Excerpt From "Bluebeard" by Kurt Vonnegut

From chapter 8 - advice by an old newspaper editor to a young Rabo Karabekian...


"'I never prayed before, but I'll pray tonight that you never go to Europe as a soldier.  We should never get suckered again into providing meat for the cannons and machine guns they love so much.  They could go to war at any time.  Look how big their armies are in the midst of a Great Depression!

'If the cities are still standing when you get to Europe,' he said, 'and you sit in a cafe for hours, sipping coffee or wine or beer, and discussing painting and music and literature, just remember that the Europeans around you, who you think are so much more civilized than Americans, are looking forward to just one thing: the time when it will become legal to kill each other and knock everything down again.

'If I had my way,' he said, 'American geography books would call those European countries by their right names: 'The Syphilis Empire,' 'The Republic of Suicide,' 'Dementia Praecox,' which of course borders on beautiful 'Paranoia.'...

That was an ordinary way for a patriotic American to talk back then.  It's hard to believe how sick of war we used to be.  We used to boast of how small our Army and Navy were, and how little influence generals and admirals had in Washington.  We used to call armaments manufacturers 'Merchants of Death.'

Can you imagine that?"

* * * * *

We don't learn from history.  We don't learn from our mistakes.  We are sheep.  We are lemmings sprinting for the cliffs.  We have forsaken reason to fulfill no more than our most primitive needs - ego and revenge.  We are the center of the world.  And we are bordered by 'Fear' and 'Paranoia.'

An Excerpt From "The Wild Marsh" by Rick Bass

Taken from p.134 in the chapter "May"...

"In our valley, we have but fifteen such gardens of any significant size left.  They require a minimum size of one thousand acres to be classified as potential candidates for wilderness designation - formal, permanent protection by Congress - and in order to qualify must not ever have had any roads built into them.

Such has been the frenzy of extraction on this forest, the subsidized liquidation of the biggest and best of the timber - well over a million loaded logging trucks have rolled out of this forest, out of this valley, and out of this impoverished county (Where did all the money go?  Was there ever any money, or was it all simply given or traded away?) - that in the million or so acres lying between the Canadian border and the curve, the bow, of the Kootenai River, east of Idaho and west of  Lake Koocanusa, these fifteen gardens are now scattered in a gasping strand of one wild archipelago, and are refuge not only to the last threatened and endagnered species such as wolves and grizzlies and caribou and wolverines but also to those reservoirs of spirit.

Fifteen gardens: and worse yet, not a single one them has any form of permanent protection whatsoever.  Despite the living, pulsing, breathing wilderness of this landscape (a biological wildness, rather than a recreational wildness - perhaps the wildest valley in the Lower Forty-eight, in that regard), there's still not a single acre of designated wilderness protected on the public wildlands of this valley.

It's a big injustice.  I hate the flavor, the taste, of that injustice.

I love the scent, the taste, the feeling - and certaintly, the ecological justice - back in the farthest hearts of those fifteen gardens.

I've said it before: This isn't a place to come to.  It's a place to dream of.  It's biological wildness, full of frog roar and swamp muck and tangled blowdown and mosquitoes and deeply angry, suspicious people, none of whom would be pleased to see your happy, vacationing face."

Land is not worth only what you can extract from it.

Fly Verse

I stand with a creel void of conquest - a lesson in life once more.
You can not catch that which does not wish to be caught.
But I am a fisherman.  So I turn, smile, and cast once more,
Wading upstream, hat-in-hand. - F.H.W.

Review of "Breakfast of Champions" By Kurt Vonnegut

Oh, Vonnegut...

"Breakfast of Champions" left me torn. On one hand...

I found "Breakfast of Champions" to be an immature collection of rantings complete with illustrations. The frequent reference to assholes and "wide open beavers" that was at first necessary to set the dark tone for the book, quickly segued into something that would only captivate an adolescent (think "Catcher in the Rye"). Oh, he said beaver... tee-hee.

On the other hand...

I found "Breakfast of Champions" to be a autobiographical introspective, a tale of two characters, both extensions of Vonnegut, both seeking the answer to the question: "What is the meaning of Life?" Dwayne, a successful self-made man, seeks to know the significance of his own existence and suffers from the excuse of an "imbalance of chemicals in the brain".  Kilgore Trout, the second main character, is an impoverished author of many dark pessimistic writings who after living his life in obscurity happens to have the good fortune of catching the eye of a wealthy benefactor.  The two are at a crossroad headed in opposite directions.

We know that Vonnegut is personally invested in these characters because he shares similarities with both.  Dwayne, the champion of the free-enterprise American way of life, owned a auto-dealership and was a widower due to suicide.  Vonnegut operated a Saab dealership and lost his mother to suicide.  Trout is a free thinking, anti-establishment character that comes up in several of Vonnegut's writings ("God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater", "Slaughterhouse-Five", "Timequake") and is said to be based on Vonnegut contemporary and friend, Theodore Sturgeon. Vonnegut in life was an outspoken critic of war and conventional religion.  In the novel, Vonnegut writes himself into the story, casting himself as a somewhat biased observer who already knows the outcome of the narrative, but does not interfere.

