The Daily Gazelle http://dailygazelle.com/index.php en dwight@dailygazelle.com Copyright 2008 Pivot Pivot - 1.40.1: 'Dreadwind' Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:14:57 +0000 60 Christmas MeditationString Theory, Alternate Universes and Navels http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=107 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=107#comm “Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among people of his favour!”
(Luke 2:14)



This brief angelic chorus offers a glimpse of the universe in true perspective, when (in the words of one of Charles Wesley’s Christmas carols) ‘earth and heaven agree’. What we need to do is try to see it.

• GLORY AND PEACE

Firstly, some definitions. To begin with, think of ‘Glory’ (there will be a lot of capital letters in this story). Glory is the radiance of God, the visible presence. It is what holiness looks like.

‘The Highest’ is where God is. Wherever God is, is ‘the highest’. Or, in common terminology, heaven.

When things on earth are in accord, synchronised, with God’s heavenly Glory, that is ‘Peace’ (Shalom).

‘People of his Good Favour’ is a phrase which comes from Temple worship. When an offering is made to God, he is pleased, and God and Human are reconciled—at peace. People of his Good Favour are a pleasing offering.
This song is a statement of purpose. Peace is what God’s plan in Jesus the Messiah Emperor looks like. It is, in short, what we pray for when we say, ‘Thy will be done on earth as in heaven’.• HEAVEN IMPINGES ON EARTH

The stories surrounding the birth of Jesus are almost ‘magical’, with special stars, and exotic wise ones, and the frequent appearance of angels. In this part of the story, the skies are full of them—a myriad, a cohort, a throng, a heavenly army (if you will) of them. What is this about angels?

To start with, let’s try to visualise our cosmology. Everyone is used to the Three-Storey-Universe found in the Bible, with heaven ‘above’ and hell ‘below’. This view of the cosmos was held in common across the Ancient Near East. At our juncture of the space-time continuum, we might be better to read the story through the lens of quantum physics. String-theory offers concepts which seem straight out of science fiction—of time bending in on itself so that different times might just touch each other, and of alternative universes existing in each moment.* These offer rich imagery for updating our thinking about where God is. Since Christmas Eve forty years ago, when photos of Earth rising over the moon were broadcast to the world, showing ‘earth above’ for the first time, it has become anachronistic to think in terms of ‘heaven above’. But, in today’s terms, we might think of a door in time/space, of a wardrobe door, or of a ‘stargate’, that opens from our universe into another we call ‘heaven’.

With this in mind, let’s go back to creation: God speaks the universe into being (Genesis 1:1, and John 1:1: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’). He holds the universe together by his will—through Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:16-17: ‘…In him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.’).

In this spoken Universe, he placed a Garden for his particular creation, the Human. Here was a Place, a Space, where God-as-he-is met with the Human-as-they-are. Heaven and earth were in harmony; they came together. The Garden was the ‘omphalos’—if you will, the navel— of the universe where Heaven and Earth were connected (some call it the axis mundi).

With the Human rebellion, commonly called ‘sin’ or the ‘original sin’, the universe changed (in the imagery of J R R Tolkien, the seas were bent). The harmony of Heaven and Earth was broken, the Human was removed from the Garden; no longer is God’s will done on Earth as in Heaven. With the umbilical severed, the connection between them is now unseen.

The gulf is wide on the Human side. We cannot hear, we cannot see, as we did. God’s Glory is veiled. For God, however, Earth remains part of his Universe, the whole of which he continues to fill and which Christ holds together. He is not absent, and he is not silent.#
Indeed, within his creative will, he purposes to bring the Human back to himself. He does not do this by showing his Glory unveiled, or by brute force, but through relationships. He meets with particular Humans. Oddly, as far as most of Humanity sees it, he chooses to reveal what his will is through a particular People, who are called Israel. He is amazingly patient in rebuilding his relationships; he starts with one man, Abraham, allowing time for Humans to get used to the idea of God-in-our-midst. He brings Abraham’s family through great crises to a Place/Space where he reveals how Humanity is to live in peace—by placing himself at the centre, the Tabernacle, the new Omphalos. There he is seen by means of his Glory, in light and cloud. He shows his People how to live with his Glory at their heart and soul. We call it the Law of Moses; it is really a model for Peace.

This is not the whole of his purposed relationship, however. The model, the map, is a revelation of the true Universe. But it is so contrary to the Earth that the Human has moulded in the crude attempt at playing god that Human eyes cannot see it, cannot comprehend; they resist its purity, they shove its Glory to the periphery; but they cannot overcome it.

Into this little world of the little Human, at the right Time, in the right Place, God finally shows his true Glory.

• Angels
Here we come back to the angels. Throughout this story, Heaven has been visible through the means of God’s Holy Place/Space among his particular people. Sadly, the People repeatedly choose to worship the Place, rather than the Holy One in the Midst.

