pray without ceasing

Several tragedies have hit across the world over the last week: in India, hundreds were killed by monsoon storms; the uneasiness in Iraq is so real, so palpable that a suicide bomb scare resulted in a stampede killing a thousand or more people; and in the southern United States, Hurricane Katrina brought widespread devastation. There is much pain and grief around the world and my prayers go out to all of these people.

While it is still too early to know the impact of Hurricane Katrina (because nearly all communications with the area have been cut off and because people fled far and wide), it is not too early to help. A number of people are already asking, What can we do in response to Hurricane Katrina? The most important thing any of us can do right now is continue to pray: pray for the victims of this violent storm; pray for those who are grieving the loss of loved ones; pray for those who are desperately searching for, or trying to contact, friends and family; pray for those who have been displaced, lost homes and belongings, and who can’t go back.

Pray – and put those prayers into action. Only emergency personnel are allowed in the worst-hit areas, but through financial gifts we can help send those personnel, we can help equip them, and we can help send supplies for those in deep need. Many good organizations are already responding; we especially commend Week of Compassion, which is the Disciples emergency relief organization. From their web-site, one purpose of Week of Compassion is to “provide emergency and long-term assistance to people in the aftermath of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, droughts, civil war and other natural and human catastrophes. In a typical year WOC responds to a disaster about once every two days.” WOC anticipates that this may be the largest humanitarian disaster they have ever responded to in the United States. WOC has already sent $18,000 on behalf of all Disciples to help first responders. A number of Disciples churches are in the affected area, and Week of Compassion is working to contact these congregations to find out how they have been affected; unfortunately, communication is extremely difficult and they have little news to share at this time. WOC assures us that all gifts will be used in their entirety for hurricane relief and recovery. Giving is easy! On Sunday, you can leave a check in the offering written to the church and designate “Week of Compassion” on the memo line and we’ll send all gifts together. More information on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how Disciples are responding can be found from the Week of Compassion web-site.

looking ahead...

from Stagger On, Weary Titan:

...None of this is to suggest that the United States will decline and fall tomorrow. Far from it. After all, the British empire lasted for another 40 years after 1905. In fact, it grew to its largest extent after 1918, before it signed its own death warrant by expending its blood and treasure to defeat Adolf Hitler (not the worst way to go). Similarly, one may anticipate that America's informal empire - its network of military bases and semi-protectorates - will continue to grow. The United States, like Edwardian Britain, still has formidable resources of economic, technological and military power, cultural attractiveness and, not least, the will to stay on top. As one British music hall ditty at that time proclaimed:

And we mean to be top dog still. Bow-wow. Yes, we mean to be top dog still.

You don't have to go very far to hear that refrain in Washington today. The Bush administration's national security strategy makes no bones about the goal of maintaining military supremacy. But whether the 'American century' that began in 1945 will last until 2045, 2035 or only 2025, its end can already be glimpsed on the horizon.

If you are, by any chance, of that persuasion that would instinctively find this a cause for rejoicing, pause for a moment to consider two things: first, that major shifts of power between rising and falling great powers have usually been accompanied by major wars; and second, that the next top dog could be a lot worse.

So this is no time for schadenfreude. It's a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when American hyperpower has faded; and to encourage rising powers such as India and China to sign up to such an order. That is exactly what today's weary Titan should be doing, and we should help him do it.

This is the end of an excellent, forward looking (and historically comparing) article that should be getting more attention. There are plenty of reasons to think that the world will look vastly different in 2050, or at least be in the midst of serious crises. Many Christians may welcome those crises as the 'Armageddon' of their imaginations; when life continues, how will the gospel, which has become a perverted gospel of health & wealth, of success, if you will, how will the gospel survive? The death knell of such a fabrication should be celebrated - but will the real message of Jesus Christ have enough disciples to be spread again? Perhaps then it will be easier to focus on justice; would that faithful people would turn in this direction now! Such a turn might even soften the blow of whatever change is around the corner. 2050 is not so far off; 2025 barely a blink or two away. How can people of faith prepare?

lining the pockets of Big Oil

from Oil Fat Cats vs. Hugo Chavez, by Juan Gonzales:

...Last year, Exxon/Mobil, the world's largest corporation, posted the highest profits of any company in history - more than $25 billion. The oil giant, based in Irving, Tex., is on track to shatter that mark this year, with revenues that now approach $1 billion per day.