"Breakfast of Champions" culminates with the meeting of Dwayne and Trout. Trout unknowingly supplies Dwayne with the/an answer to his question in one of his works - that basically, he can do no wrong because he is the only living being with the ability of "free will".  What is the meaning of his life?  For the world to revolve around Dwayne.  This fuels a destructive rampage in which Dwayne seeks harm or vengeance on half the town, because... there will be no consequences for the misdeeds of THE ONE.  "Breakfast of Champions", perhaps, is Vonnegut's parody of the egocentric nature of American society.

I give this book two stars out of five. One star because though it was an introspective narrative, it was not as entertaining as Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle".  And one star because it is better than "Catcher in the Rye", my baseline for over-hyped classics.

One final thought...

I can't help but think that Vonnegut is sitting under the shade of an ethereal oak somewhere, puffing on a cigarette, and having a laugh at our (my) expense, because he was paid to put in print the same things that many of us contemplate often, but can't seem to effectively relay to paper. But, I guess that is what makes him a writer, and me... not.

So, what is the meaning of life?

Fly Verse

The dissonant nay-sayers from the asphalt of life are diluted by the chorus of songbirds and the ramblings of the river.

No longer am I a cog in the human machine. I am in tune with the stream, preparing to cast a simple melody. - F.H.W.

Excerpt from "The Wild Marsh" by Rick Bass

Today, when surrounded by the chittering of newbie parents, I often recall what it was like to be childless and in similar company - the sense of being trapped, cornered, ensnared in unwanted conversation, and providing the customary head-nods to show sympathetic agreement despite having no understanding nor interest in the trials of parenthood. Good times.

Of course, having a three year-old of my own now, I can appreciate both circumstances. I understand the sense of responsibility one inherits when sent home from the hospital with a tiny being of your own make-up, just like I understand the single guy's disinterest.

I have never have been able to put into words this change in perception regarding parenthood, however, as effectively and artistically as Rick Bass in an excerpt from his collection of essays entitled, "The Wild Marsh."

"How such knowledge saves a person I can't quite be sure, but I felt rescued, felt as if I had passed completely through that thin curtain and into some finer land in which the self dissolved and another was born. And I still feel that way, too, anytime I look at either of my daughters, and I know that other parents feel that same way - I have heard them speak of it, had in fact heard such things being stated even before I became a parent, though in those earlier days, such discussions, such statements, had held no meaning for me and had the quality of sound of a radio playing faintly in another room, with the language of the radio's music identifiable but the individual words, and their message, indistinguishable."

Small Business Ideas

A fishing buddy of mine and I have thrown around business ideas for some time thinking that if we came up with the perfect idea that we could make a go of it in the valley we love. We came up with numerous ideas*. One of my favorites was to resurrect the milk delivery truck. We would deliver organic dairy to people's doorsteps daily in reusable pint containers. It didn't seem like a bad idea seeing how many gallons of milk my family goes through in a week. The milk and dairy products would be locally supplied, it would keep plastic jugs out of the landfill, and it would cut down on trips to the supermarket.

Another idea was an evening daycare business where parents could drop off their kid(s) at the last minute for a night at the movies or dinner. But seeing as how other people's kids tend to lower my tolerance threshold, for my child's sake, that idea was quickly nipped in the bud.

We toyed around with the 'novel' idea (sarcasm intended) of opening up a fly-shop together. Seeing as how we both have intimate knowledge of the workings of the business, we felt secure in our plans. My wife even said she could run the bakery next door. Would you like a fly with your bagel? Of course, this intimate knowledge also made us keenly aware of the drawbacks and limitations of another such business in the valley. Also, can there be any better way to ruin a favorite hobby then to try and make a business of it?

These rough plans were sketched out before the current economic downturn which could have been a deterrent, but I found the biggest obstacle was that every idea could never pass mustard against the initial question - Would I buy that? No. That's the problem with being buy local/American made/environmentally conscious and a tight wad. It limits the possibilities.

Memories of these business ideas came flooding back to me the other day when reading a passage from Robert Sullivan's "Cross Country...". Sullivan recounts an interview he read about the owner of The Beat Bookstore in Boulder, CO, a small bookstore specializing in beat poetry like that of Jack Kerouac.

"When the reporter from the Boulder newspaper asked Tom Peters how he had survived as a small-bookstore owner for over fifteen years, he responded by saying, "Low aspirations.""

Perhaps that is the key to our business success. Think small. Make just enough to scrape by. Love what you do. Hmm..., of course, it wouldn't hurt to be married to a couple rich wives willing to bankroll us. It would make life easier.

To my fishing friend: I look forward to meeting up again streamside this summer so we can float some bugs and draft new business ideas that will never see the light of day.

And to my wife: that part I mentioned above, get on that.

* I share these because I don't believe anyone would be dumb enough to put them into motion, but if you do you can make out a check and send a share of the profits to "Frank".