It is not that God was limited to the Place. But that Place was limited by the People. In many times and many ways God opened the gate between Heaven and Earth to speak—for example, through his prophets—so the Human would know him. Time and again the Humans kept their ears closed, and their eyes shut.

And so, he sent his Son. The extra angel activity is the sign of the bringing together of Heaven and Earth. And, ultimately, Heaven breaks through to some shepherds in Judea—a backwater portion of a backwater country on the edge of the Human Universe. One night it became the Centre of the Universe.

So, listen to what they sing. The Glory of God is joined to the Earth to bring Peace. This Glory can be seen in a stable. The Christ Child is the Omphalos.

Here is where the wondrous acts of God are seen (on a scale previously seen only at the exodus). This is the visible reality of God; this is no less than God’s will being done on Earth as in Heaven.
The Universe is changed forever. This is Peace.


* Apologies to serious scientists for this grossly simplistic portrayal of the theory. ]]> 107@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:53:00 -0000 On the Doorstep Second Round http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=106 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=106#comm


Blood on the Door



Violence came to my doorstep, again. This time I met the victim.

I was just turning off the computer for the night, a little after midnight, when I noticed that the security light at the front door was on. Looking out the upper floor window I could not see anyone, so assumed a passing cat had set off the light. Then the door-bell rang, twice.

The windows looking out on the porch are occluded glass (I think the American term is ‘frosted’), so I could only make out a blurry outline of someone standing at the door. I called out, ‘Who is it, and what do you want?’, in a tone meant to convey suspicion and distrust. The response was, ‘I’m injured, and need some help.’

I looked carefully, to see if there was more than one person, in case it was a set-up. But, the tone of voice sounded convincing enough. I opened the door. A man stood there with bloody hands.

The story I heard in the next few minutes was this: he was walking home from his girl-friend’s house when three black men started chasing him. He finally got away by climbing over a wall just opposite our house—but the wall had barbed wire at the top. Thus, his hands were injured.

I got him in my car, and took him to A&E (ER), just five minutes’ away. It was the simplest thing to do. And, I was home and in bed within fifteen minutes of hearing the doorbell ring.

If you look closely at the picture above, you can see his blood on the door. Not a lot, though. The young man will recover quickly. I lost no sleep.

Ours is a violent world. News reports offer ample evidence every day of this fact. Terrorist acts are common occurrence in some parts; internal war is waged in many parts. For middle-class Westerners like me, this news is part of the morning rituals, alongside the mug of coffee and a flick through the on-line newspapers. The violence happens. I pour another cupful of coffee.

Seldom does it come to our neighbourhoods; certainly not our own doorsteps. Not even 9/11 happened near me.

But, my friend Leo, from the Congo, hears the news stories differently than I do. Violence came to his door one night, and he jumped out a back window to escape it, and ended up in my city, and my church. The tiny streak of blood on my door is nothing in comparison; the pounding came to his family’s door another time, and his wife had to flee for her life. His parents and child still await a time when he can return home, still fear the pounding on the front door.

It seems we do not really sit up and take notice until the blood is at our own door. ]]> 106@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:23:00 -0000 What stories a nation tells… http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=105 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=105#comm


Two stories in this week’s news sparked insight into a subject the Editor has been working on in his Day Job as a teacher of Old Testament, which then sparked thoughts on a subject which has appeared in the Gazelle. The common thread is: the stories nations tell about themselves.

Neither story was ‘new’ news. The first comes from the extreme west of China. Over the course of the past centuryfrozen mummies have been discovered in the far east, along the border with Mongolia, which tell a story that contradicts the Chinese national narrative. The Chinese story is that this part of the world has always been Chinese. However, these mummies are Caucasoid, and come from a time-period that both precedes the Chinese, and continues into the period the Chinese claim as theirs.

The second story comes from Turkey. This relates the context of the murder of writer Hrant Dink. Dink, an Armenian Turk, had written about the expulsion of Armenians from Turkey in 1915, accompanied by the deaths of thousands.

The official Turkish narrative is that no such thing ever happened. The Armenian story is that hundreds of thousands died. Dink was murdered because he broke the rules by telling the story.

What is interesting about these stories is the dissonance between the official narrative and uncomfortable facts ‘on the ground’. In the case of China, the facts are not likely to change the story—the Tarim basin of Xinjiang, and the nine million Uighur people are in a cold and remote part of the world that no one else cares about. The Armenian massacres took place in the midst of the First World War when the attention of the world was bogged down in the trenches of Europe. The subject never made front page news then, and finally became submerged under the weight of the horrific genocide of Jews in the Second World War, and the ‘lesser’ ethnic cleansings of the 1990s.While reading these stories I happened to be working on my class notes on the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible stories of Joshua and Judges. Few have read these books, but most are at least dimly aware disturbing accounts of violence somewhere in the Bible: the destruction of men, women, children and animals in Jericho, and the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanite peoples from ‘The Land’ that God was giving the children of Israel.