Which brings me to Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez.

Robertson, the right-wing evangelist and friend of the Bush family, publicly called this week for the U.S. government to kill - or at least kidnap - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

'This is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly,' Robertson said. His less-than-Christian remarks ignited an outcry and forced him to issue an apology of sorts, though he still insisted that he had at least 'focused our government's attention on a growing problem.'

That 'problem,' quite simply, is that Chavez, a radical populist who has been voted into office repeatedly by huge majorities in his own country, controls the largest reserve of petroleum outside the Middle East.

Neither Robertson, nor former oil executives George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, nor their buddies at Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, etc., are happy about all this.

Even more scandalous for Big Oil, Chavez is using Venezuela's windfall not to fatten his own country's oligarchy but to benefit the Venezuelan poor and help neighboring countries.

Yesterday, while Robertson was issuing his half-baked Chavez clarification, the Venezuelan president was in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where he announced a new oil agreement with that country's prime minister, P.J. Patterson.
...
[T]he Chavez plan means more than half a million dollars a day in savings for Jamaica on oil imports.

Chavez also announced his government will provide $60 million in foreign aid to Jamaica and finance the upgrading of that country's oil refineries.
...
Pat Robertson looks at Chavez and sees a devilish danger. He wants our government to "take him out." Over at the White House, Bush and his aides may use more restrained language, but their goals are not much different.

But there's a whole different view down in Latin America, where a half-dozen nations have seen liberal and populist governments swept into office in recent years.

Down there, Chavez has become the new miracle man of oil. Unlike Exxon/Mobil and the Big Oil fat cats, who wallow in their record profits while the rest of us pay, Chavez is spreading the wealth around.

A dangerous man, indeed

Connect the dots, people! Pat Robertson doesn't speak for Jesus Christ and he doesn't speak for Christians. He speaks for a comfortable way of life, a fat wallet, and the adolation of all his fans - especially his fans, I mean, friends, in power. Remember this encounter with Jesus?

A certain ruler asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.”’ He replied, ‘I have kept all these since my youth.’ When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’

If Pat Robertson heard this or one hundred other teachings of Jesus straight from his Savior's lips he, too, would be sad: for he is rich, he is comfortable, and he is blind to the real teachings of our faith.

*Emphasis added in both quotes.

oxymoron: "patriot pastors"

from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, by Rev. Rich Gamble:

Give Me That Oldtime Oppression

As a Christian, I claim a particular historical perspective, namely that handed down by the Bible. The Bible stands as the most anti-imperial tome in human history. It is the story of a people at odds with empire from its inception. The Bible gives us a look at empire from the perspective of the victims. The Jewish people experienced slavery, slaughter, exile and occupation at the hands of various empires.

In his critique of economic practices that allowed the rich to get richer while the poor starved, Jesus was undermining the very foundation of the exploitative Roman economic system. In his opposition [of] the puppet government of the Temple, Jesus was denouncing Roman political repression. In his denial of the use of violence, Jesus was de-legitimizing the most important tool of imperial repression.

Jesus was legally crucified for his actions (a demonstration of that famed Roman rule of law). Christians, along with the Jews, remember that it was Rome that laid waste to Judea (Roman political enfranchisement), slaughtered thousands, took thousands more as slaves, destroyed the Temple (a taste of Roman religious tolerance), and basically shattered the Jewish nation so thoroughly that it took it more than 18 centuries to reconstitute itself.

It was the Roman Empire that on several occasions tortured and killed people in the most brutal way, merely for professing their Christian faith. And after Christianity became the official religion of the empire, it was Rome that began the repression of Jews and other non-Christian faiths.

