Posts
My life is a veritable whirlwind right now. Between work, my publishing venture and alot of last-minute fall type chores that need to be done to batten down the hatches for winter, something has got to go, at least for part of the week--unfortunately, its probably the blogging I do hear at Words Matter.
For those of you who follow my publishing endeavor, RiverVision Press, I have some new and interesting things in the works and I hope to post details soon at Write in Maine, where I focus on all things related to writing.
It's the start of the holiday book buying season, so small press publishers that hope to reap some sales from this busy time in the book industry, have to hustle.
I hope to have something more substantive posted here, later in the week.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
Do (Maine) Republicans hate black people?
Chandler Woodcock seems like a nice guy. With his bowties and corn pone, “aw shucks” humor, he comes across as genuinely likeable—that is, until you look at where he stands on the issues.
- Supports the teaching of creation, as science, in public schools
- Opposes a woman’s right to an abortion
- Is pro-TABOR, a pathetic “slash and burn” attempt at corralling taxes in Maine; the only thing TABOR will do is hurt those on the margins in Maine
- Talks in vague terms about reforming state government, a government that he has been a key part of for the past six years, as a state senator
- His program for job growth seems unsustainable, given his penchant to cut taxes across the board; how the hell can you fund R & D, when, under Woodcock’s tax policies, there won’t even be money to maintain our roads?
On top of all of his, Woodcock seems unable to structure his schedule (or maybe it’s muster the courage) to attend forums in front of people who may not share his views. The bow tied wonder’s latest dodge, involved a forum sponsored by Portland’s NAACP, at the Westbrook campus of the University of New England, on Thursday. Prior to that, he missed a forum sponsored by the Women's Policy Center (who probably wanted to speak to him about his views on abortion) and the Maine Education Association (who probably had a question or two for Chan).
While I admit that my title is a bit over the top, Republicans, from Woodcock, all the way up the Republican ladder, to the man at the top, GW Bush, have a disturbing track record at snubbing people of color. The previous Republican gubernatorial challenger, a man with more “urban” sensibility than the small town Woodcock, “handsome” Peter Cianchette, also apparently had scheduling issues when it came to speaking before the NAACP, back in 2002.
In a statement issued by Democratic Party chair, Ben Dudley, Woodcock’s apparent lack of leadership is questioned.
“Avoiding those with whom you disagree isn’t leadership. Leadership is about listening to all sides of an issue and working with all parties, even those you disagree, to achieve the common good.”
Despite spokesman Chris Jackson’s protestations and cries of “foul,” Woodcock has spent his entire campaign being vague and relying merely on the bowties and his corny humor to obscure his obvious lack of any real ideas on how to run the state of Maine. Whatever your inclinations are towards the other three candidates (I'm not counting Phillip NaPier, "The People's Hero" other than for comic relief), they are quite clear on the issues and their direction for Maine.
As they say, actions speak louder than words. Certainly, the impression that Woodcock left with one group is that he doesn't care about their issues.
Rachel Talbot Ross, the president of Portland's chapter of the NAACP had this to say about the snub.
"I think it's irresponsible of (Woodcock's) campaign to allow us to think that he doesn't care about the constituencies we represent."
Note to Woodcock:
While Maine is a fairly white state and Farmington is even whiter, snubbing Portland’s NAACP and its constituency isn’t a savvy political move. The fact that two Republican candidates in a row have skipped the NAACP’s forum, I think, speaks volumes about the party and is one indicator that Woodcock is just another right-wing Republican ruled by a narrow agenda. Add to this the fact that the agenda of many Republicans benefits only the wealthy, powerful and predominantly white male base that keeps propping up the party and you have a pretty good reason not to choose that direction for Maine, a direction that is by-and-large, ruled by ideological straitjacket.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Raising all boats
Rationally speaking, there is no way in hell anyone can be expected to make a living on $5.15 per hour. I struggle to get by on three times that amount, so I'm dumbstruck by the reluctance of many Republicans to raise the federal minimum wage. This amount has remained the same for nearly a decade, while costs like gas, groceries and housing have spiraled upward. While many on the right (and the left, for that matter) love to demonize the poor and welfare reform has been the mantra on the lips of both Democrats and Republicans, if you want people to work, pay them well and make it worth their efforts.