These are part of the national narrative of the biblical people of Israel, and are part of the Christian narrative. They present a problem in the apparent command by God to massacre thousands of people in the name of religion. They are the first line of offense/offence for non-believers (see articles on militant atheism). The problem has to be acknowledged by Jew and Christian; and, any answer has to be credible to a post-Christian world. What kind of God would demand such a thing? And, what kind of people would fulfil it?

[Any answer to this tells as much, if not more, about the interpreter as it does about God. This interpreter is keenly aware of this. What is offered here is not so much ‘an answer’ to these questions as a factor for consideration.]

What is common to the two news stories is the denial of facts that are contrary to the official narrative. This is the nature of official histories; that which is not congenial to the present authority, or might threaten the legitimacy of the present authority, is excised and ignored or interpreted in favour of the ruling narrative. As has been said (Winston Churchill, perhaps?), ‘History is written by the victors’.

The question that arises with regard to the biblical story is, why would anyone keep such a narrative in their history? Evidence within Jewish interpretation indicates this troubled Jews from a very early period: Philo of Alexandria, in the 1st Century CE, sought to spiritualise the narrative in order to remove the offence.

The biblical story of Israel’s history acknowledges the violence at its origins as a nation. It acknowledges that they were migrants to the land; that they came from a ragged mixture of slaves from Egypt; that they were very poor at getting along with each other; and, ultimately, their own failures led to their loss of home and land (all found in the ongoing story following the Book of Joshua, in Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings).

It is not a flattering national narrative. But, it is there—warts and all. Unlike China and Turkey (who serve only as examples, not as sole cases), Israel does not white-wash its past, but acknowledges it. And wrestles with it. In the end, the biblical narrative must be judged by how it deals with its past, rather than that past in itself. The same is true of any nationalist narrative.

We will not pursue the problem of the biblical narrative further than this. My interpretation of the evidence is that Israel did not massacre the inhabitants of the land. While this view provides mitigating circumstances in judging the story, it does not resolve the moral problem of the expectation from God that they do so. But, discussion of this will have to wait for another time.


The juxtaposition of the two news stories with the biblical narrative does, however, shed some light on another narrative: the American story as presented in the recent election campaign.

We have remarked in the Gazelle on the attempt by the Republican campaign to claim their narrative as the only true view of America. Theirs was the story of ‘real America’, with the clear implication that those who believed otherwise were not true American. This was an exclusive narrative.

The content of the story was not clear. It included ‘traditional values’, small-town life, was opposed to the educated and political ‘elite’, and put ‘America First’ before all other loyalties. The historical context, however, was vague. As a child of conservative American politics, I think I can trace the story. It begins with the Pilgrims arriving on the Mayflower to establish freedom of religion; it goes on through the Revolutionary War to establish the principles of freedom and democracy, to Abraham Lincoln and the emancipation of the slaves; little is said of the second half of the 19th Century, but the rise of American power through victory in two world wars leads to just role of ‘leaders of the free world’.

It is a narrative that has been uneasy with facts that diminish the light of democracy. In that post Civil War period is the dark story of Reconstruction which institutionalised racism against former slaves, and the inexorable diminution of the Native American peoples into ‘reservations’. The official narrative does not know what to do with these facts. They cannot be hidden, so are told; but the telling does not suggest that they are part of the national story—they are things that took place that have little to do with those of us who read the stories.

Then, this year, a representative of the alternative narrative ran for President. And America had to face the story and decide what to do with it. The result remains to be seen. A majority of voters decided it was time to acknowledge one part of its dark narrative, and put it in the past. A large minority chose to stay with the official narrative.


Well, that is another narrative, and over-simplifies the complexities of this election. But, who will write the history books now?

How do we deal with the difficult parts of our past? ]]> 105@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:41:00 -0000 Life is like this… http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=104 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=104#comm



The election is history. People seem to be struggling to move on in life. There is so little to talk about now!

The Editor has not yet offered his post-election analysis. That reflection will come, eventually. But not yet. Because life goes on. Here is what life is like here lately…

Today provided the sort of variety that makes life interesting (not including starting the day off by dropping my wife off at the hospital to have her hand x-rayed). The morning consisted of succeeding appointments to discuss: environmental ethics from the perspective of African creation stories; the problem of interpretation of the holy war motif in the book of Joshua—the command to ‘smite’ all the people of Canaan; barrenness in a society which views infertility as a curse; and how a church can offer a sense of community in a transient society (and why national and city governments, with all their money, cannot).

For an after lunch treat, a seminar on imitation in Greco-Roman literature.

That was just today.

Over the past week there have been other demands for attention. A visit to a church member serving life in prison for murder; putting on a comedy sketch for the church party, celebrating 119 years of life in Manchester; an afternoon with one of my oldest and dearest friends, catching up on the last couple years since we saw each other; listening to a genome scientist explain what his mapping of bits of DNA has discovered; learning from a Nigerian about persecution of fellow Christians in the north of his country, and how church leaders work with Muslim leaders to bring an end to it; following discussion by local church leaders on plans for change in the church structures to ‘empower’ the local churches in working together.