"Cross Country...", Again

Reading is a lot like writing for me, it happens in spurts depending on the subject and my mood. Some books can be read in a matter of days, others take months, no matter the number of pages. And now with a family, a job, travel, March Madness, and a new fishing season starting, it's a wonder any reading or writing gets done at all.

In Robert Sullivan's book "Cross Country..." (a book I have stretched out over four months), he recalls one of his transcontinental trips referring to it as his Worst Cross-Country Trip Ever, a trip he doesn't care to remember but can't seem to forget. This of course makes me think of a few unpleasant memories of my own. You know, the kind of embarrassing nuggets you keep locked away in the back of your mind but come screaming back in vivid color at inconvenient times triggered by who knows what, and you find yourself looking for a dark place so you can't be seen closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and screaming, "La-la-la!" at the top of your lungs until the moment has passed. Yikes! Why does the brain have to be so cruel?

"Cross Country..." with Robert Sullivan

I'm suffering from post-election, post-New Year's hangover, and I think reality is setting in. It's time for a good escape.

...started a book entitled "Cross Country: Fifteen Years and 90,000 Miles on the Roads and Interstates of Amer..." blah, blah, blah (long title) about a transcontinental trip from Portland to New York by author Robert Sullivan, his wife, and two kids. It was recommended by my brother-in-law (not a bad read, bro).

Less than a hundred pages in and following the return path of Lewis and Clark (much to the disinterest of his family), the author and family top Lolo Pass on Highway 12, take a dip in the hot springs, and decide to spend the night in Missoula. The next morning they park downtown to get some coffee and visit a few shops. They...

"stop at a great little bookstore just up from the Missoula train station and buy way too many books, stuffing our car in a fashion that would halt our progress entirely if we were crossing the country the way families first did, when the United States was expanding shortly after the return of Lewis and Clark." (p.78)

Hmm... I wonder what book store Sullivan is referring to? (wink)

Next stop: a round of golf at the black slag lined hazards of the Old Works in Anaconda.

Book Review of "The Secret History of the American Empire" by John Perkins

John Perkins's globe trotting adventures as a self-described Economic Hit Man (EHM) in "The Secret History of the American Empire" is a one of a kind history lesson in U.S. international affairs and economics over the last 40 years. Perkins sheds light on the discomforting close-knit relationship between the U.S. government and corporate America and shakes off any naive, preconceived assumptions Americans may have that their government officials are out to spread democracy abroad for purely the noblest of intentions.

Perkins's job as an EHM was to secure loans for developing nations in Asia, Latin America, The Middle East, and Africa in order to pay for large infrastructure projects (ex. hydroelectric dam). The loans financed through the IMF or World Bank were intended to supply a developing nation’s citizenry with energy in order to upgrade their lives and improve the country’s economy. In Perkins's experiences, however, the poor never benefited from the project. The money went to a few wealthy individuals and to large Western corporations that oversaw the construction and operation of the projects. The corporations saw the projects as cash cows, funneling profits back to their headquarters located outside the developing nation. Also, the loans were provided knowing full well that the nation would not be able pay them back (think sub-prime mortgages during the housing bubble). It produced a debtor nation, one subservient to the country that provided the loan. The foreign government that supplied the cash would then ask for resources at a reduced rate as payment, resources such as oil and minerals that a foreign corporation would then extract with little regard to the local people or environment. The EHM would sell the loan to government officials by any means necessary, including bribery. If an EHM failed to convince a national leader of his need for the loan, jackals (paid assassins) were then sent in to remove that person from power.

The stories initially sound far-fetched to those of us not privy to the discussions in the halls of congress or in the boardrooms of corporate America, but historical examples of U.S. meddling in foreign affairs provides credence to Perkins's stories. For example: Iran-Contra during Reagan's administration; the U.S. sponsored coup to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh; U.S. backing of Saddam Hussein on his rise to power and during the Iraq-Iran border war, only later to be removed from power by U.S. armed forces; CIA leading the overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende in a military coup that brought to power Gen. Augusto Pinochet; The P.R. campaign United Fruit launched to convince the Eisenhower administration to depose the democratically elected government led by Col. Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in Guatamala.

Perkins does an excellent job sharing some of America's ulterior motives for overthrowing governments and deposing foreign leaders, ulterior motives that have less to do with communism and unjust rulers then oil and corporate influence. In most cases the people of the nation under siege would have been better off if America had stayed out.

Perkins spends most of "The Secret History..." bringing us low, supplying us with philosophical ammunition to wrack our brains with. But over the final few chapters he provides inspiration and a path to lasting change. He says,

"At times like these, it is important to be philosophical and to investigate the ethical implications of what we do; however, it is essential that we also apply ourselves in down-to-earth ways, ones that will result in concrete and lasting change."