If someone were to work 52 weeks per year, at the current federal minimum wage, their annual income would be $10,712--this is $6,000 below the official poverty level for a family of three!! If work is redemptive, as many love to say; if it truly defines who we are, then for the love of Buddah, reflect that in what you pay people for their labor.
I'd like to think that Republican's reluctance to raise the minimum standard is rooted in some deeply held philosophical value, derived by some economic theory that I'm not privy to. However, at the risk of sounding mean-spirited, I just think they are a bunch of goddamned ogres, who care only for their rich benefactors. Just call me a partisan hack and tax and spend liberal!
My post was motivated by an article I read in Monday's Christian Science Monitor, a damn fine paper that still practices journalism, IMHO. Columnist, David R. Francis, wrote about a group called Let Justice Roll, a great name for any group oriented towards issues of social justice and economic equality.
The name is derived from the book of Amos, one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament (and a book that's sadly out of favor with most conservative Christians, at least those who fixate only on their select few passages), which reads, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an overflowing stream." (Amos 5:24) If I had to choose a book from the Bible that ought to be required reading for anyone calling themselves Christian, then Amos would be the one I'd assign.
Let Justice Roll is an alliance of 80 various organizations, some religious, others, like the AFL-CIO, are secular, but motivated by tenets of justice and equality.
Their "campaign coordinator," the Reverend Paul Sherry, is quoted in Francis' article. Sherry, speaking about the minimum wage had this to say.
"A job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it."
That makes sense to me. Now if we could just help Republicans see that raising to $7.25, still too low in my opinion, since I support a universal living wage, is at least a step in the right direction.
Hopefully, Senator Edward Kennedy's attachment to an appropriations bill, or other piece of legislation will fly this time. He's been trying in vain for the past couple of years to find the votes to make this work. I'm not holding my breath on this, as I don't see Republicans changing stripes any time soon.
If someone were to work 52 weeks per year, at the current federal minimum wage, their annual income would be $10,712--this is $6,000 below the official poverty level for a family of three!! If work is redemptive, as many love to say; if it truly defines who we are, then for the love of Buddah, reflect that in what you pay people for their labor.
I'd like to think that Republican's reluctance to raise the minimum standard is rooted in some deeply held philosophical value, derived by some economic theory that I'm not privy to. However, at the risk of sounding mean-spirited, I just think they are a bunch of goddamned ogres, who care only for their rich benefactors. Just call me a partisan hack and tax and spend liberal!
My post was motivated by an article I read in Monday's Christian Science Monitor, a damn fine paper that still practices journalism, IMHO. Columnist, David R. Francis, wrote about a group called Let Justice Roll, a great name for any group oriented towards issues of social justice and economic equality.
The name is derived from the book of Amos, one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament (and a book that's sadly out of favor with most conservative Christians, at least those who fixate only on their select few passages), which reads, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an overflowing stream." (Amos 5:24) If I had to choose a book from the Bible that ought to be required reading for anyone calling themselves Christian, then Amos would be the one I'd assign.
Let Justice Roll is an alliance of 80 various organizations, some religious, others, like the AFL-CIO, are secular, but motivated by tenets of justice and equality.
Their "campaign coordinator," the Reverend Paul Sherry, is quoted in Francis' article. Sherry, speaking about the minimum wage had this to say.
"A job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it."
That makes sense to me. Now if we could just help Republicans see that raising to $7.25, still too low in my opinion, since I support a universal living wage, is at least a step in the right direction.
Hopefully, Senator Edward Kennedy's attachment to an appropriations bill, or other piece of legislation will fly this time. He's been trying in vain for the past couple of years to find the votes to make this work. I'm not holding my breath on this, as I don't see Republicans changing stripes any time soon.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Making the transition
I’ve been doing a lot of reflecting lately. Part of it stems from my new job, which has me rethinking some of my comforting assumptions of the world, at least the world as I’ve seen it, through my narrow lenses. My new role is unique in a couple of ways. I work for a non-profit organization that works alongside the state system, but 50 percent of our board is comprised of members of the private sector. Additionally, I’m being asked to bring many of the skills and abilities that I’ve refined over the past four or five years, working at a very entrepreneurial level to a table that hasn’t traditionally embraced that world warmly. I thoroughly enjoy my new position, for both the challenges posed, as well as having the opportunity to have a small, but fulfilling role in helping some folks who are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. It has also made me reconsider and reevaluate my current worldview.
It has been enlightening and also humbling, to see how others have reacted to my being hired. To some, I pose an obvious threat, since part of my tasks involve actually taking programs that have been primarily ignored by the business community and reworking them, or creating new products that actually meet some of the needs of the private sector. I also view our customers, many who have operated at the margins of our society, as people and not products, or widgets, to be counted. That isn’t always in line with the philosophy of some in state government, many who have been in their line of work for far too long.
I’ve always considered myself well-informed about my state, particularly issues, like TABOR and other initiatives that had the potential to dramatically alter the way government functioned. I’ll never forget the referendums regarding nuclear power in Maine that were as hotly debated and contested—probably more so—than the current issue of high taxes, which surround the TABOR debate.
I think my interest in all things Maine, particularly its people and politics, comes from growing up during a period of activist fervor, which saw the state’s first anti-nuclear initiative. The first failed attempt to get the people’s endorsement to close Maine Yankee, the state’s lone nuclear reactor, located in Wiscasset, occurred, in 1980, which was my senior year of high school. The debate leading up to the first of three referendums, raged for over the prior decade, however. It had a formative effect on my sense of how issues are framed and how initiatives that are rooted at the most basic levels of politics can germinate and grow in power and influence.
The drive to shut it down was spearheaded by the infamous Clamshell Alliance, the anti-nuclear equivalent to our current wave of anti-tax crusaders, which now are led by Mary Adams. Prior to Ms. Adams, however, the very same rabble was being led around by the nose by the very crazy Carol Palesky, a woman with a long rap sheet of accounting misappropriations and strange behavioral meltdowns. Just like the anti-nuclear furor that existed in Maine, leading to not one, or two, but three failed attempts at closing a nuclear plant that the majority of Maine’s citizens supported, the current pro-TABOR posse will continue their crusade until Maine’s social service infrastructure is gutted and rendered inoperative, by fiscal strangulation. But I digress.
While my perception is that I had a solid handle on many things happening in my beloved state of Maine, one thing I knew little or nothing about, was how poorly our state’s workforce is being prepared to compete in the 21st century economy. I bought, hook, line and sinker, the theory that the demise and eventual death of Maine’s traditional industries like farming, fishing and logging signaled an economic endgame for much of the Maine that existed beyond spotlight of Portland, or east or west of the interstate. Additionally, that globalization was responsible for the death of another source of living wages, our state’s manufacturing sector.
For nearly three months now, I’ve been given a crash course in the realities of the “flat world” that writers like Thomas Friedman have written about, albeit too simplistically. For some reason, I allowed some of my ideological blindness to close me off from at least considering some of the issues raised by Friedman and to some degree, his NY Times counterpart, David Brooks, concerning the realities of a 21st century global economy and how North America fits into that world. While there are certainly still areas where Friedman and I part ways (as I believe the global economic world he writes about is often viewed from a position of privilege), I’ve at least come to a place where I’m willing to concede points to a few of his ideas. In my opinion, as well as others, he doesn't go far enough, however, pretty much letting educators off the hook, when it comes to preparing our youth and getting them real skills for the world of work.