All of this is besides the regular teaching subjects. One cannot complain of a dull routine.

And, there has been little time to worry about Obama. ]]> 104@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:31:00 -0000 A Farther Appeal to Evangelicals of Reason Election Reflection 2 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=103 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=103#comm
Since the term ‘apocalyptic’, and the worldview based on it, is derived from the Bible, this article will consider the contrasting world-views of the candidates from a biblical-theological perspective.

• Desire for change.

Firstly, a word about Barack Obama’s slogan, which has caught the mood of a large part of the nation, particularly those who have not been involved in elections before. ‘Change we can believe it.’ It is one thing to promise change; it is another to deliver. The Editor is not among those in the US or around the world who believe Obama will be the saviour of humankind. He is a politician who will live within the strictures of his time and place in history. Some perspective can be gained from similar, though less hysterical, expectations of the New Labour campaign of 1997.

Tony Blair caught the same sort of mood on his first election. There was great relief to see the end of the Tory era, and ‘change’ was the promise New Labour made. There was much good will in the first years to allow real change to take place. But, it did not come. The mood shifted sharply against Blair when he got the country involved in Iraq, which then drew attention to the lack of real change in other areas. He had promised much, and delivered only minor change—except in terms of war. And now even the prosperity of his decade is being re-evaluated in light of the financial crash of the past months.

Slogans are difficult to translate into policies. Should he win on Tuesday, Obama will face the task of putting detail to what he means by change.

• ‘Country First’

Turning to the Republican slogan we enter a different worldview. ‘Country First’ can only be seen as a negative statement—the Democrats do not put their country first; they are not ‘real Americans’. It is a remarkable platform to run on: true Americans all vote Republican; all others are…what? Un-American? Non-American? Aliens? Traitors?The unspoken reference is to the question of Obama’s origins—how can someone with a name like that be an American? (Better an unmistakably patriotic name like ‘Joe Six-Pack’, or ‘Track’). How can someone who has lived outside of the US be a true American…?

George W Bush succeeded amazingly well in equating support for his war on terrorism with patriotism, so that opposition came to be seen as sedition and betrayal of the country. The Republican party has masterfully persuaded evangelical Christians to equate this same patriotism with God and Christ, to the point where fundamentalists actually believe that Christian and Republican values are identical.

I saw an interview of a Colorado Republican who stated, ‘I’m an American first, then a Christian.’ Perhaps many fundamentalists would be shy of saying this outright, but practice indicates it to be the norm. Here is a striking contradiction: while fundamentalists have a very high view of the authority of the Bible as the revealed word of God, their politics derive more from the Republican party than Scripture. Christian Scripture says ‘You shall have no other gods before me’, ‘no one can serve two masters, you must hate the one and love the other’, and ‘seek first His kingdom and righteousness…’; and the great command is to ‘love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength’. The apostle, Paul, put it bluntly, 'Our citizenship is in heaven'--and he didn't mean 'up in the clouds in some future time'. Each of these clashes with a ‘Country First’ mentality. Fundamentalists have ‘bought in’ to Republican values at the expense of kingdom of God values. They have been compromised by their culture, and by very clever politicians.

• Apocalyptic Voting and the Politics of Fear

The Apocalyptic worldview reads the last book of the Christian Bible as a blueprint for history, in which evil is seen to overwhelm the good in the last days to such an extent that the only possible result is God’s judgement. The term Armageddon, for the last battle, is seen as the moment when Christ returns in war to destroy all evil, which means everyone who is not a Christian. All are killed, and come to judgement of eternal damnation in a burning pit; the earth is destroyed. Christ then creates a new heaven and earth, and everyone who made a profession of Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour during their lifetime, first having been zapped off the planet just before the big war, will live happily ever-after in eternal light and singing of praise and worship songs.

This is fine, as long is it remains within the covers of fictional books of the Left Behind series. It becomes toxic when the real world is interpreted in keeping with this belief. With it comes a Manichaean dualism, in which everyone is judged in clear terms of black and white, good and evil. For fundamentalists, identification of the Republican with the Christian viewpoint ultimately declares all other views as evil and demonic. JDobson has become the sad caricature of this.

This is a worldview based on fear and suspicion. And the Republican campaign has been based on this. McCain talks constantly of ‘our enemies’, and how a vote for Obama will bring satisfaction to ‘our enemies’. It is all about ‘us vs them’.
As a Christian who believes that the message of Jesus Christ is good news (the meaning of the word ‘gospel’), I cannot recognise this as the centre of the gospel. This interpretation is a modern abuse of the Book of Revelation (not ‘revelations’ as so many fundamentalists call it; they need to read their Bibles more carefully). There is one revelation—that of Jesus Christ as Lord, the lamb that was slain.

