The Rude Awakening: 2014

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 1....Opening Scene in Anatevka

Produced by the Music & Arts Department of Christ United Methodist Church, Greensboro, NC. Directed by Chip Johnson. Music directed by Cathy West. Choreography by Teresa Lowell. Scenery and Lighting by Bob Thurston. Presented March 6-10, 2014.

Cast:
Tevye....Carl Lindquist
Golde....Carol Harris
Tzeitel....Jessica Lowell
Hodel....Amy Brubaker
Chava....Claire Simons
Yente....Laura Edwards
Lazar Wolf....Carl Phillips
Motel Kamzoil....Charley Birkner
Perchik....Clint Pabon
Fyedka.....Hunter Camp
Fruma-Sarah....Heidi Fischer
Grandma Tzeitel....Debbie Staley
Mordcha....Mitch Camp
Rabbi....David Grove
Avrahm....Bill Trivette
Mendel....Mark Ledford
Constable....Jim Gibson
Nachum....Dave Amos
Russian Singer....Frank Kincaid
Sacha....Andrew Long
Shaindel....Betsy Eberhardt
Fiddler....Zachary Mottinger
Chava Sequence Dancer....Catherine Camp

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 2....Tzeitel, Hodel, and Chava Talk about Marriage

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 3....Tevye Invites Perchik Home for the Sabbath

Produced by the Music & Arts Department of Christ United Methodist Church, Greensboro, NC. Directed by Chip Johnson. Music directed by Cathy West. Choreography by Teresa Lowell. Scenery and Lighting by Bob Thurston. Presented March 6-10, 2014

Cast:
Tevye....Carl Lindquist
Golde....Carol Harris
Tzeitel....Jessica Lowell
Hodel....Amy Brubaker
Chava....Claire Simons
Yente....Laura Edwards
Lazar Wolf....Carl Phillips
Motel Kamzoil....Charley Birkner
Perchik....Clint Pabon
Fyedka.....Hunter Camp
Fruma-Sarah....Heidi Fischer
Grandma Tzeitel....Debbie Staley
Mordcha....Mitch Camp
Rabbi....David Grove
Avrahm....Bill Trivette
Mendel....Mark Ledford
Constable....Jim Gibson
Nachum....Dave Amos
Russian Singer....Frank Kincaid
Sacha....Andrew Long
Shaindel....Betsy Eberhardt
Fiddler....Zachary Mottinger
Chava Sequence Dancer....Catherine Camp

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 4....Tevye Talks to Lazar Wolf at the Inn

Produced by the Music & Arts Department of Christ United Methodist Church, Greensboro, NC. Directed by Chip Johnson. Music directed by Cathy West. Choreography by Teresa Lowell. Scenery and Lighting by Bob Thurston. Presented March 6-10, 2014

Cast:
Tevye....Carl Lindquist
Golde....Carol Harris
Tzeitel....Jessica Lowell
Hodel....Amy Brubaker
Chava....Claire Simons
Yente....Laura Edwards
Lazar Wolf....Carl Phillips
Motel Kamzoil....Charley Birkner
Perchik....Clint Pabon
Fyedka.....Hunter Camp
Fruma-Sarah....Heidi Fischer
Grandma Tzeitel....Debbie Staley
Mordcha....Mitch Camp
Rabbi....David Grove
Avrahm....Bill Trivette
Mendel....Mark Ledford
Constable....Jim Gibson
Nachum....Dave Amos
Russian Singer....Frank Kincaid
Sacha....Andrew Long
Shaindel....Betsy Eberhardt
Fiddler....Zachary Mottinger
Chava Sequence Dancer....Catherine Camp

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 5....The Engagement of Tzeitel and Motel

Produced by the Music & Arts Department of Christ United Methodist Church, Greensboro, NC. Directed by Chip Johnson. Music directed by Cathy West. Choreography by Teresa Lowell. Scenery and Lighting by Bob Thurston. Presented March 6-10, 2014

Cast:
Tevye....Carl Lindquist
Golde....Carol Harris
Tzeitel....Jessica Lowell
Hodel....Amy Brubaker
Chava....Claire Simons
Yente....Laura Edwards
Lazar Wolf....Carl Phillips
Motel Kamzoil....Charley Birkner
Perchik....Clint Pabon
Fyedka.....Hunter Camp
Fruma-Sarah....Heidi Fischer
Grandma Tzeitel....Debbie Staley
Mordcha....Mitch Camp
Rabbi....David Grove
Avrahm....Bill Trivette
Mendel....Mark Ledford
Constable....Jim Gibson
Nachum....Dave Amos
Russian Singer....Frank Kincaid
Sacha....Andrew Long
Shaindel....Betsy Eberhardt
Fiddler....Zachary Mottinger
Chava Sequence Dancer....Catherine Camp

