can only hope that somewhere along the way the kids learn that dialogue means tolerance of, or at least listening to, opposing points of view.

Movie for the Day

On this day in 1927 Fritz Lang's film Metropolis premiered. Metropolis pioneered the science-fiction, social commentary film. So, in honor of movies that mean something I will give a few movies that would be fitting for tonight, after work or school.

Go to your local $2 theater and maybe you will be lucky and find Children of Men playing. Amazing production and amazing script.

Or, V for Vendetta. Once again great production (come to think of it I am going to stop saying that because great production is the raison d'etre of sci-fi), but wonderful writing, wonderful acting, and damn entertaining.

2001: A Space Odyssey great film, but it is almost an unwatchable masterpiece. One time is enough, at times it borders on impenetrable.

Metropolis!!!!!!!!!Restored DVD came out not too long ago, pick it up. The cinematography is beautiful and the subject matter makes most American films today seem soft, for this movie dealt with the modern, industrial class structure which we barely even see today in American films.