Socialism, or Christianity?

The Fundamentalist worldview, then, is based on the book of Revelation. Black American (if I may use the term) Christian experience of being second-class citizens has tended to read the Bible through the 8th Century Hebrew prophets—with its emphasis on justice for the poor and oppressed. White, middle-class Republican fundamentalism does not, and chooses not to, grasp the reality of what racism has done to American society. The facts of life in the inner cities of the land, such as Chicago and Washington DC, tell a different story to what is ‘real America’. It is from the bottom looking up. That is where Jeremiah Wright started, and has served in ministry. And the black Barack Obama starts there, too, whether he was born there or not. It is in this light that Obama’s supposed ‘socialism’ must be interpreted. Reading the Washington Times, I was struck by how much what Obama said sounds like he has read his Bible, rather than Marx. The idea that of those to whom much has been given, much is expected; that we share out of our own bounty, is basic to Christian values. In terms of social justice: read through the Bible and see how often concern for the poor comes up in comparison to sexual ethics. I did it some time ago, and it changed my behaviour.

The fact is, both capitalism and socialism can trace their roots within Christianity—on the one hand, the Protestant work ethic led to valuing the market place and creation of wealth; on the other hand,, and the prophetic call for justice for the oppressed led to the call to ‘spread the wealth’. The two are not mutually exclusive, and only come to abuse when they are kept apart. Both derive from a worldview which believes the world can be made a better place within this lifetime—they look for God’s will to be done on earth as in heaven—not just in heaven.

There are two Christian worldviews on display in this election. One is pessimistic, seeing only one course for the future, and beyond that only destruction. The other is optimistic, believing that the grace of God can transform the present through the community of faith, the people of God living something like the communalism of Acts chapter two (any of you Republicans notice that chapter of the Bible?).

Having said all this, at the end of the day, the world will not end for either half of America on November 5. Nor will Paradise appear on American soil for the other half. Life will go on.
The next government will consist of fallen human beings, some of them professing Christians. In the next four years, some hopes will be realised, others will be disappointed; there will be political scandals, and blunders. Because life goes on. ]]> 103@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:36:00 -0000 An appeal to evangelicals of reason: Election Reflection 1 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=102 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=102#comm
The Gazelle Editor offers these reflections, from a distance, on the matter of Christian virtues and presidential candidates.

The first sentence of Mark Noll’s book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1995) reads: ‘The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of evangelical mind’ (according to the Amazon version; I am certain my copy—not at hand at the moment—reads ‘…there is no evangelical mind.’). The British media have always liked to look for the most outlandish stories in America for their documentaries, and so it is no surprise that over here we have been treated to large helpings of examples of evangelical Christian evidence which supports Noll’s observation. In search of balance, the Editor has searched the American websites—and has found ample evidence from evangelical sources, themselves, to verify this statement.

Of course, Mark Noll writes as an evangelical, and from a sympathetic evangelical perspective. But, hearing the truth from one of the family is hard to take. This article, like Noll’s work, is written with American evangelicals in mind, hoping to make contact with thinking people.

This headline should really read ‘an appeal to fundamentalists’, who make up the largest proportion of those who identify themselves as evangelical. In truth, they seem to think only they are the evangelicals. The Editor writes as a protesting evangelical, who is frankly embarrassed to admit to the designation due to fundamentalist extremism in politics and ethics.

Observations on how evangelicals vote.

The voting preferences of evangelicals/fundamentalists indicates that there is little correlation between profession of faith and ethics, and that conservative nationalist politics take priority over revealed truth. This article will focus on the first observation; the second will be discussed in a later article.

Before addressing ethics, it is useful to note that fundamentalists don’t automatically vote for fellow evangelicals: Jimmy Carter was the first professing born-again evangelical Christian to run for president, and get elected. Throughout his term of office he not only attended church regularly, but continued to teach a Sunday School class. Yet, he was vilified by Fundamentalists throughout his presidency, and rejected in favour of the nominal Episcopalian Ronald Reagan. All fundamentalists know that Episcopalians are wishy-washy liberals.

President George W Bush has been open about his faith, and makes frequent references to prayer and to God. Only a cynic would question his sincerity in this regard. This, and his continuation of the Republican promise to do away with abortion (without ever doing much about it) have endeared him to evangelicals. However sincere his personal faith may be, he seems to leave the teaching of Christ behind in his actions as president. The Gazelle has already gone on record concerning Bush’s record on torture and illegal ‘extraordinary’ rendition of prisoners, let alone the offensive war on Iraq on the basis of imaginary evidence. The names Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will be remembered by ‘our enemies’ (to use a favourite phrase of the Republican candidates) for a long time as the policies of a Christian leader.