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 6....The Dream

Produced by the Music & Arts Department of Christ United Methodist Church, Greensboro, NC. Directed by Chip Johnson. Music directed by Cathy West. Choreography by Teresa Lowell. Scenery and Lighting by Bob Thurston. Presented March 6-10, 2014

Cast:
Tevye....Carl Lindquist
Golde....Carol Harris
Tzeitel....Jessica Lowell
Hodel....Amy Brubaker
Chava....Claire Simons
Yente....Laura Edwards
Lazar Wolf....Carl Phillips
Motel Kamzoil....Charley Birkner
Perchik....Clint Pabon
Fyedka.....Hunter Camp
Fruma-Sarah....Heidi Fischer
Grandma Tzeitel....Debbie Staley
Mordcha....Mitch Camp
Rabbi....David Grove
Avrahm....Bill Trivette
Mendel....Mark Ledford
Constable....Jim Gibson
Nachum....Dave Amos
Russian Singer....Frank Kincaid
Sacha....Andrew Long
Shaindel....Betsy Eberhardt
Fiddler....Zachary Mottinger
Chava Sequence Dancer....Catherine Camp

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 7....The Wedding of Tzeitel and Motel

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 8....Hodel and Perchik Get Engaged

Produced by the Music & Arts Department of Christ United Methodist Church, Greensboro, NC. Directed by Chip Johnson. Music directed by Cathy West. Choreography by Teresa Lowell. Scenery and Lighting by Bob Thurston. Presented March 6-10, 2014

Cast:
Tevye....Carl Lindquist
Golde....Carol Harris
Tzeitel....Jessica Lowell
Hodel....Amy Brubaker
Chava....Claire Simons
Yente....Laura Edwards
Lazar Wolf....Carl Phillips
Motel Kamzoil....Charley Birkner
Perchik....Clint Pabon
Fyedka.....Hunter Camp
Fruma-Sarah....Heidi Fischer
Grandma Tzeitel....Debbie Staley
Mordcha....Mitch Camp
Rabbi....David Grove
Avrahm....Bill Trivette
Mendel....Mark Ledford
Constable....Jim Gibson
Nachum....Dave Amos
Russian Singer....Frank Kincaid
Sacha....Andrew Long
Shaindel....Betsy Eberhardt
Fiddler....Zachary Mottinger
Chava Sequence Dancer....Catherine Camp

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 9....Hodel Leaving Home

Fiddler on the Roof: Part 10....Leaving Anatevka

Saturday, September 20, 2014

The Beginning of Rand Paul's 2016 Presidential Campaign

No, Rand Paul didn't formally announce his candidacy for the Presidency. But what he did do a few days ago may well have done more than anything else to set the stage for a 2016 run for the Presidency.

Not only was Senator Paul one of only 22 Senators to vote against a new aid package for the Syrian rebels. (He was joined in this by such Democratic liberal notables as Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand.)

He also gave a 45 minutes Senate floor speech, in which he gave his principled reasons for doing, thus setting himself apart from most of his other Republican colleagues (there were 9 other Republicans who voted 'nay' as well, mostly libertarian leaning and thus potential supporters of a Paul nomination).

If there is one theme that connects the dots in the Middle East, it is that chaos breeds terrorism. What much of the foreign policy elite fails to grasp is that intervention to topple secular dictators has been the prime source of that chaos. From Hussein to Assad to Ghaddafi we have the same history. Intervention topples the secular dictator. Chaos ensues and radical jihadists emerge. The pattern has been repeated time after time and yet what we have here is a failure to understand, a failure to reflect on the outcome our involvement in Arab civil wars. They say nature abhors a vacuum. Radical jihadists have again and again filled the chaotic vacuum of the Middle East. Secular dictators, despots who terrorized their own people, are replaced by radical jihadists who seek terror at home and abroad. Intervention when both choices are bad is a mistake. Intervention when both sides are evil is a mistake. Intervention that destabilizes the region is a mistake.