The first thing that comes to mind to secure change is to vote for intelligent, forward thinking politicians. Politicians that support responsible corporate practices, smart environmental policies, and are voices for human rights domestic and abroad can be valuable agents of change in the government. But perhaps the most important thing we can do is spend our money wisely, because how and where we spend our dollars is a vote we can cast every single day for lasting change. It provides the biggest punch for the least amount of effort. It is important to buy local, think sustainable, and support fair trade products. It's a simple effort that will force corporate America to take notice and change their policies of human and resource exploitation.

Perkins finishes up his book with a "To Do" list (for those of us that need things spelled out before we'll jump on board).

To Do:
*When tempted to engage in “retail therapy” instead jog, meditate, read, or find some other solution.

*Shop consciously if there is something you must have; purchase items whose packaging, ingredients, and methods of production are sustainable and support life.

*Make everything you own last as long as possible.

*Purchase at consignment and thrift stores where everything is recycled.

*Protest against “free” trade agreements and sweatshops.

*Write letters telling Monsanto, De Beers, ExxonMobil, Adidas, Ford, GE, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and other labor exploiters and environment destroyers why you refuse to purchase from them.

*Write letters praising Home Depot, Kinko’s, Citicorp, Starbucks, Whole Foods, and other companies that cooperate with RAN, Amnesty International, and other NGOs(NonGovernmental Organizations).

*Cut back on oil and gas consumption.

*Downsize your car, home, wardrobe, everything in your life.

*Send money to nonprofits, radio stations, and other organizations that promote just causes.

*Volunteer your time and energy to such organizations.

*Support local merchants.

*Encourage stores to buy from local growers, producers, and suppliers.

*Shop at your local farmer’s market.

*Drink tap water (get the water company to do a better job if necessary, but avoid buying bottled water).

*Vote for enlightened school boards, commissions, ordinances, and politicians.

*Run for office.

*Insist that those who use your money – banks, pensions, mutual funds, companies – make socially and environmentally responsible investments.

*Speak out whenever forums present themselves.

*Volunteer to talk at your local school about your favorite subject (beekeeping, weaving, tennis, anything) and use it to challenge students, to wake them up.

*Discuss externalities, the costs of pollution, poor working conditions, public subsidies, corporate exemptions, and other environmental, social, and political factors that should be included in the prices we pay for goods and services but are not (discussed in Chapter 54); let people know that when we do not pay for these very real expenses we rob future generations.

*Encourage “taxes” on externalities – higher prices for gas, clothes, electricity, etc., as long as the difference pays to right social and environmental wrongs.

*Offer study groups at local libraries, bookstores, churches, and clubs.

*Expand this list and share it with everyone you know.

There. It's that easy. Small things that when done collectively can make a big impact on the local economy, the global economy, change corporate America, improve the lives of the impoverished, and stop laying waste to the environment.

Hey, I'm trying to uphold my end of the deal. So... whose got next?

My Next Read

Check out the interview of Thomas Friedman on Meet the Press.

Interview with Greg Lemon, Author of "Blue Man in a Red State"

Greg, you authored an impressive biography of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. It is informative, entertaining, and well organized. It is an important book. With Schweitzer in the middle of a reelection campaign and in the national spotlight as a possible VP candidate for the Democratic ticket, “Blue Man in a Red State” will be an important tool to judge the man by come November.

Did you realize the possible importance of this biography when you started researching it?

I did. This book proposal came to me from the publisher. They had an idea and went looking for an author. We all knew the timing of this book would be important.

Was there something that you were surprised to learn about Brian Schweitzer while you were researching the book?

I think there were a lot of things that surprised me along the way. Mostly little stuff, like that he always carried hand sanitizer with him. Bigger stuff … I was surprised by his description of being a middle child and a negotiator. I guess I never thought of him in that sort of way but it makes sense. I was also surprised by the way he spoke about his children, Ben in particular. I think the whole conversation about his kids was really humanizing and poignant. We so seldom think of Schweitzer as a father.

The book is broken into 34 short chapters. Each segment could stand alone, but together there is a comfortable flow to the story. How did you decide to organize the book the way you did?

The organization of the book came about because I’m essentially a newspaper/magazine journalist. I write relatively short pieces. On this project I was really learning about narrative flow to the book – a way to lace all the chapters together. So my editor, Allen Jones, and I decided to go to the shorter chapters and I think it worked well.

In your book, former gubernatorial candidate Bob Brown gave an interesting description of Montana environmentalists. He said, “…environmentalists are people who still hunt and fish. They may chain themselves to a tree to keep loggers from cutting it down, but check their freezer and you’ll find steaks from last year’s deer.” Having lived in Montana and been around Montana politics for some time now, did this description of environmentalists surprise you?

I don’t want to be misleading here. Bob and I talked at length about the Montana persona. But I also felt like that was something I could speak to. So that description of environmentalists is more mine than Bob’s. However, I think it’s accurate. I’m not too comfortable with the term environmentalist. I don’t really know to whom that is referring. But I know several people who are labeled environmentalists and they hunt, fish, drink beer, tell jokes and even cut down a few trees each year to keep them warm over the winter.