In this election, the clearest statement of Christian faith has been articulated by Barack Obama. He is unashamed of his faith, and speaks of it frequently. On the other hand, John McCain has been reluctant over the years to talk about his faith. When he has, it has been in the most vague of terms, kept at a distance, and only as recent as his prison years [see links to interviews in Christianity Today]. His is American civil religion at its most basic. Yet, fundamentalists reject Obama’s profession of faith, instead readily believing the anonymous circular emails and blogs of questionable origin that say that he is Muslim. And they don’t even bother to question the source of these libellous rumours before forwarding them to all their friends.

On the other, other hand, fundamentalists who were troubled by McCain’s tentative links to conservatism breathed a collective sigh of relief at the nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice-President. She immediately became America’s Queen Esther, ‘come to the nation for just such a time as this’ (Esther 4:14; the ‘time such as this’ was the planned slaughter of all the Jews in the Persian empire. The only parallel between Palin and Esther that I can discern is that both were beauty contestants at some time). What Christian can fail to vote for a born-again Christian? [Um. See reference to Jimmy Carter above…] Whereas nothing Obama says about his faith can be accepted, no criticism of Palin’s Christian faith can be viewed as other than an attack on all Christians by secular, and godless anti-Americans.

As a Christian and an evangelical with a mind, I find there are serious questions to ask about Sarah Palin’s faith. Here is where there appears to be a disconnection between professed faith and ethics. The most significant and damning instance of this is found in the response to the report on her alleged abuse of power as governor in pursuit of a vendetta against her sister’s ex-husband. The independent investigation (accepted by Palin in advance of the report) found that Palin did nothing illegal. This result should be accepted. However, the panel also concluded that, whereas no law had been broken, her actions were unethical. What was Christian Sarah Palin’s response? ‘I have been fully vindicated.’

Fellow Christians, this is the question: Can a follower of Jesus Christ consider the finding of a failure of ethics to be a vindication?

It seems that Palin thinks anything is ethical as long as it is legal. Here is a disconnection between belief/faith and ethics.

It is surely not too much to look for a Christian candidate for highest office to act like a Christian when campaigning. It is certain that non-believers do. I am not so naïve as to think that Christian politicians do not compromise ideals at some time, nor that they have total control over what is done in their names. But there are examples in this campaign of higher standards: Obama has stayed largely above personal attacks; McCain has resisted pressure to attack Obama’s faith. Sarah Palin, however, has proudly attacked with what can only be described politely as innuendo bordering on libel. She knows as well as anyone in Republican central office that Obama neither supports terror nor is a terrorist. Yet, she draws on the anti-Muslim and Arab venom underlying the campaign by her accusation that Obama ‘palls around with terrorists’.
It is a lie, and she knows it.

What has been the result? Time and again we hear people saying they are afraid of Obama because he is a Muslim or Arab, with the implicit assumption that this equates with being, at the most, a terrorist, and at the least un-American. McCain rebuked one voter for saying it aloud, but it continues to be repeated as fact. The cry of ‘Kill him!’ in one McCain rally could only have happened in an atmosphere where extremists feel it is safe to voice such desires.

Palin has created this atmosphere. It is difficult to see what Sarah Palin’s faith in Jesus Christ has to do with her actions. A thinking evangelical will want to think about this.

There is a saying of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount, ‘By their fruits you will know them.’ I urge thinking evangelicals to look at the fruit of the candidates.

]]> 102@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:32:00 -0000 Reader Response 2 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=101 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=101#comm

I'm not very left-leaning in my politics (or economics) so whilst I admit I feel a slight sense of schadenfreude over the fate of some of the banks this week, I quite strongly disagree with those in the media making the assertion that socialism and nationalisation are the new way forward for the world. There's nothing new under the sun of course, but I also find myself out of step with a lot of fellow Christians who lean to the left as a result of their theological commitments.

Christianity shares a lot of common language with socialism (think: justice, equality, redistribution, no more exploitation etc) but even despite my misgivings over what it is exactly that these terms mean, I think it is accurate to say that socialist societies have an exceedingly poor track record in providing for their people for a great many number of reasons. I also think it is truthful and accurate to say that capitalism has far outstripped any other economic system in terms of its ability to improve the living standards of large numbers of people, both in terms of actual wealth and high-technology, and this is why I favour it even as the least worst of all economic systems.

Anyhow that's for another day. Here's my comment from The Gazelle:

I think that while some of the more foolish elements of the free-marketeering crowd got their comeuppance this week, I'm not so sure that socialism has any real answers to the problems caused by more rampant forms capitalism. In the short-term, state intervention and bail-out of financial institutions helps, but in the longer term the restrictions that socialism places on the creation of wealth with the intention of reducing inequality and making society fairer means that far less wealth is created in socialist economies but conversely the state needs to spend far more money. The end result is that socialist societies are invariably far less developed and more backward than capitalist ones, as was clear from the economic course of the twentieth century. Liberal democracies and markets trumped socialism and planned economies in every possible sense. It's terribly un-PC to admit it, but there is a plausible argument to suggest that capitalism has brought higher living standards to a higher number of people than any other economic system has even come close to.

I find difficult as a Christian who has less sympathy for socialism than most because the biblical imperatives to help the poor are far harder to implement in the real economic world than working on the assumption that capitalism is the bad guy and that socialism (in some form or another) is the answer. There is a real danger whereby in protesting against the principalities and powers of the market we find ourselves crying out to Caesar to end our woes.

The answer to Naomi Klein's question is also not so cut-and-dried. Morally it would be an amazing gesture to bail out consumer debts and to wipe out people's mortgages, but it would be economically suicidal. The US govt has bailed out banks with tax money on the assumption that these banks will once again be able to lend money to create wealth so that tax revenues will continue to be generated and the state will continue to be funded, but if instead the US govt decided to give the money to those in debt so they could pay off their homes, not only would the money immediately all go back to the banks anyway (since these are the ones to whom the mortgage is owed), but if the banks had not been bailed out and had collapsed, any individual or employer who had borrowed money from a bank to fund their business would immediately find themselves bankrupted and out of a job. Not only that, but if the banks collapsed and could no longer lend money to sustain the economy and create new wealth, tax revenues would also collapse and decimate the social services that the poorest rely on. Starkly speaking, it makes more economic sense to bail out banks (who make it possible to create further wealth) than to bail out those who owe money to the banks.

It's a very difficult issue theologically since we know what we ought to do in some general sense (e.g. help the poor and establish justice) but beyond practicing church-based altruism there are very few plausible economic ideas in the theological academy and difficult questions need to be asked although I'm certain that socialism is not going to be the answer.

It is easy to understand that my commentary might be read as an apologia for socialism. Read carefully, however, and you will notice that I do not propose socialism as the answer, nor suggest that I am a socialist. But, neither am I willing to brush off ‘biblical imperatives’ because they are difficult to implement. If they are imperatives, they cannot be ignored by a conscientious believer. (Of course, it would be necessary to discuss what a ‘biblical’ imperative is.)

I noticed in reporting on the US Senate questioning of the Dept of Treasury’s plan to nationalise the mortgage debt that at least one senator has similar concerns to Norma Klein’s. And, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York made comments last week that were not far from the Gazelle’s. We don’t mind being ‘altruistic Christians’ alongside these heavy-weights.

Knee-jerk reactions against the idea of socialism, however, do not go far towards asking hard questions. It is easy to understand that my commentary might be read as an apologia for socialism. Read carefully, however, and you will notice that I do not propose socialism as the answer, nor suggest that I am a socialist. But, neither am I willing to brush off ‘biblical imperatives’ because they are difficult to implement. If they are imperatives, they cannot be ignored by a conscientious believer. (Of course, it would be necessary to discuss what a ‘biblical’ imperative is.) I noticed in reporting on the US Senate questioning of the Dept of Treasury’s plan to nationalise the mortgage debt that at least one senator has similar concerns to Norma Klein’s. And, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York made comments last week that were not far from the Gazelle’s. We don’t mind being ‘altruistic Christians’ alongside these heavy-weights. Knee-jerk reactions against the idea of socialism, however, do not go far towards asking hard questions. (The Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘To grant that without a basis of some common prosperity and stability, no speculative market can long survive is not to argue for rigid Soviet-style centralised direction’). Just today I heard a US Congressman state that accepting the bailout plan now submitted to them is ‘the first step down the slippery slope of socialism’ (most slopes tend to be rather slippery in foul weather). The point of the previous article was to question this sort of ‘all or nothing’ condemnation of socialist concerns, as though to pass one bill of a socialist sort (and this really is not socialism—or the money would be going to the citizens rather than the banks) will inevitably result in full-blown communism.

Another reader who finds capitalism fine, thank you very much, sent this in by email:

I disagree with the doomsday outlook. The American system is capable of reform and does not necessarily need to choose between a European style socialism or imminent ruin. The government is terribly ineffective at administering most anything and should leave industry to the market and the people. The government is to provide the things which cannot be provided by the people (e.g., national security) and to provide oversight but not control of select other industries such as banking, education, healthcare. As a social service guy I can tell you that dependence on the state for caring for the poor is the least effective answer to the problems in our communities. That said, I appreciate that living with Europe's socialized medicine, etc. may not be the horrific experience attributed to it by some.

Also, the article suggests that socialism is moral/godly while the American system runs counter to biblical principles. I would suggest that the judeo-christian cultural foundation of America is still unique and significant (though that is a battle in full wage) while Europe has become overtly secular. One of my contentions with the liberal movement in the US is that it includes a radical anti-christian element. Governor Palin was chastised recently in the media for being a conservative Christian and the commentator denounced the idea that any conservative Christian could possibly adhere to the separation of church and state and should not be allowed to run for office. As if a secularist could balance their values and their commission but the Christian could not. Patently offensive.