The 'Syrian Free Army'--the supposed recipients of this military aid--will never, in the opinion of many observers, be able to effectively defeat their colleagues--ISIS--in the fight against the Syrian President Assad. They have already announced that they have no intention of doing so. Why should we think they will? This strategy makes no sense to many in both parties and can only make matters worse.

The only possible strategy that might actually work is to cooperate with the current Syrian regime to defeat ISIS. But this administration and this Congress, along with their Israeli allies, are dead-set in their determination to overthrow another Middle Eastern government--Syria--that is allied with Iran, so that is clearly not going to happen.

It seems to me that this decision on the part of the Obama Administration to openly aid the Syrian rebels--in an attempt to fight one of the rebel factions called ISIS--is a major mistake that the American people will quickly tire of and regret.

If that is so, then Senator Paul will be in an excellent position to distinguish himself from other 'pro-war' candidates in the 2016 Presidential contest and gain the support he needs to be competitive.

Of course, the war hawks in both political parties--along with all the institutions of the National Security State that is the US--will be gunning for him, so this will never be an easy thing for a principled non-interventionist like Rand Paul to accomplish.

But frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if it were to come down to Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul in November, 2016, I'm pretty sure I know which way I'd go. And it wouldn't be for Clinton #2.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Architects and Engineers Question the Myth of WTC 7

For a while, on and after the actual day of 9/11, I too accepted the media/government-driven story that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by the heat from fires caused by the collision of two airliners piloted by terrorist hijackers. Why wouldn't you when, shockingly, you saw it happen right before your very eyes, saw thousands of people die in a few moments of hell on earth?

But at some point, I'm not sure when or even why, the shock wore off and I became rational again.

Perhaps it was when I learned that WTC 7 also collapsed that day, only a few hours later, in the same way, completely and quickly. And it had NOT been hit by an airplane, but just had a few office fires and some fairly minor damage in it, caused by flying debris from WTC 1 & 2.

How did that happen? Yes, indeed, how and why did WTC 7 collapse? And actually, when you think about it, why did WTC 1 & 2 collapse like they did, at free-fall speed, because of some fires? I thought they were steel-framed skyscrapers that were designed to withstand fires and airplane collisions.

These questions also apparently bother millions of other people, including thousands of architects and engineers, who have gone on record as questioning the official story/report on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. Most of them believe, as I do, that these buildings could only have collapsed because they were 'brought down' by controlled demolition. Any other conclusion does not make any sense.

And when you rationally posit 'controlled demotion' as the cause for the collapse of any of the WTC buildings, then, all of a sudden, nothing about the official theory about 9/11 makes any sense.

Which is why most Americans are afraid to look at this evidence: it is just too disorienting, too shocking, too threatening to their worldview. I understand that. Been there, done there.

But the alternative is actually far worse: living in a delusional, irrational, fearful 'matrix'-like dream world that someone else has dreamed up for you.

Truth or delusion....you choose. Reality or psychological denial. Real evidence or blind obedience. The red pill or the blue pill.

Watch the following 15-minute video, hosted by actor Ed Asner. A longer version of it has recently been shown on the PBS stations in Colorado during their annual fund-raiser. The courageous producer, architect Richard Gage, has also been interviewed on C-Span.

Then you can decide for yourself what you want to think or believe.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Never Forget....What?

Today is the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 event, which changed the history of both the United States and the world in a most terrible way. A horrific tragedy for both American citizens and the rest of the world, it is absolutely right to 'never forget' that day.

Not only were thousands of Americans killed on 9/11, but the resulting wars over the last 13 years have led to the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of people all around the world, along with all the other disastrous consequences which almost always follow upon warfare, such as poverty, political anarchy, political extremism, loss of civil liberties, and social disorder.

Clearly, something terrible happened on September 11, 2001. But what was it? Truth be told, we still don't know.

We....still....don't....know.

The following hour-long video, in which the courageous statements of literally dozens of scientists, architects, military and intelligence officers are presented, should give any rational and honest person pause. These are clearly not political extremists of any kind but rather intelligent, patriotic Americans and others who simply care about finding out the truth....about 9/11.

Do yourself a favor and watch this. I promise, your intelligence will not be insulted. Challenged certainly, but not insulted. And if you chose not to watch it, please don't tell me that I'm crazy when I refuse to accept the official story. "There is none so blind as those who refuse to see."