Want to hear something scary? A growing number of pastors are embracing the idea of empire as a way of claiming power, validating their bruised egos, and spreading a corrupt gospel that is ashamed of Jesus and denies the heart of his message, the stuff about compassion for the poor and loving one's enemies. You can see what this corrupted perversion of faith looks like at the Ohio Restoration Project. I had lunch with these folks today. It was not a pleasant experience. Speakers regularly substituted Jesus and America for each other as if they have the same meaning: both, we were told, are an important source of hope for the world, both have been given the task of spreading freedom, both are blessed to be a blessing, both are under attack by liberals, atheists, Communism (yes, communism!), and anyone else who would challenge this "America the Savior" delusion. It was sad. It was sick. It was so counter to anything I have learned in church that at times I simply couldn't believe my ears. As a choir sang several hymns, patriotic images of soldiers playing with children and of aircraft carriers, fighters and stealth bombers flashed on the screens behind them. I kept thinking about Jesus on the cross, and how these (mostly) men probably would have cheered his execution just as surely as they cheer the silencing of any who disagrees with them today. I may write more later, I'm still processing the horror.

The worst part is, they are planning and scheming and working to "take back" (read: take over) the United States, from top down, to re-create it in their image - which is clearly an image of power, might, dominance, oppression, subjugation, exploitation, hatred, and fear. What can we do to stand against them? Because this much is clear: we must stand up, speak out, and reclaim the gospel, reclaim our faith, and reclaim Jesus Christ who came not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved.

Robertson is a weasel

*for my initial reaction, see the comments below this entry

While listening to radio coverage of Robertson's plea this morning, I was reminded that this isn't the first insane thing he's said. In 2003, he stated that the State Department ought to be nuked. In Sept. 2001, he agreed with Jerry Falwell that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were really an act of punishment inflicted by God.

As his words were replayed, I was shocked by the tone in his voice, the calm, the complete lack of emotion. And then I heard him say, "We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly." As he spoke those words, I realized what he was referring to by "other doctrines we have announced:" he means, of course, the 'Bush doctrine.' This so-called doctrine is Bush's claim to have the right to make a military strike any time, any where, at any strength and for any length for any reason. Obviously, the President wouldn't publicly state that he has the right to attack willy nilly; in fact, he gives plenty of so-called reasons for 'pre-emptive' strikes. When one reason fails, he comes up with another. In regards to Iraq, all his pre-war reasoning boiled down to Iraq having amassed certain weapons, to Iraq having ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, and to Iraq having the capability to attack the United States. However, each of those reasons has been shown false and the grounds on which he made those claims seriously questioned. It also appears that Bush knew these were shaky arguments, but he was ready with others as those fell: to defend liberty, to spread freedom, to respond to a genocidal leader. This is why his doctrine allows him to attack for any reason; because if the reason he wants to attack won't hold up to public approval then he'll just use any other reason that can be passed off as valid for the time being.

Why am I particularly offended by this, and what does it have to do with Robertson? They're dancing in circles. Without actually naming the Bush doctrine, Robertson has cited it as legitimating an assassination of a foreign president. Previously, Bush may well have wanted to go after Chavez but, as in Iraq, his reasons wouldn't hold up to public support. Robertson's credentials sadly now give religious weight to this desire and could be used as a false legitimation of that desire to attack. Robertson 'cites' the Bush doctrine as a reason for attacking; Bush, as President, cannot actually endorse an assassination himself - but others (read: lower level administration officials, radio personalities, talking heads, and bloggers) can now cite Robertson's appeal as reason to consider implementing the Bush doctrine. And so the circle goes, the dance continues, and all around the mulberry bush, well you know how the song goes...

By the way, even if the Bush administration has no plans to go after Chavez or Venezuela, the argument still holds that this is dangerously circular and we should watch to see if the loop is completed: for legitimation of his crack-pot (and anti-Christian) idea, Robertson cites Bush-doctrine without naming it; will Bush-doctrine supporters now cite Robertson for legitimation of themselves? Imagine if they actually spoke clearly: Look - Pat said that our doctrine allows us to assassinate the guy; therefore, we're gonna do it. Oh, and with Jesus' blessing, too.