One of my favorite passages from the book (referring to Schweitzer) was “Given that he had zero name recognition around Montana, he just decided to campaign like he was killing snakes.” Where did the phrase “like killing snakes” come from? I like it. I might have to use it.

I’m glad you liked that. I got it from my late grandfather, John Lemon. He was a great teller of stories and used these old sayings all the time. I’ve held on to as many as I could. He would smile if he knew I’d put it in a book. Interesting you never heard it. We’ve used it in my family as long as I could remember. Maybe it’s a colloquial thing.

I had to read Jim Shockley’s quote ten times before I got the gist. Shockley was praising Schweitzer’s involvement on Mitchell Slough when he said, “He helped us on the Mitchell Slough. He’s going to be dead and gone and his kids are going to be gone, and that’s still going to be a good deal with the state.” I understand what he meant, but it sounds like it’ll be a good deal with the state when Schweitzer is gone. Any reservations about including this quote the way it was stated?

No. I really like and respect Jim. He’s a guy that will basically tell you what he thinks and shoots as straight as a preacher. He believes fervently that the Mitchell Slough is open to the public and Schweitzer did sportsmen a favor by pushing for the Supreme Court appeal. I think that’s reflected in the quote.

As a reporter, you try to write without lending personal bias to the story. I think you did a masterful job of this through most of the biography. I was a little surprised when at the end of the book you included a chapter on your relationship and personal view of the governor. Why did you find it necessary to include Chapter 33?

On this project, I felt that it was important my voice and views come through. My editor felt the same way. I had this unique opportunity to spend a lot of time with the governor and in the end my relationship with him and how we interacted and how he treated me would feed into the book. It would have been dishonest, I think, to leave out my feelings or impressions of Schweitzer because it would have left the reader without the essential information on which to judge the honesty and quality of my book.

Your friend, a pastor from Helena, got the final word on Brian Schweitzer. Explain why you decided to end the book with the observation, “He just doesn’t seem to be at peace.”

I had some heartburn over the way the book ended, but Steve captured what I felt about Schweitzer and what I wanted to say. So why not let him say it. I think as a journalist, you have to be open to the truth whenever it comes and in whatever form it takes.

The Governor is a talker, a storyteller. Do you ever catch him telling you the same story twice?

You bet. Schweitzer told that football story from the beginning of the book three times that I heard and then I talked to someone else who told me he’d heard him tell it as well. I have to admit to the same tendency myself. I love talking and have been known to tell the same story over and over, even to my wife.

What is more difficult, being a beat reporter writing for a daily or writing a biography on the Governor of Montana?

Writing a book, but not by much. The difficulty in the book was getting my head and heart around the size and the scope of the project. But being a daily reporter and being a good one, means you have to have an eye on the bigger picture as well. You can’t just cover the news everyday without some sense of context and where the issues are heading. As a journalist, my job is, in part, to give people information to make decisions on. If I can’t put that information into the bigger context of their lives, then I’m not doing my job well.

I have an upcoming post on what is to be a sportsman. What is Greg Lemon’s definition of what it is to be a sportsman?

The definition for me has changed over the years. I used to think it was anyone who was outside hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. But now, after living in Montana for 10 years, my thoughts about what it means to be a sportsmen is much more complicated than that. You hear people talk about how the outdoors is their church, their religion. Some even say they find God there. I do. But so many people treat the woods, the rivers, the mountains as if it were only a playground – something created simply for their pleasure. Yet it’s so much more than that. A sportsmen recognizes this value of creation and knows his or her interaction with nature is important not only to their soul, but to the natural world as well.

Final question: Did you ever find out if the Governor can throw some line (can he fly fish)?

I fished with Schweitzer up at Georgetown Lake. Yes, he can fly fish. I won’t analyze his technique or ability too much though. I need some more time on the water with him.
_____

Greg Lemon is a freelance journalist and writer for the Bitterroot Star. He is also the Politics Editor for NewWest.net, an online news journal covering the Rocky Mountain West. You can check out Lemon's blog at www.greglemonmt.blogspot.com.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Greg Lemon will hold two readings of "Blue Man in a Red State" and be available for book signings this Wednesday, July 9th. They will be at Fact & Fiction on the UM campus at 2 pm and at Chapter One in Hamilton at 7 pm.

"Blue Man in a Red State: Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer and the New Western Populism" Book Review

Brian Schweitzer is the “agronomist with an energy plan” and the “darling of the Democratic party.” After reading, “Blue Man in a Red State” it is easy to see why. Schweitzer brings a unique set of tools to the table. He has a degree in soil science, a work history that has taken him throughout the Middle East, and boasts of a brighter future for America through renewable energy and “clean-coal” technology. This may sound “big city” but he is 100 percent Montanan. He has humble roots, growing up on a cattle ranch in central Montana. He shares a passion for the outdoors. He’s a family man, religious, and hardworking, often up and at’em by 4am. He has a gregarious, some say “forceful” personality that endears him or raises scorn from across the political aisle. He is the definition of unique, a moderate Democrat from the West that appeals to nearly everyone. Time will tell if the rancher from Whitefish can deliver his vision of the future, but there is no doubt that no man from Montana has burst onto the national stage and given it more time in the political spotlight than Brian Schweitzer.