In honor and memory of all those who have died....and continue to die....because of 9/11.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

The Pale Blue Dot

This inspiring video is always worth watching again....

Friday, September 5, 2014

So What Happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight 17?

Given that the crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was instantaneously used by the US to further demonize Russia and Vladimir Putin for their alleged actions in eastern Ukraine, one has to ask, "so where are the results from the investigation into the black boxes and other matters related to that flight?"

Indeed, MA17 has completely disappeared from the radar of the world's media and the Western government. It has not been mentioned once in my hearing since long before the flight data recorders were turned over to the British government. It has simply dropped out of sight of the world's consciousness, except on, as someone called it, the global internet samizdat (referring to the dissident literature that once circulated quietly but crucially in the Soviet Union during the Cold War).

I can only conclude basically one thing, viz, that there is no solid evidence connecting Russia or even the eastern Ukrainian separatists, with the downing of MA 17. If there were, believe me, we'd be hearing about it on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. ad nauseum.

There are plenty of alternative theories out there circulating about what really happened, of course. There is the theory that MA 17 was accidentally shot down by the Ukrainian government because they thought it was the official plane of Vladimir Putin, flying back to Russia from the BRIC summit in Brazil, whom they would love to eliminate.

Others think that the Ukrainian government shot down MA17 deliberately, in order to blame it on the pro-Russian separatists and accomplish what indeed has been accomplished, ie. more sanctions, more public revulsion against Russia and Putin, and more support for Ukraine.

Of course, there is always the chance that the rebels accidentally shot down MA17, thinking it was a Ukrainian government military plane coming to bomb there. But even that is somewhat understandable, given its setting in a war zone, and which leads one to ask: "why was MA17 flying directly over a war zone anyway?"

One should always ask the perennial question: qui bono? Or in other words, 'who benefits'? Who derives the benefit or an advantage from an action, because that helps to determine who had an interest in doing something.

In the case of MA17, Russia and the rebels in eastern Ukraine had absolutely no interest in downing the airliner, since we've seen what happened to them in the court of public opinion in the aftermath of the crash. The pro-US regime in Kiev certainly had an interest in being able to blame and stigmatize the rebels for their humanity, and even more, blaming Russia and Putin. So logically, it makes more sense that the Ukrainian government would want to see something like this happen. Of course, to think of anyone plotting to do such a thing is a disgusting thought. But we all know that such things happen when it comes to war: people are willing to do evil things that they would never think of doing in peacetime.

From the beginning the Russians have denied any involvement, just as adamantly as the US blamed them. So there's always been a lot of interest by open-minded people around the world concerning the actually facts and evidence from the wreck itself, and from the intelligence available from the various governments involved.

And we're still waiting.....

Friday, August 8, 2014

ISIS: Where Did This Monster Come From?

A few days ago, Mary Beth and I were having a discussion about current events--mostly Gaza and Ukraine, since that's what was being presented almost exclusively on the cable networks we watch, as well as our NPR radio station--and I raised the question, what about ISIS? Why isn't anything much being said about ISIS, since it was beginning to take over large chunks of Iraq and Syria, and clearly posing a threat to the region?

And last night, of course, it was all ISIS, all night, because President Obama had ordered some airdrops of supplies to religious refugees who were threatened by ISIS, as well as some possible military airstrikes on ISIS, if they continued to threaten Irbil, one of the northern most cities in Iraq, where we have a Consulate and military advisors.

So where did this monster called ISIS come from--the most radical and threatening Islamist group to arise in the area in a long time?

I went online and found out a few things....that they had been 'disowned' by Al-Qaeda about a year ago, because they were too radical, of all things! That sounds very weird to me--too radical for Al Qaeda! Here we've been bombing and droning Al Qaeda, especially in Pakistan and Yemen, but we don't seem to have been doing anything about ISIS? Very strange.

ISIS is currently led by a nice fellow, ahem, by the name of Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi, and they have a reputation for being extremely brtual toward Shia Muslims, Christians, and other persons they consider infidels. And at least in the case of Iraq, they've been extremely effective in defeating the Iraqi army and taking over land, which they designated as their own 'caliphate' (the name for an Islamic empire).

Here's the other important piece of information I know: ISIS has been fighting in Syria against the Syrian government of Assad, and in that war, they've been on OUR side, in the sense that we're tacitly part of the coalition trying to overthrow the current Assad dynasty in Syria, as part of our larger war against Iran and the other big Shia states in the region (like Iraq). In this we've joined with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, and Turkey, to name just a few.

In other words, it appears to me that we've probably been at least temporary friends with ISIS for some time now, because the US and our allies wanted to use them for our purposes, which was defeating Assad and doing regime change in Syria and, further down the line, in Iran.

Ah, we do love our regime change....

But things have gotten out of control, it appears. ISIS has slipped out of our (meaning the list of nations above) control when we weren't looking, and gone ahead on their own, or so it would appear. And while our own real efforts and energies recently have gone into our regime change and consolidation efforts in Ukraine, with its time consuming sanctions on Russia and the demonizing of Putin (who is sitting back and watching the Ukrainian kills each other), as well as the recent bombardment/invasion of Gaza by Israel, ISIS in the meantime has captured thousands of square miles of Syria and Iraq, and set up their own radical state.

This is all very strange, about as strange as it gets these days in the world. As I find more information of whatever kind, I'll share it with you.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Ukraine is back in the news, and with a vengeance. In what can only be seen as a very strange event, a Malaysian passenger airline on route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed yesterday in the war zone of eastern Ukraine, killing all aboard. Initial reports indicate that it exploded in mid-air, spreading debris over a number of miles.

Initial speculation is that an anti-aircraft missile fired by Ukraine separatists fighting the current Ukrainian government may have brought the plane down. Again, speculation is that since the separatists wouldn't have any motivation to fire upon an international passenger airliner, it was accidentally targeted by the separatist militias who thought they were actually firing on a Ukrainian military plane, something they had been doing recently.

Obviously, this is a horrible tragedy in anyone's book. An increasingly vicious civil war in Ukraine has been waging for months, with the rebels in the area closest to the Russian border being aided indirectly and somewhat surreptitiously by the Russian government, while the Ukrainian government is being aided quite directly by the United States and its allies.

It would nice of course if all sides would wait until sufficient evidence surfaced as to both the actual circumstances of the crash, as well as any responsibility for the tragedy, before spinning the event for strategic and political purposes. But that would be asking too much from warring parties (including the US), wouldn't it. Of course it would.

In fact, in the initial hours or even days, one can't know for sure whether it was even a missile that caused the crash, or perhaps a bomb planted onboard, or a suicide bomber, or even a plane malfunction of some kind. The plane wreakage is in a war zone, precluding any kind of immediate inspection, let alone sufficient investigation. So all we really have are some bare facts, like the plane crashed and everyone onboard died, and many, many families around the world are grieving the loss of their loved ones.

Monday, July 7, 2014

The Middle East: A Fool's Errand

So the Middle East is getting ready to blow. And the hawks (by which I mean virtually the entire foreign policy establishment really, of both political parties, along with their corporate media megaphones) want to get MORE militarily involved, just as we've begun to make headway in backing out the door after decades of boots on the ground and planes in the air.

ISIS executing Iraqi soldiers

When are we ever going to learn? We have spent trillions of dollars over the last 30+ years trying to control and/or mold the Middle East into our image, and it's all been for naught. Hundreds of thousands of people there have been killed by our bullets and bombs (not to speak of their own homicidal and fratricidal conflicts) and millions uprooted, made refugees, or lives ruined. And for what?

The only beneficiaries of our involvement in the Middle East has been the military-industrial complex of the US and its allies, and those who benefit from the financial profits made there. Oh, and a few princely and fabulously wealthy elites in places like Saudi Arabia. And 'greater' Israel, of course. Everyone else has been losers, including you and me.

Our own country continues to regress into severe economic problems and physical, human, and cultural degradation, and yet Washington is so preoccupation with trying to solve the problems of the entire world that our leaders can't even see what lies right in front of them.

Yes, we can't know what's going to happen there in the Middle East. But our military intervention has been a complete disaster in the past. So why do we insist on thinking that continuing on that course is a good idea? It's not. And while all the foreign policy busy bodies in Washington can't seem to think of anything else productive to do, the majority of the American people see this very clearly.

So, sure, let's be involved diplomatically and in efforts at reconciliation between warring groups and nations. But to do much more than that, especially on the military front, is to be on a fool's errand.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Memorial Day

Memorial Day was begun after the Civil War to remember and honor the war dead, of whom there were something like six hundreds thousand in that ferocious conflict, the most ever for our nation. And ever since, those who have died in military service have been added to the list of those to be honored and remembered.

Carl Laverne Lindquist, 1944.

In my family, the only person (to my knowledge) to have been killed while serving in the Armed Forces was Carl Laverne Lindquist, my 'Uncle Carl'. He was the eldest son of my grandparents Herman and Ebba Lindquist, and my dad's older (and only) brother.

Born in 1915 and raised in Erie, PA, he enlisted in the Army Air Corp sometime in the early years of WWII. Selected to train as a B-17 bomber navigator, Uncle Carl was killed on February 24, 1944 in the crash of his bomber during a training mission in Alexandria, LA.

My father Lennart was at the time also in training to fly a B-17 as a copilot. He went on to fly 35 bombing missions over Germany, from Aug. through March, 1944-45.

Uncle Carl was buried in a small family plot in the Lakeside Cemetary in Erie. 12 years later he was joined there by his father and 42 years later by his mother.

The Herman Lindquist family sometime in the early 1940s.

He was and is sorely missed.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Time Magazine and the Scary Vladimir Putin

Reading the most recent Time magazine and its article on Russia's Vladimir Putin reminds me that if it's objective facts and accurate context that you want, and not the White House/State Department/Wall Street line, then you are in the wrong place.

The cover story by veteran Time reporter Michael Crowley and someone by the name of Simon Shuster takes me back to 2003, when I searched in vain in the mainstream media (CNN, Time, New York Times, etc) for some balanced reporting on the forthcoming Iraq invasion. NOBODY was questioning the rationale or the purpose or the legitimacy of the Bush administration's intention to invade and overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The only article that I ever saw in the run-up to that invasion that was at all skeptical of what was about to happen was one article, in the Washington Post, I believe, by Brent Scowcroft (former NSC chair for Bush Sr.), questioning whether this was a good idea. Other than that, I saw nothing. And yet I felt strongly that that proposed invasion was a mistake, and said so in my own little way, publishing a protest in my church newsletter and holding a peace vigil in my sanctuary (to which five people came).

And yet now, it is pretty much national consensus (except among the Bushies and the neo-cons) that Iraq was a HUGE mistake for America. So why so little debate at the time? It wasn't that difficult to figure out, if someone wanted to figure it out and didn't just gobble up the war hysteria coming out of the administration and the New York and Washington media. You just had to know where to look.

And it's no different now with the Ukraine crisis. One has to look very hard (and that in the independent sources online mostly) for stories and analyses that diverge from the current Washington line. If you want to know what that Washington line is, just read the cover story of Time, "What Putin Wants". There you will see it spelled out, in all its glory. Let me just quote a few phrases/words, and you'll get the picture.

"Vladimir Putin began to stoke Russian nationalism with his speeches, propaganda, and military interventions...." "That is a direct challenge to the 25 year-old post-Cold War order based on integration and partnership." "Russian chauvinism and irredentism...." "As Putin continues to menace his neighbors...." "....Putin trampled on it." "Putin has engineered an armed rebellion in the country's eastern provinces...." "....he is throwing a darker shadow over the 21st century as well..." "The ethnic nationalism that Putin has unleashed is breeding hatred and paranoia."

Get the picture and the message? This is one formidable and, well, evil foreign leader we're dealing with here. And what are we going to do about it?

Of course, once you get to the middle of the article there are some moderate, thoughtful facts and observations....the nutritious ham in the sandwich, so to speak. But first, you have to get past the fear-mongering and demonization in the first seven paragraph. And besides, who actually reads more than seven paragraphs in any article. So the damage (intended effect?) is done.

From this article, one would never know that the US has, via NATO, been pushing its military alliance (and its accompanying military bases) eastward in Europe toward Russia for over 20 years now, ever since the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. And the big target in all that time has of course been Ukraine.

As Zbigniew Bzezinski, US foreign policy guru, put it very succinctly in his 1998 book 'The Grand Chessboard', "The loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, for it drastically limited Russia's geostrategic options...." And as 'Zbig' makes very clear in the rest of the book, depriving Russia of any significant relationship with Ukraine by enfolding it into the EU/NATO umbrella, was one of America's most important strategic goals.

And, not surprisingly, that is exactly what the US did, primarily through its 'color revolutions', along with billions of dollars poured in from mostly the US government (5 billion according to Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretory of State for European Affairs). Unbeknownst to most Americans, the US has been steadily working its way into Ukraine, with the ultimate goal, one would suppose, of integrating Ukraine into the NATO military structure (including, one would guess, closing the Russian naval base in the Crimea and turning it into a NATO/US base instead). With the recent US sponsored EuroMaiden protests and resulting coup, which installed a new pro-Western government in Kiev, the US goal was clearly within reach, or so it appeared.

