From one amputee to another

Your Monday Cry:
Marine amputees offer love and advice to Marathon amputees:



Honor

I realized today that I've forgotten all but one of the names, and most of the cases, of my four years on Williams's honor committee. That was by design - I tried to put them out of my head - but it's still odd to (not) think about it, because those experiences were so formative for me. I learned about how people act under extreme pressure, the impossibility of judgment in 51%-49% cases, and how rules interact with nessesary compassion.

I learned about secrets that "happy" people carry with them, some very dark, and I learned about the pain of depression. I learned what it was like to argue for stronger sanctions, and what it was like to stand alone for fewer sanctions. I learned the pain of secrecy when people assumed false things about me, and when I had to go along with false things others said to preserve their fraudulent stories about why they were headed off campus.

But mostly I learned what it was like to be part of a system much bigger than myself, and the responsibility of actors within those systems. So much of politics - macro and micro, is about maneuvering oneself into places and positions of responsibility, but once you're there, it's just work, and its weighty. It wasn't fun, but it was an honor to be so entrusted.

An Old Editorial of Mine from the Williams Record on the death of Osama Bin Laden

I turned 13 on Sept. 11, 2001. Sunday evening, eight years to the day after George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, I ran home to Susie Hopkins after learning that the man chiefly responsible for that event had been killed in a firefight.

We live, it is said, in a purple bubble here at Williams, isolated by mountains in every cardinal direction. Our lives are enabled and assisted through the efforts of hundreds of staff who provide us with security and services while we pursue our education. While the Internet has made true isolation less possible, we are sheltered here from hunger and the worst sort of injustices that have provoked the current Arab Spring.

Nate Krisoff ’03 departed from this shelter and entered the United States Marine Corps. The plaque commemorating his life and death on Dec. 9, 2006, sits alone above one of the back doors of Thompson Chapel, dwarfed by the long lists of names from other wars in which Ephs took greater part. He was a co-captain of the swim team, known for his one-liners and the blue and white Adidas tracksuit top that he wore everywhere.

After his death, his father, a surgeon, enlisted in the Naval Medical Corps to honor his son’s memory, serving a seven-month deployment at Camp Al Taqaddum, Iraq, among other places. I know of no other Ephs who followed Bill Krissoff’s example; Williams students are rarely found in today’s armed forces.

We serve in the government, yes, and I have no doubt that many ’11s, ’12s, ’13s and ’14s will leave this valley to accomplish great feats, but many of us will remain within the security and comfort that the privilege of a Williams degree will help to provide. We will not be able to claim the words of Professor of Rhetoric Carroll Lewis Maxcy’s 1926 eulogy:
“And some, in answer to the call of country, have gone out to battle for the common rights of men against the enemy. Some of them will not return to me, for they have given all they had, and now they rest at the foot of a simple cross or lie deep below the waves. But even as they passed, the music of the chimes was in their ears and before their eyes were visions of the quiet walks beneath the elms.”
I am not suggesting that Ephs commemorate Osama bin Laden’s death by enlisting in the armed forces; my own plans do not include military service, though I respect and honor my friends from home who made that choice. But I do suggest that we carry an extra obligation alongside our privilege: to serve not just the causes of wealth, power or fame, but to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that expected by society, the market or our peers.

Loyalty, kindness, helpfulness and their peer traits won’t buy season tickets at a Yankees game, but they are the lynchpins of a successful society: One of the great hallmarks of Williams is that I can leave my laptop out and alone in a common room without fear (though there are notable exemptions: take care!) or that we can toss our jackets on the stairs during First Fridays without requiring a coat check system to ensure that we get our outerwear back. In dedicating ourselves to building the better America that Nate Krisoff sought to protect (or for international students, the causes of freedom and justice that he sought to defend), we can honor his memory and those of the many others that perished on my birthday. We can turn the celebration at this death into a more timely and long-lasting benevolence that will pay dividends down the road.