If I had my druthers, I’d still flip the economic switch from capitalism to a setting more egalitarian (dare I utter it—socialism!) system, but unfortunately, I don’t live in the utopian world of theory and dreams, at least a world where I could be benevolent dictator—actually, I’ve awakened from my dream and find myself in some dystopian parallel universe where some spoiled, boorish, frat boy, is one temper tantrum from starting World War III, but I refuse to go there (at least in this post).
An article in Thursday’s Christian Science Monitor is informative about where our educational establishment needs to shift its focus. While one can argue whether we need to begin pushing everyone into the trades (a position I’d never endorse), we also need to move away from our current orientation towards pushing every high school grad toward a seat-based, four year college program of study. For one thing, it’s too time intensive and for another, it has resulted in massive numbers of 20-somethings who require additional training to obtain the core "soft" skills needed in the 21st century world of work.
Despite many indicators that run red flags up most flagpoles of warning, the educational establishment and college presidents across our land, keep marketing the four-year degree as the answer to every dream of success and wealth attainment. The reality is that we have created a nation of young people, poorly educated, working in jobs that require little more than a high school diploma, saddled with thousands of dollars of debt. These supposed “leaders of tomorrow,” inculcated with self-esteem from “helicoptering” boomer parents, are experiencing severe “buyer’s remorse” as they recall the promises made by the snake oil peddlers—their parents, teachers, career counselors and marketing shills in the media—that sold them the utopian idea that their degree in liberal arts, or computer science, or even electrical engineering, would translate into a fat paycheck, four years later. While for some, the dream has become a reality, for many more, they are now tasting the bitter pill of lowered expectations and disappointment.
While many Mainers and Americans continue to prepare its future workers for a world that no longer exists, some in our own state, as well as other countries recognize that the flat, or global world of work, changes rapidly and is bringing some new ideas to bear, in an attempt to ensure that its future workers have the tools to compete in that world, even if it stands on its head the educational models it embraced just a few decades prior.
It has been enlightening and also humbling, to see how others have reacted to my being hired. To some, I pose an obvious threat, since part of my tasks involve actually taking programs that have been primarily ignored by the business community and reworking them, or creating new products that actually meet some of the needs of the private sector. I also view our customers, many who have operated at the margins of our society, as people and not products, or widgets, to be counted. That isn’t always in line with the philosophy of some in state government, many who have been in their line of work for far too long.
I’ve always considered myself well-informed about my state, particularly issues, like TABOR and other initiatives that had the potential to dramatically alter the way government functioned. I’ll never forget the referendums regarding nuclear power in Maine that were as hotly debated and contested—probably more so—than the current issue of high taxes, which surround the TABOR debate.
I think my interest in all things Maine, particularly its people and politics, comes from growing up during a period of activist fervor, which saw the state’s first anti-nuclear initiative. The first failed attempt to get the people’s endorsement to close Maine Yankee, the state’s lone nuclear reactor, located in Wiscasset, occurred, in 1980, which was my senior year of high school. The debate leading up to the first of three referendums, raged for over the prior decade, however. It had a formative effect on my sense of how issues are framed and how initiatives that are rooted at the most basic levels of politics can germinate and grow in power and influence.
The drive to shut it down was spearheaded by the infamous Clamshell Alliance, the anti-nuclear equivalent to our current wave of anti-tax crusaders, which now are led by Mary Adams. Prior to Ms. Adams, however, the very same rabble was being led around by the nose by the very crazy Carol Palesky, a woman with a long rap sheet of accounting misappropriations and strange behavioral meltdowns. Just like the anti-nuclear furor that existed in Maine, leading to not one, or two, but three failed attempts at closing a nuclear plant that the majority of Maine’s citizens supported, the current pro-TABOR posse will continue their crusade until Maine’s social service infrastructure is gutted and rendered inoperative, by fiscal strangulation. But I digress.
