Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Bill Moyers

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Bill Moyers

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Thu 17 Feb 2005, 20:11:12

There Is No Tomorrow By Bill Moyers The Star Tribune Sunday, 30 January 2005:

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.

As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer - "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total and more since the election - are backed by the religious right.

Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in the motel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once
asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.

I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:
  • That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources.
  • That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.
  • That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.
  • That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting, coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.
  • That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million - $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read all this in the news.

I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon Mobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."

I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to
it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.

I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer - pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."

And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?

What has happened to our moral imagination?

On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: 'I see it feelingly.'"

I see it feelingly.

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.

Believe me, it does.

-------

Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series "NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet, where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers' remarks upon receiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

-------
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

More about Bill

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Thu 17 Feb 2005, 20:15:50

This article, or parts of it, may have been circulating here already. I nevertheless hope to track these developments on a dedicated thread. I've had a keen eye on Bill ever since I saw his name on the Bilderberg registry some years back.

If anyone sees other notable Moyers blurbs, feel free to put them up here.
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Unread postby savethehumans » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 04:58:15

Oh, yeah, I read this article. I think I even printed it out. And e-mailed it to my aunt.

We are both Christians (as is Moyers, I believe), and we keep feeling we should apologize for these, uh, religious right sorts. The Bible tells us that these modern-day Pharisees will be judged in the end; I keep wishing that, in the case of the Bushie-ites, some of that judgement could come sooner. I even keep reminding myself that I'M in no position to cast the first stone--and I know that. But these guys sure make it hard on a poor gal.... :(
User avatar
savethehumans
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Agren » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 05:40:35

Scary article, but it seems you have to be a bit careful here

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')r. Watt explained that the quote attributed to him by Moyers is fraudulent. As another blogger has written, and as Moyers' favorite source, Grist, has now admitted in a correction, it originated in a book published in 1990 by one Austin Miles, an anti-religious tract titled Setting Free the Captives. Miles' book does not, however, claim that Mr. Watt made the statement in question in testimony before Congress; that little embellishment was added by Grist, and repeated by Moyers with no effort on his part to check its veracity.

Debunking the Moyer article
User avatar
Agren
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Sweden

Unread postby Pops » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 09:55:09

I love Moyers, he’s the Rush of Lefties, albeit with intelligence and tact - OK, so he's not like Rush at all. At least he isn’t on the government payroll (I don't think).
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Unread postby Kingcoal » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 11:38:33

I was raised a Methodist (like Laura Bush), but after a scientific education, I was corrupted into being a skeptic. Bush and Co scare me because I understand them. To them, the end is near anyway, so why care about the environment or the long term effects of peak oil. To them, this world is a corrupt and seedy place, not worthy of them. They dream of an afterlife where all will be judged and people like me thrown into hell while they go on to an eternal fantasy world of luxury. The contempt that many Christians hold for the real world is the scary part. You are not dealing with rational people here.
User avatar
Kingcoal
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed 29 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Unread postby sampo » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 14:13:24

if you believe that powerline is actually capable of "debunking" something, you need a wake up call. I can assure you that the transcript, the phone call, and the anecdote are all carefully constructed to make moyers look bad and inform the reader as little as possible. It is the way the writers at powerline operate.
User avatar
sampo
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 27 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby DomusAlbion » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 14:30:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')t least he isn’t on the government payroll (I don't think).


Gee, Pops, what do you the the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is? Almost all its funds come from the Fed.
"Modern Agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
-- Albert Bartlett

"It will be a dark time. But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."
-- James Lovelock
User avatar
DomusAlbion
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Beyond the Pale

Unread postby Agren » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 17:46:13

Sampo:

I don't know anything about powerline. In fact, I don't know anything about Moyer either.
And of course it was carefully constructed, but that's not the point. The point as I see it is that it do seem like Moyer used a quote that simply wasn't accurate, and that's not good. It opens you up to critisism like this, and that is a bad thing. Plus it's really bad style to not check your facts and quotes carefully.
User avatar
Agren
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Sweden

Unread postby maverickdoc » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 22:27:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DomusAlbion', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')t least he isn’t on the government payroll (I don't think).


Gee, Pops, what do you the the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is? Almost all its funds come from the Fed.



Although PBS stands for public broadcasting corporation, they actually get very little money form the government. This was a typical right wing argument to cancel him
User avatar
maverickdoc
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby frankthetank » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 23:36:07

I watch a lot of PBS and most shows are funded by foundations and "from people like you".
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Unread postby threadbear » Sat 19 Feb 2005, 00:01:29

BEST article on religious right, from Harper's mag.

If you read nothing else about the religious right, read this. This article gave me a 2 year jump on these creeps.

Here's a snippet, From Harper's magazine:

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.â€
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby skiwi » Mon 23 May 2005, 07:11:53

Great speech by Moyers broadcast on c-span last week now being torrented at http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/index.html

Mr. Moyers gives a talk in reaction to the current attempt by
the D.C. junta to sieze one of the last media organizations.
(Probably THE last)

Encoded with XviD and interleaved with MP3 audio.
64 minutes and 6 seconds.
Let us make him who shall nourish and sustain us. What shall we do to be invoked; to be remembered in the earth.
We have tried with our first creatures but we could not make them venerate us.
So let us try to make obedient respectful beings who shall
User avatar
skiwi
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Frost Free in New Zealand

Unread postby Aaron » Mon 23 May 2005, 07:35:01

PBS dropped a notch in my estimation when they removed Bill from NOW, and replaced him with their current parrot, (forget his name).

So he missed a quote which may be BS... so what?

The baby goes out with the bathwater?

Nice post EE
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Unread postby oowolf » Mon 23 May 2005, 15:21:02

It has been sad to experience the "dumbing down" of NPR. I think they actually wasted more airtime this last weekend on "Star Wars" than the infotainment massmedia. If I want to hear idiotic chitchat about clueless walmart zombies who camp-out for days to see a movie. And don't think I'm not aware of the "creeping commercials".

An old friend asked me about the role of "Faith" in the PO scenario. I told him nature is not concerned with your delusions. The Romans thought an Angel of God would come down to save them. The Plains Indians thought their ancestors would come and remove the whiteman. Hitler thought astrology and the death of FDR would save his sorry ass.
Man proposes---NATURE disposes.
User avatar
oowolf
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Big Rock Candy Mountain

Unread postby bobcousins » Mon 23 May 2005, 16:36:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PowerLine', 'M')r. Watt explained that the quote attributed to him by Moyers is fraudulent. As another blogger has written, and as Moyers' favorite source, Grist, has now admitted in a correction, it originated in a book published in 1990 by one Austin Miles, an anti-religious tract titled Setting Free the Captives. Miles' book does not, however, claim that Mr. Watt made the statement in question in testimony before Congress; that little embellishment was added by Grist, and repeated by Moyers with no effort on his part to check its veracity.

But the real issue here is not the quote, but what Moyers says about its context.


Actually, the real issue is the quote. Let's get this clear, did Watt ever express an opinion to the same effect, in any context? This does not seem to be denied, so maybe it was/is his opinion, just not expressed to Congress.

Either way who said what to whom doesn't make much difference to the overall message of the piece. PowerLine's claim that Jesus preached stewardship is disingenuous, throughout the ages Christians have cherry picked from the bible to justify whatever actions they are currently undertaking. A lot more smiting of enemies has occurred than turning of the cheek.

I have met Christians who have expressed the view that the end of the world is not ultimately a bad thing - for those who believe.

And, as someone who has had to endure the distortions and fabrications made by Creationists about my own religion, they don't like a dose of their own medicine do they?
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult
Top


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron