Are we there yet?

In 1962, David Younk saw me going into the church.  He was home from college and wanted to talk.  He said his professor was lecturing about pollution.   "Water?" I asked.  "No, air."  He went on to talk about how Los Angeles always had smog.  We actually saw the nasty yellow haze over that city a couple years later when we drove out to see seminary friends in California.

Another David, a campus minister named Stephenson, just a few years later, warned our annual conference that we were approaching the point of no return for pollution and the survival of the planet.  He spent most of his ministry trying to help the campuses and churches he served to do something about it.

A decade later, I heard a local politician home during a break from his work in the legislature talk about how pollution was exacerbated by the way we wasted electrical energy.  I bought the newly invented light bulbs, turned off lights, and unplugged appliances.  So many people did that the power company had to raise rates in order to pay stock holder their promised dividends

Around then, I saw an odd thing.  The trees started to look weird.  Out east, trees were dying because of the exhaust fumes from cars and trucks.  In Wisconsin, where I was, the trees were actually growing faster.  Branches seemed to be reaching towards the road where I drove regularly.  The ends of the branch were always fresh growth, as if they couldn't help themselves.  While they took a break over the winter, the trees came back too enthusiastically, as I saw it.

Every car we bought over those years had much better mileage than the one we had owned before.  The smog in Los Angeles cleared as cars there burned less and less fuel.  The trees out east survived because of the change in formulas used in the fuels as well as with less being consumed by vehicles.  We now have a Prius that stops the engine by itself when we are waiting at stop signs.

Earlier this year, NASA scientists said we would reach the no return point with respect to global warming by 2030.  Al Gore's Oscar winning movie on global warming came to mind with its graphic of how that warming would shoot up extremely rapidly very soon.  And now, some scientists are saying we have 18 months.

Who is to blame for this pending disaster?  Putin with his dreams of world domination and the sale of Russia's oil and gas.  The Koch Brothers who also are into oil and gas and coal, besides.  Mitch McConnell who won't let government act unless it somehow means money in his pockets.  And Dick Cheney and both Bushes because of their ties to oil.  

And me.  I have been warned and made only minor changes.  In the right direction, but not really enough.  I've been mostly quiet despite the warnings.  Until it appears to be too late.  Now I'm speaking up . . . on a blog maybe twenty friends will look at over the next eighteen months.  And Facebook.  And letters to the editor.  And friends in the denomination saying we fuss over homosexuality and ignore global warming with its threat to the planet earth.

American optimism has blinded us to the fact that every major culture in history has had its dooms day.  But we've seen the future in Star Trek.  But then I recall how Capt. Pickard lived a lifetime in one episode where a planet faced its own end and had drawn him onto a fantasy so that he would be the bearer of their cultural memory once their planet died.

So our wonderful "tour ship" glides toward disaster with little chance to slow and change direction in time to prevent disaster.

In Biblical terms, God did not save Methuselah from the Flood in Noah's time.  In fact, God let humanity destroy its greatest achievement at the time, the Tower of Babel, by its self-absorption and loss of communication by adopting jargons that meant nothing to each other.  And the ruins of great civilizations scatter the jungles and deserts of the world and lie under its hills and plains seen only from satellites.

Do I have any suggestions on how to undo this human folly?  I'm not even sure which NGO is the most effective at working on environmental change.  All I know is that we have to elect people who really care and are willing to work on changing our policies to those which could save the planet.  And we have to somehow draw people away from their own major concerns about feeding their families and getting medical care and to look at what is coming if we don't find a way to change.  Rich and poor alike, we all have to do something different very soon.  

So maybe I can't offer a swift recommendation.  Maybe there is one possibility that might slow things down a bit.  That is to listen for and pass on the best ideas, large and small, in hopes that someone somewhere will do something with them along with us.

Are we there yet?

"The Authority of Scripture" v. "Do No Harm"

I just read the letter Dr. Tennant, president of Asbury Seminary, wrote in response to the letter of a large number of alumnae and alumna of Asbury.

It is disappointing that he does not acknowledge that there might be harm being done to people because of his stance that the authority of Scripture is at stake in this controversy within the Church.  "Do no harm" is John Wesley's FIRST General Rule.  Wesley does not prioritize authority of Scripture in his General Rules at all.

If Dr. Tennant could acknowledge that there is harm being done, that could start the discussion in a new direction: Is the word "homosexual" and the related passages taken to be "Scripture" properly translated and understood for their primary intent as indicated in the original languages which underlay our translation?