While my perception is that I had a solid handle on many things happening in my beloved state of Maine, one thing I knew little or nothing about, was how poorly our state’s workforce is being prepared to compete in the 21st century economy. I bought, hook, line and sinker, the theory that the demise and eventual death of Maine’s traditional industries like farming, fishing and logging signaled an economic endgame for much of the Maine that existed beyond spotlight of Portland, or east or west of the interstate. Additionally, that globalization was responsible for the death of another source of living wages, our state’s manufacturing sector.
For nearly three months now, I’ve been given a crash course in the realities of the “flat world” that writers like Thomas Friedman have written about, albeit too simplistically. For some reason, I allowed some of my ideological blindness to close me off from at least considering some of the issues raised by Friedman and to some degree, his NY Times counterpart, David Brooks, concerning the realities of a 21st century global economy and how North America fits into that world. While there are certainly still areas where Friedman and I part ways (as I believe the global economic world he writes about is often viewed from a position of privilege), I’ve at least come to a place where I’m willing to concede points to a few of his ideas. In my opinion, as well as others, he doesn't go far enough, however, pretty much letting educators off the hook, when it comes to preparing our youth and getting them real skills for the world of work.
If I had my druthers, I’d still flip the economic switch from capitalism to a setting more egalitarian (dare I utter it—socialism!) system, but unfortunately, I don’t live in the utopian world of theory and dreams, at least a world where I could be benevolent dictator—actually, I’ve awakened from my dream and find myself in some dystopian parallel universe where some spoiled, boorish, frat boy, is one temper tantrum from starting World War III, but I refuse to go there (at least in this post).
An article in Thursday’s Christian Science Monitor is informative about where our educational establishment needs to shift its focus. While one can argue whether we need to begin pushing everyone into the trades (a position I’d never endorse), we also need to move away from our current orientation towards pushing every high school grad toward a seat-based, four year college program of study. For one thing, it’s too time intensive and for another, it has resulted in massive numbers of 20-somethings who require additional training to obtain the core "soft" skills needed in the 21st century world of work.
Despite many indicators that run red flags up most flagpoles of warning, the educational establishment and college presidents across our land, keep marketing the four-year degree as the answer to every dream of success and wealth attainment. The reality is that we have created a nation of young people, poorly educated, working in jobs that require little more than a high school diploma, saddled with thousands of dollars of debt. These supposed “leaders of tomorrow,” inculcated with self-esteem from “helicoptering” boomer parents, are experiencing severe “buyer’s remorse” as they recall the promises made by the snake oil peddlers—their parents, teachers, career counselors and marketing shills in the media—that sold them the utopian idea that their degree in liberal arts, or computer science, or even electrical engineering, would translate into a fat paycheck, four years later. While for some, the dream has become a reality, for many more, they are now tasting the bitter pill of lowered expectations and disappointment.
While many Mainers and Americans continue to prepare its future workers for a world that no longer exists, some in our own state, as well as other countries recognize that the flat, or global world of work, changes rapidly and is bringing some new ideas to bear, in an attempt to ensure that its future workers have the tools to compete in that world, even if it stands on its head the educational models it embraced just a few decades prior.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
God is apparently greener than some care to admit
Bill Moyers is one of a handful of old school journalists still practicing his craft. Better, he still has a mainstream forum where Americans who haven’t purchased the latest technological gadget, can still watch him do his thing.
I admit that I haven’t watched Mr. Moyers’ for awhile, but Moyers on America caught my eye, last night, as I grew bored with my choice of American League playoff contenders. I’m sorry, but Oakland/Detroit just doesn’t get it done for me in October.
I surfed on over and became interested in Moyers’ subject—the embrace by some fundamentalist Christians of environmental causes. As a former member of a fundamentalist sect, some 20 years ago, I’ve always followed the lengths to which supposed followers of Christ will go to contort themselves to justify their system of belief, particularly when it comes to choice of candidate or political party. The particular group I fell in with had strange ideas on men’s hair, women’s dress and even, racial equality. I’m not here to dwell on my own sordid religious history, however.