Is this overly optimistic? Probably. I have no doubt that even on this campus, problems and struggles will continue for years to come. A Muslim chaplain will not solve all of the issues that Muslim students face, just as Campus Safety and Security can hardly prevent all thefts or sexual assaults from occurring. The United States will soon come down from its post-kill euphoria, just as the good-natured feelings of September 11 only persisted for about a month. Our task is to maintain those convictions, even when they are under the threat of convenience or malfeasance; there will often be no reward for doing the right thing, or even heavy costs like what Krissoff paid.

But regardless, let this not be a week about fireworks, politics or the celebration of a terrorist’s death. Let this be the week that we can be reminded which causes are worth dying and sacrificing for. We will not always uphold these values perfectly, but there are angels to guide us on our way.

Gun Control

A dish reader on Gun Control. Posted here because it's pretty close to my thinking:
The right to bear arms was an essential right in 1787 because of the risk of Indian incursion, not as a bulwark against tyranny or a defense against foreign invasion. The concept of a “well-regulated militia” as it concerned pre-Revolutionary America actually would often have been little more than a posse of all available homesteaders organized to defend the area or march on a nearby settlement.
In this context, each individual actually does represent his own militia, because he may be the only one available to defend an isolated farm. The idea that the Founders intended weapons to be limited exclusively to organized military formations is preposterous; with few exceptions, such formal organizations did not exist. In many frontier regions, there would have been no defense available to settlers if the Amendment was read as many now propose.

This absolutely does not mean that gun control is unconstitutional, however. The inclusion of the phrase “well-regulated militias” in the Amendment was not an accident, even if it is frequently misread today.

The Founders intended weapons to be readily available to the extent that Americans would be ABLE to form a “well-regulated militia” to defend against incursion. This is the appropriate reading of the Amendment. Gun control should therefore be based, as it was in 1934 and 1994, on a determination of what constitutes a necessary weapon to enable the formation of a militia. I personally think that hunting rifles and pistols probably constitute an adequate complement of weaponry for a militia (in a country with a standing army), but others may disagree.

On Thatcher

The death of Margaret Thatcher seems to be causing some problems for the typical "good/bad" narrative that new articles typically go with, because more than most politicians, Thatcher was extraordinarily strong-willed and willing to be hated, and therefore pursued policies that made her (justifiably) notorious.

But that sounds about fair to me. She took her actions knowing the political risks and how many people she was antagonizing, and now many will seek to dance upon her grave. It's the price that public leaders pay, espeically when you pursue some politics that are much more noxious today than in their own time.

On Pixar's Sequels

This post and a few others circling around the web discuss Pixar's recent rash of sequels. I think this is a valid critique on Hollywood, in general, but misses two aspects unique to Pixar. Sequels are much more guaranteed money when making a movie - witness the success of Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" even though the movie was poorly edited, and we know that Hollywood is hugely risk-averse. That's why Adam Sandler can keep making $80 million crappy movies that earn back their keep.

But with Pixar, we have the example of Toy Story, whose two sequels added to the story and, especially in the third, did something that an original movie cannot do by using the nostalgia of the first movies as a part of the story. Andy's departure to college meant something to all of us who were in elementary school when Toy Story came out, and that amazing scene in the incinerator grabbed us because we knew these characters, and had known them for a decade. It's like the death of Coulsen in the Avengers - we knew that guy.

So I'm tempted to give Pixar its due. I'm sure there's a component of money-making in these decisions - see "Cars 2" and merchandising - but I want to revisit these characters and get something that most movies - and most sequels - don't offer.

A Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marraige


I've always felt a little more socially conservative than my friends and neighbors, both growing up in Decatur and going to college in Massachusetts. It's not about judging the things that others do, but about choosing what is most fitting for myself, for reasons of taste and otherwise, but there is sometimes some awkwardness. However, that general sentiment never applied - even slightly - to the issue of gay marriage, or anything involving human sexuality, and I've never bought the arguments otherwise. Here's a great encapsulation of some of that reasoning, from RedState:
Luke 10 tells the story of a legal expert who queried Jesus about what was required to inherit eternal life. Christ turned the question back on its questioner, and this man whose entire life revolved around studying the law of God summed it up in two points: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
And Christ informed him that he had it exactly right.
That’s what is required to be a follower of Christ. I’m not called to hunt down sinful people, or question the faith of my friends and neighbors, or try to wield the power of the government to enforce my convictions on others.
I’m called to love God, and love them. period. The End. Christ himself spent time with the lowest and most despised sinners of His day, and Scripture holds no account of His ever confronting them about it, except when they explicitly asked Him about it or, like Zaccheus the cheating, thieving tax collector, brought it up themselves.
Even for those who believe homosexuality is a sin, does it necessarily follow that they should wield the levers of Leviathan’s power against those whom they believe are in the wrong? After all, Scripture speaks about homosexuality a bare handful of times. Conversely, caring for the poor is a key theme all throughout the Major and Minor Prophets, the Gospels and the Epistles. Israel is repeatedly condemned for abandoning the poor, sick and needy among them. The disciples and the early church are urged to care for those same  poor and needy.
If, as the anti-SSM crowd would have it, the levers of State are to be wielded to enforce the commands of Scripture, then pardon me, but what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are we doing spending so much time, energy and effort fighting to overturn Obamacare? If the role of government is to enforce Biblical morality, isn’t Obamacare – providing the security of medical insurance coverage to a multitude of poor, sick people who couldn’t get it before, the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done??
[...]

And then there are the children. Even if you believe with all your heart that the best environment in which to raise a child is one shared with both a loving (male) father and a loving (female) mother . . . are you really ready to argue that a child is better off in an abusive home, or shuttling around between foster homes, or in a home with an absentee mom or dad, or in a broken home, than that child would be in a loving home shared with two parents of the same gender?

We live in a fallen, broken world, and unfortunately that means that not all of us have the good fortune to grow up in stable homes with both a father and mother who love us and are present in our lives. But for those who don’t have that opportunity, I’d argue that a stable home with two fathers or two mothers is the next best thing.
I would even say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality - it just condemns going against one's own nature. And for the many gay men and women who hid themselves, and married straight, that pain of going against nature must have been a constant pain for years.

Marriage's enemy - society's enemy - is visible during any of the daytime TV talk shows that mock the responsibilities of fathers or the pain of infidelity. It's the rising divorce rate (concentrated in particular economic classes), and the numbers of marriages that should have failed due to abuse in a past era, when divorce was a true scandal.

Unfortunately, it's easy to hate the other, different, or strange, especially when we fear it.

States in the Union

A recent post made me think about which states I have and haven't been to in the US. I think you have to stay a night somewhere for it to really count but will count traveling-through states with asterisks.

I don't really think this will be useful for anyone else, but it's a cool reference point for the future.

Final score: Been to 30, transited in 7, got 13 left.

Pope Francis, Catholicism, and Rhode Island

I spent much of the weekend in Rhode Island, the last state I hadn't been to in New England. (Delaware/West Virginia, I'm coming for you and the end of the mid-Atlantic next). I have a dear friend here, a lifer, who welcomed me with the same grace I knew when we last saw each other at graduation. She's gone a different road than mine since then, and it's always nice to check in every once in a while to remember who we were - and who we can be when with the best.

She's also Catholic, so I went back to Mass today for the first time (I think) since we spent our freshman Winter in Rome, thanks to Williams. I was happy they gave out palm fronds, and joyed when the final song was "Jesus, Remember Me," a song I know well from Taize.

Lastly, a note on the new Pope. I don't believe in papal infallibility, and I'm incredibly "low church," but I think human psychology makes the Pope - a singular figure, a human in a Godly role - a special touchstone that I appreciate whenever it captivates the world. I hope he succeeds in putting meat behind the wonderful symbolism thus far - and I predict that he will do well. Besides, Francis is my favorite saint, mostly because I played him in a children's church choir production.