Author Greg Lemon crafts an informative and entertaining biography of Montana’s Governor. But “Blue Man in a Red State” is not just a bio. Lemon describes the history of the Treasure State, the changing political landscape of the Mountain West, and the struggles facing Montana and America in the future. Like a true reporter, he is hands off, not influencing the narrative with his own bias, except for one chapter that describes his relationship with the Governor. "Blue Man in a Red State" is a wonderful read. You not only gain a greater understanding of the man who is Brian Schweitzer, but of Montana, the state he calls home.

"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" Book Review & Discussion (4 of 4)

Creationism: check reason at the door

I was walking home with my daughter the other day when I bumped into a neighbor I had only met briefly in our comings and goings. Let’s call him Jeff. Jeff and I exchanged pleasantries as usual but this time he stopped and asked what I did for a living. I told him and then asked the same of him. He said he was retired but was active in leading a Sunday scripture study with some other Christians from the valley. He gave me the usual “What it is to be Christian” pamphlet. We talked some more and one thing led to another and we started talking faith and religion. He expressed some displeasure with other Christian sects because they were not based as strongly on the Bible as he felt was necessary. We talked some more and he told me his son was a chemist. Jeff said he believed in a young earth but his son believed in an old earth. I asked him what he meant by this. Jeff explained that the world is only 7000 years old. In other words, Jeff believes in the creation story in Genesis and the timeline set by the Bible. His son, the chemist, believes the age calculated by science, which is 4.5 billion years (consequently he probably believes in evolution also). I told Jeff that I shared the same beliefs as his son but that it didn’t hamper my faith life because there is always room for God. I explained, “Science will never disprove the existence of God just as we will never prove He exists.” Jeff is a good guy. We don’t agree on how old or young the Earth is or on how we got here, but I respect someone who is willing to share his faith. I just wish I could understand why people like Jeff check reason at the door when it comes to their faith.

As I said in the previous post in this series, one of the more intriguing interviews Dan Merchant included in his book was that with former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. Santorum promotes the agenda of the Religious Right. He opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and supports the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. Right off the bat I took exception with the fact that he used Europe as an example of what’s wrong with faith in the world. He claims that Europe is an “advanced stage of the problem.” The problem being there is an “increased secularization of the world. Faith is being replaced with the hard realities of science and materialism.” His support for this statement probably comes from the fact that about 20% of Western Europeans attend weekly church services, less than half that of North Americans. But does this make Europe a den of evil, Rick? They also tend to be more open to same-sex couples and abortion than Americans, which probably adds fuel to his animosity towards Europeans. Santorum says he believes in a “God of faith, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – [Who is] also the God of reason, the God of philosophers.” But that it “takes more faith to believe the theory of evolution than it does to believe we were made by a divine being.” I’m sorry Rick, but most people find it easier to believe in something tangible or based on sound rational thinking than something shrouded in mystery. I have a fairly strong faith in the existence of God, but it would sure help if He’d wrap me on the shoulder one day and say, “Dude, it’s Me. What’s up?”

Santorum supports Intelligent Design. In 2001, he tried unsuccessfully to insert language into “No Child Left Behind” that would have sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent Design claims, “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” I just shake my head every time I hear the subject of Intelligent Design because there is really a lack of intelligence behind Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is merely an attempt to skirt separation of Church and State and bring creationism into the classroom. And the sad thing is supporters claim it is a scientific theory; a theory that cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own. Intelligent Design is not a science. It is a joke.

Creationists have a clear misunderstanding of how science works. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation to explain natural phenomena. Scientists use a process called the scientific method to test hypotheses (educated guesses). Experiments are performed that will either lend support or refute a hypothesis. Once enough evidence is gathered to support a hypothesis, the results are shared in peer-reviewed journals for further validation. A hypothesis that does not lend itself to experimentation can never be validated and will never be accepted by the scientific community as a truth. Intelligent Design has this problem. How do you provide experimental evidence of an intelligent cause? You can’t. Game Over.

Creationists misinterpret the terminology used in science, like theory in the theory of evolution. In layman terms, a theory is something that is a mere guess, but in scientific terms, a theory is something proven and generally accepted as true. True, like gravity.