Even in my lapsed state, I occasionally spend time following the tenor of thought across the religious spectrum. I’ve grown weary of particular members of the holier-than-thou wing on the far right that houses the likes of Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and others. Like many issues that find them more likely to choose Bush (or Republicanism) over the Bible, the environmental debate is no different. While liberal Episcopalians, Quakers and others have traditionally exhibited concern for the creation (if you hold to that view) and made care of the earth part of their religious mission statements, fundamentalists, on the other hand, could be found side-by-side with those who deny the claims of most of the world’s scientific community, particularly when it comes to global warming.
According to Moyer’s program “Is God Green?” there is a growing rift within the Xian community calling itself evangelical. Actually, there is some historical precedent, for environmental concern on the part of the evangelical movement. Back in the late 1960s and early 70s, concern for the earth and its environmental degradation were debate topics within and without the church. In evangelical circles, theologians like Francis Schaeffer and medieval scholar, Lynn White, wrote books that essentially blamed organized religion for the world’s environmental ills. White in fact argued that medieval Christian attitudes in particular and the entire Judeo-Christian foundation in general, taught that disregard and even exploitation of the environment were ok.
Unfortunately, most American Christians got sidetracked by politics and their tilt rightward to worry much about the environment, over the past 25 years. In fact, Robertson, Falwell and others, carved up large portions of the countryside building educational edifices as monuments to their own narrow-minded, Republican views of God.
Moyers highlighted groups like the Evangelical Environmental Network, who published a statement declaring their commitment to caring for the creation. Others, however, going under the dubious name of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, published their odious Cornwall Declaration, which in essence, repudiated any responsibility that Christians have in caring for the earth. This group, primarily rooted in the Calvinistic, Dominionist school of theology that teaches that pollution is just another form of physical corruption brought on by sin--in essence, the earth if fucked, so don't worry one bit about the ramifications of your wasteful tendencies. Basically, the crafters of this declaration intone that “humanity alone is capable of developing resources and strategies that can “unlock the potential...for all the earth’s inhabitants,” and therefore embrace beneficial human management of the earth." By beneficial, I’m assuming that they mean our current, capitalist, consumer-driven model of stewardship.
The declaration goes on to state that “while “some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated.” This is of particular concern in developing nations, where basic issues like inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural practices go largely unaddressed while more distant and theoretical issues receive the lion’s share of funding and attention.”
Moyers interviewed someone named Calvin Beisner, who apparently is an “authority” on global warming, or at least, the belief that the scientific community’s majority opinion of the danger it poses to life on earth, is exaggerated. Beisner did his best impression of someone with science on his side, refuting many of the claims that leading scientists have made concerning global climate change.
Contrasting Beisner’s hot air and bloviations, was Richard Cizik, of the National Association of Evangelicals, who passionately argued that biblically, Christians need to show care and concern for Mother Earth. Cizik’s position puts him in the crosshairs of many that lean rightward when it comes to politics and religion. Cizik made several points that were excellent, particularly about the need of members of the religious community to put aside politics and follow clear religious teaching on the environment.
While I don’t hold the theological persuasions of men like Cizik, Moyer presented their thoughts and ideas, clearly and objectively. The fact that he gave a pompous windbag like Beisner, as much time as he did, is a credit to Moyers inclination towards objectivity. Better, it shows the hollowness of the claims by those on the right that members of the mainstream media have a "liberal bias."
Once again, a seasoned veteran of journalism, shows what the field used to be about—presenting issues, thoughtfully, well-documented and with enough material to actually promote some thought on a crucial issue.
I admit that I haven’t watched Mr. Moyers’ for awhile, but Moyers on America caught my eye, last night, as I grew bored with my choice of American League playoff contenders. I’m sorry, but Oakland/Detroit just doesn’t get it done for me in October.