Pat Robertson, anti-Christian

this alert from Media Matters for America:

Pat Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

I may need a little help with this one. I'm still searching my Bible for the conditions under which assassination is okay. I checked the commentaries and did a few word searches but found nothing about spheres of influence, controlling pools of oil, or potential to harm; I haven't begun to look for a reference on murdering a person simply because one can or because one would save a lot of money, but I have a feeling I'll need help on that one, too. On the other hand, I did find something about enemies. Jesus instructs his followers to love their enemies and: 1) pray for them; 2) bless those who curse them; and 3) do good, expecting nothing in return.

Kind of makes you wonder: Who is Pat Robertson really worshiping?

*bold quotes are my emphasis; bold and italicized are from source

"lowering expectations:" a euphemism for admitting mistakes? or changing course? never!

from The Washington Post, U.S. lowers expectations for Iraq:

Updated: 11:32 p.m. ET Aug. 13, 2005
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Where to begin on a statement like this? First, notice that it's anonymous. Second, duh!, plenty of really smart and experienced people, including analysts and military generals, warned that initial efforts weren't sufficient to secure the peace, let alone win hearts and minds. Third, "timetable?", what timetable? The only one I'm aware of is the schedule for elections and the process of approving of a constitution, which was set by the coalition's provisional authority and which could just as easily be changed to fit reality. Fourth, it's been 28 months and senior officials are still "absorbing the factors of the situation"?!? Fifth, regarding "the unreality that dominated at the beginning," that came from no place short of the top: again, plenty of people tried to speak honestly and truthfully about very different expectations for the war and its aftermath: those people were much more on target; sadly, they were fired, demoted, or publicly disgraced, while those who were willing to push "the unreality" were awarded promotions and medals!

And what of the grand goals that were given as later justification for the war (after no WMD were found, so that the need for 'pre-emptive war' was discredited, *and after the suggestion that Iraq had ties to 9/11 was exposed as a fabrication)?
"The US no longer expects to see a model new democracy [strike one!], a self-supporting oil industry [strike two], or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges [strike three - you're out!]."
Sounds like failure to me - not on behalf of US troops, who are doing the best job possible and making huge sacrifices under pretty awful conditions and often given less than adequate resources. No, this is a failure of planning and leadership, and again goes all the way to the top. What exactly has President Bush accomplished in this poorly planned, premeditated war? Nothing that the American people were asked to fight and die for.

More from the article:

"Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.

But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.
...
The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities. [That's incorrect. The decision to invade Iraq was justified by the threat of a nuclear cloud *and alleged links to Al Qaeda. The "goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq..." was only made after the war began, when no WMD were found *and the alleged links were widely recognized as unsubstantiated.]
...
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
...
In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.
...
The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.
...
Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word — necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

So much for staying the course.

Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq — and its $20 billion investment — have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.
...
Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq's pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.
...
Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

*update Aug. 22, 2005

Republicans For Disenfranchisement!

from GOP Paying Legal Bills of Bush Official:

Despite a zero-tolerance policy on tampering with voters, the Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.

James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.
...
A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.

"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.

The guy should get a fair trial. But the Republican Party shouldn't be paying his legal fees! And if he's found guilty, will they demand their money back?

5 WEEKS VACATION!

from Chaos Under Heaven:

After the London bombings and with the continuing chaos in Iraq -- no connections please ('Nonsense!' 'Discredited!' insisted Don Rumsfeld) -- it's hard not to feel that the Bush administration is summoning grim reality from somewhere deep in its wildest nightmares. Others might imagine that, under the circumstances, real policy alterations, actual changes in course, might be in order. And evidently the President now feels the same way. While squabbling over the definition of his 'war' and doing pro bono work to elevate the status of al-Zawahiri, he clearly sensed the need to take some meaningful action, to do something path-breaking, record setting -- and so he headed off on the most extended vacation of his two-term presidency, five weeks in Crawford, the longest presidential vacation in 36 years. It's the 49th trip he's made to his ranch and the 319th day that he's spent in Crawford, according to Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker of the Washington Post, 'roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date.' (And that's without even counting those weekends at Camp David or the summer visits with his folks in Kennebunkport, Maine.) This is a particularly record-setting moment because, by the time he returns, five years into his presidency, he will have bested his idol, Ronald Reagan, who in his 8 years as president spent 335 days on vacation.