Creationists struggle juggling Genesis and Evolution. Christians grow up with the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It is a wonderful tale of love, betrayal, and loss with the hope of someday reentering paradise. But it is just that, a tale. The Book of Genesis is a symbolic text (most Christians would agree). You can’t take it literally. Genesis was written 2500+ years ago to explain Earth’s and humanity’s origins to a people that had a far less understanding of the world they lived in then we do today. It provided comfort and knowledge that they weren’t alone. Since then, we’ve learned that the world is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the universe, the world is much older than the Bible says, we are made up of cells, life originated in the sea, chimps may be our distant cousins, there may be life on Mars, and cloning takes the fun out of passing on your genes. We learned this in school, in classes like earth science, life science, geology, biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy. It makes sense and supporting evidence has piled up over the years. But there is no assault on a supreme being by science. There is still room for God. What is to say that He made Adam and Eve, two paramecia fluttering around in a primordial soup on distant planet in another solar system billions of years before Earth even came into existence (but then he wouldn’t need Adam AND Eve, Adam (or Eve) would’ve been enough… because he’d simply divide, making a copy of himself, because he’s a single cell organism… never mind)? Why can’t the Lord be a primal mover, a higher being who simply set things in motion? Both explanations take into account the knowledge we’ve gained in the last 2500 years. The phrase “created… in His image” (Genesis 1:27) just paints a different picture of Him. Why can’t God be a paramecium? It would show He has a sense of humor.

So, why is it that creationists throw reason and their education out the door, conclude the Earth is only 7000 years old and dinosaur bones are just an elaborate hoax? Because… “that’s what the Bible says.” Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

To conclude, science has no agenda against the faithful or God. Scientists merely seek to explain the unexplainable, to learn more about the world we live in and the laws that govern it. It is a tedious, detail conscious profession in which you fail more than you succeed. This is what Einstein meant when he said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” In a way, we are all scientists, as long as we still have a curiosity of the unknown. Intelligent Design is not science. It is fiction. And it does not belong in the science classroom. Creationists need to step up to the plate, open up their minds, and evolve a little.

"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" Book Review & Discussion (3 of 4)

Abortion

One of the more intriguing interviews Dan Merchant included in his book was that with former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. Santorum, along with Senator Sam Brownback (KS-R), were voices for Christian conservative causes like abortion, same-sex marriage, and intelligent design versus evolution. Santorum is a self described Compassionate Conservative. In an op-ed piece published in November of 2005, he said, “Compassionate Conservatism relies on… a focused government to achieve noble purposes through definable objectives which offers hope to all.” It sounds noble, but this talk comes from the same man that tried to insert language into “No Child Left Behind” that would have sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Santorum lost reelection to Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006. Santorum left much to be desired during the interview, for reasons I will go into during the discussion on Creationism, but I gleaned some respect for Santorum from his comments on abortion.

He states, “Let’s have a real discussion about the moral and worldly consequences [of abortion] instead of just saying, ‘Well, God says we can’t do this’ and just lay down the law. We have to engage people and help them think through the consequences.”

Yes, I say! Absolutely! That’s what I am trying to accomplish. We must be cerebral in our discussion on abortion, not just spout biblical verse and shout, “Abortion is murder!” I love enthusiasm, but I hate blind faith.

Let’s start the discussion about the moral and worldly consequences of abortion Santorum was referring to. Two points:

First, a human life begins at conception, when sperm meets egg. This produces a cell containing 23 sets of chromosomes, a cell that will divide and differentiate to form every cell in the human body. There is no disagreement with this fact, even between religious fundamentalists and scientists.

Second, in the eyes of the law, an embryo will never have the same rights as the mother. It is impractical to put mother and embryo on equal footing under the law.

This is an unsettling reality. Moral thinking tells us abortion is wrong. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to simply say “abortion is wrong, so it should be illegal” because the consequence of overturning Roe are daunting. Where are you sending women seeking abortions? What happens to the babies from unwanted pregnancies? History tells us women will seek abortions despite the law often in unsanitary conditions performed by people less than professional. Women should never be forced into dark back alley procedures. And the products of unwanted pregnancies should be placed in loving homes with people who can feed, nurture, and care for the child. The feds cannot provide this, no more than religious organizations. Until these problems can be resolved, abortion will remain legal.

I have a problem with the Pro-Life stance on abortion because it doesn't offer solutions to the problems listed above. Pro-Lifers are merely trying to force their agenda on others. It is as restrictive as the opposite stance, and I'm not referring to Pro-Choice. The opposite stance to Pro-Life is a birth ban, where conception is prevented. Funny? Imagine a society where everyone is strung out on contraceptives and it is against the law to have children. This could be a plot for a sci-fi novel. Scary, isn’t it? But is it any scarier than a society where you can be brutally raped and impregnated and the state mandates that you deliver the baby? Pro-Choice is the more moderate stance. It puts the decision to give birth in the hands of every American woman instead of the hands of the state. It supports the woman’s power to choose. It empowers people instead of restricting them. Abortion will remain legal.

I’m not sure if Santorum would agree with this string of reasoning, but I respect him for at least opening the door for discussion. It is short sighted to make or change a law without understanding the consequences of the action. We must not be blinded by our faith.

"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" Book Review & Discussion (2 of 4)

Homosexuality: What’s up with the gay bashing?