I surfed on over and became interested in Moyers’ subject—the embrace by some fundamentalist Christians of environmental causes. As a former member of a fundamentalist sect, some 20 years ago, I’ve always followed the lengths to which supposed followers of Christ will go to contort themselves to justify their system of belief, particularly when it comes to choice of candidate or political party. The particular group I fell in with had strange ideas on men’s hair, women’s dress and even, racial equality. I’m not here to dwell on my own sordid religious history, however.
Even in my lapsed state, I occasionally spend time following the tenor of thought across the religious spectrum. I’ve grown weary of particular members of the holier-than-thou wing on the far right that houses the likes of Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and others. Like many issues that find them more likely to choose Bush (or Republicanism) over the Bible, the environmental debate is no different. While liberal Episcopalians, Quakers and others have traditionally exhibited concern for the creation (if you hold to that view) and made care of the earth part of their religious mission statements, fundamentalists, on the other hand, could be found side-by-side with those who deny the claims of most of the world’s scientific community, particularly when it comes to global warming.
According to Moyer’s program “Is God Green?” there is a growing rift within the Xian community calling itself evangelical. Actually, there is some historical precedent, for environmental concern on the part of the evangelical movement. Back in the late 1960s and early 70s, concern for the earth and its environmental degradation were debate topics within and without the church. In evangelical circles, theologians like Francis Schaeffer and medieval scholar, Lynn White, wrote books that essentially blamed organized religion for the world’s environmental ills. White in fact argued that medieval Christian attitudes in particular and the entire Judeo-Christian foundation in general, taught that disregard and even exploitation of the environment were ok.
Unfortunately, most American Christians got sidetracked by politics and their tilt rightward to worry much about the environment, over the past 25 years. In fact, Robertson, Falwell and others, carved up large portions of the countryside building educational edifices as monuments to their own narrow-minded, Republican views of God.
Moyers highlighted groups like the Evangelical Environmental Network, who published a statement declaring their commitment to caring for the creation. Others, however, going under the dubious name of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, published their odious Cornwall Declaration, which in essence, repudiated any responsibility that Christians have in caring for the earth. This group, primarily rooted in the Calvinistic, Dominionist school of theology that teaches that pollution is just another form of physical corruption brought on by sin--in essence, the earth if fucked, so don't worry one bit about the ramifications of your wasteful tendencies. Basically, the crafters of this declaration intone that “humanity alone is capable of developing resources and strategies that can “unlock the potential...for all the earth’s inhabitants,” and therefore embrace beneficial human management of the earth." By beneficial, I’m assuming that they mean our current, capitalist, consumer-driven model of stewardship.
The declaration goes on to state that “while “some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated.” This is of particular concern in developing nations, where basic issues like inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural practices go largely unaddressed while more distant and theoretical issues receive the lion’s share of funding and attention.”
Moyers interviewed someone named Calvin Beisner, who apparently is an “authority” on global warming, or at least, the belief that the scientific community’s majority opinion of the danger it poses to life on earth, is exaggerated. Beisner did his best impression of someone with science on his side, refuting many of the claims that leading scientists have made concerning global climate change.
Contrasting Beisner’s hot air and bloviations, was Richard Cizik, of the National Association of Evangelicals, who passionately argued that biblically, Christians need to show care and concern for Mother Earth. Cizik’s position puts him in the crosshairs of many that lean rightward when it comes to politics and religion. Cizik made several points that were excellent, particularly about the need of members of the religious community to put aside politics and follow clear religious teaching on the environment.
While I don’t hold the theological persuasions of men like Cizik, Moyer presented their thoughts and ideas, clearly and objectively. The fact that he gave a pompous windbag like Beisner, as much time as he did, is a credit to Moyers inclination towards objectivity. Better, it shows the hollowness of the claims by those on the right that members of the mainstream media have a "liberal bias."
Once again, a seasoned veteran of journalism, shows what the field used to be about—presenting issues, thoughtfully, well-documented and with enough material to actually promote some thought on a crucial issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)