Also not surprisingly, Russia, under the leadership of the increasingly confident Putin, has resented this immensely, and for any number of reasons: geostrategic, cultural, religious, military, historical, economic, etc. They see the attempt by the US to pull Ukraine (historically part of Russia and still right on their Russian border) into NATO and the West in general as an aggressive act (and, I agree, it is). And so it was hardly surprising when Putin and the Russian government reacted negatively and, as it turns out, vigorously to prevent this from happening. Hence the annexation of the Crimea and the ongoing protests and struggle in eastern Ukraine, the part which has most affinity for Russia.

But, getting back to the point I was making at the top, would you know any of this from the Time article on Putin? No, you would not. Because, I suppose, it would confuse Americans too much to know the real background of what has been going on in Ukraine. It's just so much easier to demonize the enemy, in what can only be called propaganda. And it helps get the country on board with our foreign policy, without all that irritating dissent and debate (like with our delayed Syria invasion, for instance).

I don't know, should I expect more from Time magazine? Nah!!

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Putin and the American Right

It's so amusing to watch the right-wing in this country grind and gnash their teeth over Ukraine. They can't seem to decide whether it is Obama or Putin that they hate more.

Actually, it's quite clear to me. They loathe Obama much more than Putin. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they almost admire Putin for his strength, his cunning, his willingness to defend his country's interests (as he sees it) in the face of critics all around the world. (Take note of the picture--I found this on a right-winger's FB page.) Of course, they wouldn't want the 'Russian' Putin here, but then again, they wouldn't at all mind an American 'Putin', eg Dick Cheney.

Frankly, the American right-wing (eg Sarah Palin) couldn't care less about Ukraine....many of them know nothing about it, its history, culture, religion, politics. (Those who do and also have some truely libertarian views, like Rand Paul, actually agree or at least sympathize with Obama's caution on the issue of Ukraine.)

All they know is that this is a great opportunity to lash out--once again--at the man they truly despise....President Barack Obama. How delicious!

Monday, February 10, 2014

Further Reflections on Ken Ham and Creationist Science

I've got to hand it to Ken Ham. One can only admire what this immigrant from Australia has accomplished in pursuing his vision of 'creation science' and in founding the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. He has also brought succor and rejoicing to the millions of religious creationists in America, some of them relatives and friends of mine.

Ken Ham's view of the 'descent of man'.

My only problem with all that is that he is profoundly wrong, in my opinion. Creation science is not really science at all, rather it is an attempt by fundamentalist believers to defend their faith in the historicity and scientific validity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, using whatever means are necessary, including the rejection of much of what everyone these days seems to call 'mainstream' science, but what I prefer to call just 'science'.

I have over the years collected a fairly large cache of books on the subject, but every time I try to get into the books, I find myself put off. It may be simple boredom, or it may be some leftover emotional hangup from my childhood, which was fundamentalist in orientation. I don't know.

Nevertheless, one doesn't need to be a scholar on the subject of fundamentalism and creation science to outline some of the basic problems with it. I'm probably more familiar with the subject from a number of different viewpoints than most people, so I'll probably just continue writing about it as long as it's in the news.

To begin with, one should in fairness acknowledge a basic historical fact, namely, that the vast majority of Christian folk in Europe and America, including most clergy, prior to the mid 19th century, probably did actually believe in a young earth, a literal Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood. And for good reason: although modern science had been around since the 17th century, nothing to that point had directly challenged the teachings of the Church (which until the 18th Century Enlightenment dominated Western culture) about the creation story found in the Book of Genesis.

It was only when modern geology and biology came together in the 1840s and 1850s to challenge the notion of a 6,000 year old earth and a much more gradual development of life on earth, that it all hit the fan. At that point, the basic paradigm of creation of the earth and of biological life shifted drastically to what we know today. Nonetheless, there have always remained pockets of Christian believers who could not let go of the older paradigm, especially in America, where evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity has always found a more favorable place to thrive than in the Old World.

However, as I almost accidentally discovered the other day, this conflict actually goes back many centuries to the early days of the Church. Even among the 'Early Church Fathers', as they are often called, there was a recognition that a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis wasn't always the best Christian interpretation, given the uncertainties of nature and the common-sense observations of persons since long before Christ.

