A friend just sent me this neat little interview with Wendell Berry in Sun Magazine. Though not everything in it will be lauded on ASC, I think many of the gems offered, by the always eloquent and insightful Berry, will resonate. The interview touches on a wide range of topics including agriculture, ecology, the good life, science, art, culture, faith, intellectual property, politics, economy, academia, writing, war and love.

One of the unique strengths of Berry's agrarian conservationism is that, similar to the distributist thought of G.K. Chesterton; Hilaire Belloc; or Dorothy Day, it defies convention and cannot be easily pigeonholed as liberal; conservative; leftist; rightist; centrist; libertarian or any of the other more common -ians; -ists or -isms. He offers refreshing third-way commentary that should be attractive to anyone dissatisfied with the state capitalism vs. state socialism - either way we get large scale nationalism, government and industry - debate that seems to mark our current socio-political discourse.

Some highlights:

Art is a way of making, and science is a way of knowing. You’re never going to escape the need for either one; you’ve got to have a certain amount of knowledge, and you’ve got to have a certain amount of art. You’ve got to know how to make a thing — whether it’s a crop or a novel — and you’ve got to have a way of making it...

The human definition of the natural world is always going to be too small, because the world’s more diverse and complex than we can ever know. We’re not going to comprehend it; it comprehends us. The question is whether we can use it with respect. Some people in the past who knew very little biology were able to use the land without destroying it. We, who know a great deal of biology, are destroying our land in order to use it...

The real limit on government would be reasonably independent, self-sustaining localities and communities. But if there is no local independence, then governments and other organizations have a kind of freedom that they wouldn’t have otherwise...

I’m not going to subscribe to anybody’s excuse for coldblooded killing. There’s no such thing as a “just” war anymore, if there ever was. You can’t defend bombing children and innocent people. It isn’t right to teach people how to torture and kill each other. Wars never end, really. The Crusades aren’t quite over yet. Our Civil War certainly isn’t over yet. I don’t think we can afford this kind of behavior anymore. Nobody’s talking about the ecological damage of war.

Well, the kids are back in school again and it's always just a matter of time before my wife and I are approached by one of their teachers asking why our child won't say the pledge of allegiance. Usually it takes a couple weeks and in the past there have been a few struggles of wills between teacher and student but we always simply explain that we aren't into it and that is that.

This year we made it to day two. My daughter started Kindergarten. She remembered the drill from preschool and she refused to take the pledge. After school, her teacher came to my wife with a timid inquisitiveness to get the scoop. Here is how the hilarious conversation went:

Teacher: So, are you atheists?
Wife: Ummm, no. Why?
Teacher: Well, because your daughter told me that she doesn't say the pledge of allegiance.
Wife: That's right but I'm not an atheist.
Teacher: Oh, then why do you not want your child to say the pledge?
Wife: Because we're anarchists and we don't appreciate much of what the government does.
Teacher: OK, I see. So, what about Christmas and other holidays?
Wife: Oh yeah, we do Christmas.
Teacher: Oh good because I like to decorate my class and have parties.

So, to review: Only atheists don't say the pledge and anarchists don't like Christmas.

I guess it was about a month ago (time goes by too damn quickly these days) that I was sitting on the couch with the old lady while she was flipping channels. She rarely even pauses for a blink as she passes by the cable news networks but this time she stopped on Fox to see the breaking news that an arrest had been made in connection with the death of pregnant soldier, Megan Touma. I was looking down reading my book but I kept hearing the name Edgar Patino, Edgar Patino, Edgar Patino. I looked up at my wife and said "I wonder if he's a soldier. It seems like if he was, they'd be calling him Sgt. Patino or Spec. Patino or something like that."

I went to bed. About an hour later wifey joined me and reported that after my remark she flipped to CNN to see what they were saying and, sure enough, they were reporting that Sgt. Edgar Patino had been arrested in connection with the murder. I just chuckled. I knew that the next day the folks at Fox News would also be calling him Sgt. Patino, so why make the omission? Maybe Fox News didn't have the details yet as the story was just breaking. But, it does seem like a rather relevant detail and one you would want to include in your breaking news coverage. Oh well.

Then, last night, the ball and chain and I were watching one of those unbelievable real life video shows on truTV, formerly known as CourtTV. One of the videos was of some liquor store security footage showing a botched robbery in Oceanside, California.

I watched as the they interviewed the store owner, as they mentioned that this was just one of a series of robberies by the same suspect, as they showed the suspect being shot (unfortunately it was not a fatal wound) in the act, and I listened as they named the crook, McKenzie Smith. Now, anyone who knows Oceanside knows that it borders on Camp Pendleton and thus it is crawling with Marines. So, my first reaction was to turn to wifey again and say "I wonder if he's a Marine." They made no mention of it on truTV but, if so, it seems like it would be a relevant or at least a very interesting detail. A quick Google search was fruitful. It turns out that McKenzie Smith also goes by Lance Corporal and, totally unmentioned on truTV, he was aided in his crime spree by Navy Corpsman Quintel Brooks. Again, I just laughed.

I know it's not a shocker that these omissions are made and maybe it's not even a big deal but it makes me wonder: In high profile cases, like that of Edgar Patino, such details can't be hidden but where they can be ignored, I wonder how common a practice it is, or how common a desire it is, to ignore the military membership of criminals.