Dr. Tennant might find as I have that the original intent of some of the passages was to discourage sexual acts that did not lead to live births to help the people of Israel to survive in the desert, something Israelis do not subscribe to now (they practice birth control legally in Israel).  In addition, passages referring to same sex acts have words in the original language which were used primarily to identify people who preyed upon children, something nearly every culture has sanctions against, and about which there is no argument in the UMC.  No one is supportive of sexual exploitation of children by adults.

Dr. Tennant has felt that even such arguments, apparently not spelled out in the alumnae letter or his own, are insufficient for him to give up his view of what the Scriptures say and his persistence in then super-prioritizing the "authority of Scripture."  

That is indeed very disappointing.  And is leading to harm being done in the name of the Church.

Hey GOP, the FBI was on the Russian case since the Cold War.

I would love to have seen Mueller or the Democrats argue the Republican challenges to Mueller because those will be floating around in the ether without much of a challenge. But let me deal with one. 

The FBI has had an ongoing investigation into Russian spying in the US since before the Cold War. Over the past decade, the best FBI team on counter-intelligence against the Russians was led by Peter Strzok. Strzok knew every intricacy of the Russian efforts as did most of his team. So when Papadoplous was identified as having been approached by a Russian spy, that was merely adding to what Strzok and the FBI already knew. 

The British counterpart to Strzok was Michael Steele. They knew each other because they shared intel as needed. So when Mitt Romney wanted intel on Trump, he hired a research group that went to the newly retired Michael Steele who sent a numbers of reports to Romney and to his friend, Peter Strzok, at the FBI. 

Strzok added that material to his already expansive files on Russian espionage being monitored and countered by his team. 

When Romney dropped out, the Clinton Campaign took up the research firm's work to help them, knowing the FBI was already on the case. 

The Republicans have no case trying to say it was Steele who started everything and blame Hillary for it. Even if the Steele material never came along, the FBI was long ago on the case and had enough to allow Pres. Obama to throw out two Russian troll teams working in the US, impose new sanctions on the Russians, and confiscate their mansions before he left office.

BTW, when the Strzok and Paige emails came out, Mueller immediately removed them from his team. Under Jeff Sessions, the rest of Strzok's anti Russian spy team was fired or removed without any reason given. Maybe the Republicans need to investigate THAT!

What is Trump's relationship to Putin?

My brother had a theory. When a new inexperienced officer took up his assignment, he sought out the most experienced non-com willing to work with him. My brother called the second man "the little sergeant." The little sergeant, if he was smart, stayed in the background but made sure his own interests were accommodated as well as giving the new officer some workable advice that the officer felt was a real help.

I believe that when he became President, Trump immediately chose Putin to be his "little sergeant.

Nearly every major foreign policy position Trump has taken has benefitted Putin. Abandoning NATO, undercutting the EU, pushing for Brexit, stopping the US/South Korea/Japan military exercises, ending the Iran and Paris deals, and ending our relationship with Cuba all are what Putin wants.

Even on domestic issues, Putin's agenda is visible. In terms of who Trump put on his cabinet, as Putin has oligarchs on his, Trump put millionaires and billionaires o

n his. Both are anti-free press, both replaced judges where they could, Intimidated opposing politicians, ignoring laws they do not like or that put limits on their authority. And Putin is a master at telling lies, describing how everything is going in glowing terms, trying to set the national dialogue on his own terms and having nothing to do with reality. Sound familiar?

So far, there has been one area that Trump has not followed Putin. Putin has no problem killing people he does not like. Trump has not intentionally tried to assassinate anyone yet.

Even on climate change, Trump has followed Putin almost like a puppy. Putin's reason? Russia's primary resources are oil and gas.

Maybe Trump is following Hitler's playbook but it is Putin that he can't wait to go see for private conversations . . . and Putin's suggestions about what to do next. Putin is Trump's "little sergeant."

"Broken girls blossom into warriors"

A conservative woman Facebook friend posted the following:

I immediately thought of the women in the border camps who struggled up the long journey from Central America, 80% of whom were raped along the way (if not in the custody of the CBP and ICE).  In the camps, they only have the toilet for running water and hardly any room to lie down.

The mistake the President and his supporters in Congress and elsewhere that they do not even begin to realize that these women have a spirit that they will never match.

First, the women will not forget who caused them the horror at the border.  Second, they will eventually get out.  Third, if they were smart enough and took enough initiative to undertake the journey here in the first place, they will organize and become a huge major force in American politics no matter what the President and his co-workers devise against them.

It may take a generation, but probably not.  They will have their African-American, Korean-American, Chinese-American, Hmong-American sisters to walk with them and their Hispanic sisters who have been here for a generation and are already in Congress!

The President should be welcoming and helping these refugees.  Instead, he is making them into warriors that he and others will face one day soon.