For example, here is the great St. Augustine of Hippo, famous Church theologian, writing about the interpretation of Genesis back in 408 AD: "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." --The Literal Interpretation of Genesis.

It is no accident that 'liberal Christianity' also came into its own in the 19th Century in Europe and America. Liberalism in religion (and this is true for all world religions) was/is an attempt to come to grips with modern forms of thought, including modern science, and somehow make Christian faith compatible with at least some of the modern ways of thinking. Over time, most of Christianity made its peace with modern science, and in the process developed many new ways of thinking about the basic issues of Christian faith. Unfortunately, much of this does not get transmitted from what the clergy learn in seminary back to the parishioners in the church, so that, for example, there is much ignorance about the meaning of Genesis among rank and file Christians.

One real problem I have with 'creation science' and its fundamentalist thinking is that young people 'on the fence' about faith may think that that represents the dominant Christian approach to science and feel they have to choose between Christian faith and modern science. Indeed, that seems to be Ken Ham's direct challenge: either accept a 6,000 year old earth, along with Adam & Eve and Noah's flood, or simply reject the Word of God (and thus God himself) and suffer the eternal consequences!

That may satisfy the fundamentalists among us, but for the rest of us, it is a very unsatisfactory solution. Most people, Christian or otherwise, wants a religious faith that works cooperatively and tries to 'sync' with the results of our ongoing scientific tradition. In other words, most people want the good fruit of both religion and science in today's world, believing that in the end, both kinds of investigation and knowledge give us a part of the Truth.

Let me give the last word to St. Augustine: "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

Friday, February 7, 2014

First Reactions to the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate on Science vs. Creationism

I was raised in a fundamentalist church where I was taught from the cradle the things that Ken Ham presented a few days ago in his online debate with 'Science Guy' Bill Nye. About 45 years ago, at the age of around 17, I rejected that fundamentalist worldview and have never turned back. Everything I have learned since then--in college, in seminary, in graduate school, and in my personal study as a Methodist pastor for 35 years--has only reinforced that rejection.

Illustration presented by Ken Ham and the Creation Museum

Which means that I accept the results of 'mainstream' science, in all of its various forms, whether biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, archeology, geology, or whatever. The universe was created billions of years ago in the Big Bang, not thousands of years. Likewise, sometime in the almost unimaginably distant past, life developed on earth and over millions of years has evolved into the biosphere that we experience today.

To the contrary, as you can see from the illustration presented by Ken Ham during his creationist presentation, he believes that his fundamentalist interpretation of the first 11 chapters of the biblical book of Genesis somehow trumps all the knowledge that modern science provides to us. The pictures he shows there could have taken directly from my Sunday School class in 1st grade. (We used the flannel-graph kind, colorful cutouts stuck to a flannel board on an easel....those of you who grew up back in the 1950s and 60s in fundamentalist Protestant Sunday School will know exactly what I mean!)

This boggles my mind. The notion that the story of creation as given in Genesis should be taken to be a scientifically and historically accurate account of what actually happened some 6,000 years ago leaves me speechless. It's hard to know how to counter such a weird thought in this day and age. To me, it's akin to trying to prove to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is not historically and scientifically accurate. (In the Book of Mormon, Jews came across the Atlantic Ocean in big boats thousands of years ago, were the ancestors of the American Indians, and welcomed Jesus when he paid a visit to Missouri after his resurrection.)

Poor Bill Nye. He tried very hard to be nice and fair and balanced to Ken Ham in his presentations and responses, and I give him credit for that. But this was a mission impossible, because as Ken Ham openly said toward the end of the 'debate', there is no evidence of any kind that would change his mind about 'creationism', because it is a basic religious conviction for him, and to concede anything would be to (for him) deny his faith in Jesus Christ, which of course he will not do.

Now, I'm not saying that Ken Ham isn't a smart man. He clearly is quite intelligent, and very pleasant and courteous as well. The problem, of course, lies in the nature of his basic religious presuppositions: namely, that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are historically and scientifically accurate and infallible. Why does he believe that? Because--as he said several times during the debate--they are the Word of God, and obviously God cannot be wrong. With those starting points, you pretty much end up where he ends up, modern science be damned.

I've got more to say about this whole thing, but I'll put it in a followup post.