Chapter 12: The Confessional Booth is the most inspirational chapter in Dan Merchant’s book “Lord Save Us From Your Followers.” It shows us the best in people when the worst was expected. Merchant set up a confessional booth in the middle of Gay Pride Northwest festivities in Portland, OR and confessed his and the Church’s sins against gays and lesbians to whoever entered the booth. He shared that in the past, “I have been offended by homosexuals, I have made fun of them, I have mocked them, I have judged them, I have been disgusted by them, I have made myself feel superior to them, I have ignored their pains, I have contributed to their pain. I have forgotten that their sin is no worse than my sin. I have forgotten that any homosexual is just like me – a child of God.” One could have expected this list of grievances to raise the ire of the mainly gay and lesbian participants, but the opposite occurred. It incited sympathy, thankfulness, tears, and sharing of experiences. It brought forth real emotional healing without anyone attempting to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

Merchant went out of his way not to get drawn into the argument of I’m right and your wrong because that was not the point of his book, to take sides on the wedge issue of homosexuality. In opening this discussion, however, I must cross that line, jump into the fray because I want to dismiss a few arguments made by people regarding homosexuals. In doing this I risk making the same mistake Merchant made in his confession by generalizing a group and passing judgment on them. Merchant’s friend, Tony Kriz, made a good point when he said, “If you love somebody we go out of our way to learn the best of who they are. And when you caricature someone you’re saying, ‘I don’t care enough to actually know you.'” Let us try and remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and that I am speaking to incite discussion, not wrath. So, into the fray…

First off, if you are uncomfortable with homosexuality because “it’s not what I’m used to” or “it’s not how I was raised”, that’s fine, but that’s your problem, not theirs. Because you see it as “icky” simply means you haven’t matured much past fifth grade sex-ed when saying vagina made the room snicker. It’s time to grow up and open your mind. Why shouldn’t gay and lesbian couples have the right to be married in the eyes of the law and be able to share in spousal benefits that straight married couples enjoy? A gay couple’s want to marry does not infringe on our rights and does not despoil the institution of marriage. Marriage is a sign of love and an outward symbol of two people’s devotion to each other. It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation. And besides, with the divorce rate around 50%, why shouldn’t homosexuals get a crack at marriage? Obviously straight couples haven’t figured out the secret to marriage bliss. I have faith that the nation’s attitude regarding same sex marriage is beginning to change.

The argument “homosexuality is not natural” doesn’t hold water. If you are simply referring to the fact that it is impossible to conceive a child homosexually, then you are correct (unless you’re a worm, but then you’d be hermaphroditic, so… nevermind). If, though, you mean that male plus female equals natural coupling, well, then you’re wrong. There are many examples of animals in nature that perform homosexual acts (whales, apes, birds) whether it be for the reason of exhibiting dominance, in the absence of the opposite sex, or as a form of adolescent play. And if it happens in nature, guess what, it’s natural.

I’m not a child of the 60’s, but I agree with the statement, “Make Love, Not War.” I think it’s a very powerful positive Christ-like statement. I would put it right up there with the Golden Rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, and John 8:7, let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone. We must remember that it is not our responsibility to pass judgment on other’s sins, something our outspoken religious leaders have forgotten. None of us is anointed by God to condemn homosexuals, our brothers and sisters in Christ. We should all try to be more open and loving of our neighbor. Then at day’s end maybe we can say we’ve earned the title of Christian.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. The floor is open for comment. Peace out, Man!

"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" Book Review & Discussion (1 of 4)

Dan Merchant’s book “Lord Save Us From Your Followers” is a wonderful read. If you struggle with your faith because of the unChrist-like acts of fellow Christians, if you think you know everything about your Christian faith, or if you just like books that make you think, this is the book for you. Dan Merchant, an acknowledged Christian, interviews well known personalities like Al Franken, Michael Reagan, and Rick Santorum about the 'wedge' issues of the day (homosexuality, abortion, intelligent design, etc.) and uses humor to take the edge off the discussion. Don’t make the mistake in thinking that the title of the book is an attack on Christian faith. That is far from the truth. Merchant simply wants to try and answer the question, why is the gospel of love dividing America? Merchant is even handed with his narration and interviews and portrays individuals in the culture war for whom they are. I would recommend this book to anyone who is engaged or enraged about some issue in the Christian religion and is willing to spend a day digesting "Lord Save Us From Your Followers.”

There, that is my review of Merchant’s book. It is one of many positive reviews you can find in on-line blogs. As a matter of fact, I can’t find one bad review on-line. It speaks to the impressive job Merchant did in presenting the material. Unfortunately, I also can’t find any discussion of the ‘wedge’ issues presented in this book accompanying the reviews. Now you can go directly to the official website to participate, but as a blogger, to read the book, give a review, and then not enter into the discussion does Merchant’s book a disservice. Come on! Why is the gospel of love dividing America? ‘I like the book’ is not good enough. Enter the discussion.

Starting tomorrow and over the next week I’ll provide three topics for discussion: Homosexuality, Abortion, Creationism. I’ll present my arguments and leave the floor open for comment.

A few ground rules, though… To have a rational conversation about the issues being presented you can’t simply cite scripture. The Bible is an excellent reference tool but open to interpretation and we are here to discuss issues not scripture interpretation. Try and keep your comments succinct. My arguments may seem long winded but I need to fill the screen and it’s sometimes necessary to needle people to get a response.