You suggest that the terms socialism/communism are nasty in America but I can tell you that amongst the liberal left there is vehement hatred for the conservative Christian. Your conception of the American media as cronies for the right could not be further from the truth. I understand your disdain for Murdock and Fox News but c'mon! They are but one outlet to counter the preponderence of thinly veiled liberal honks on the network channels, at CNN, and don't get me started on MSNBC. You can not honestly think that Democrats do not receive an unmitigated pass on issues and practical advocacy from the American mainstream media.



It appears the Gazelle article pushed all the right buttons! And, as for doomsday outlooks, the past two weeks put the Gazelle in company with a fair number of others. For now, beyond noting the impression shared by the previous commenter that the article was a call to socialism, comment here will be limited to two notes.

First is the shift to moral categories, interpreting the Gazelle article in terms of a godly/ungodly bipolarity. The article was an attempt to get beyond the ideologies of capitalism and socialism, and to move to a biblical perspective. If capitalism compared unfavourably to readers…

But it is a great leap in reasoning to link European social democracy causally with secularism (meaning the decline of Christian influence). American dualist categories cannot be translated straight across to Europe; America does not have the memory of the devastation of war and occupation that Europe has.

Secondly, the story of a ‘radical anti-christian element’ of liberal America seems to be well-balanced by a rather strong anti-liberal element among conservative Americans. The polarisation of American society, with a nearly precise 50/50 split between liberal and conservative, has become deeply entrenched, and is becoming self-destructive (consider the shouts of ‘Terrorist!’ and ‘Kill him!’ against Obama in recent Republican rallies!).

This is only emphasised by the discussion of the role of the media. If I did not preface my reference to the media who inflate the weaknesses of the National Health Service with the qualifier ‘conservative’, it could surely be understood. Conservatives listen only to conservative media; liberals only to liberal media. So, there are two nations that do not meet without hatred. Is it any wonder the Gazelle looks across the Atlantic with some gloom?

Since these responses came to the Gazelle there has been some posted discussion. It is interesting that ‘Scott’ brings up Democrat policies. The Gazelle is not an apologist for the American Democratic party, and invoked no political party or policy. It would seem that American ‘conservatives’ are so finely tuned to perceived ‘liberal’ tendencies that they immediately read their own political concerns into the Gazelle’s discussion. The Gazelle editor is no more Democrat than Republican. He has, however, been strongly influenced by the 8th Century (BC) Hebrew prophets. Try reading Amos with the past few weeks in mind.

American evangelicals might be surprised to learn that, historically, British evangelicals have been on the radical ‘left’ in contrast to conservative landed interests. Indeed, there is a very respectable Christian Socialist Movement. The Gazelle, nevertheless, has not joined this movement, because of its close relation to one political party.

Christ cannot be contained by any political party. ]]> 101@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:24:00 -0000 McCain and Obama as Christians: Evangelical Interviews http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=100 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=100#comm



Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine, offers what is possibly the most balanced presentation to be found of the presidential candidates’ Christian backgrounds and beliefs. They can be found here (in alphabetical order):

John McCain

Barack Obama

Promise that you will read them both. ]]> 100@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:48:00 -0000 Praying Bankers; an Evolutionary Utopia http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=99 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=99#comm
• ‘Globalisation’ has been a buzz-word for well over a decade now. Free Marketeers invoke it as a good thing; local non-Western economies have trembled at its name; arguably, this—rather than religion—is the cause of 9/11. Multi-national corporations, in America, Europe and Australasia, have been able to function beyond any national government by moving their money and jobs wherever they think fit and where they will pay the least taxes.

Is it not interesting (a loaded term) that it is these same helpless governments and the working people who actually have paid their taxes who now have no option but to save their skin?

When the dust finally settles from this grave crisis, the same governments must continue to work together to reign in these businesses who see themselves as beyond accountability to real people.

• At least it has brought finance people back to prayer.


[http://www.telegraph.co.uk]



• All the British media gave significant attention yesterday to a University College London Professor of Genetics Steve Jones announcement that human evolution is complete [sticking with the Daily Telegraph]. In Jones’ words, ‘If you are worried about what Utopia is going to be like, cheer up – you are living in it now’.



Isn’t this wonderful news? This is as good as it gets! Hitchens and Dawkins should be encouraged to know that humanity has reached the apogee of its violent capabilities and peak of its inventiveness for economic chaos.

Not only that, but Utopian bankers turn to prayer! ]]> 99@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:55:00 -0000 Reader Response As the Sky Falls Around Us http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=98 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=98#comm
The article ‘The Rise of American Socialism’ has attracted a record number of readers, and a number of responses came by means other than the ‘comment’ section. For the edification of all readers, the Gazelle offers a glimpse of these responses.

A Russian reader points out another link between the US Republicans and socialism Russian style:



Corporate America on a mission! Interesting times to have money in property.

Another reader responded (rather tardily) to the article ‘The Management Delusion’ (See January 3, 2008) to observe that a Christian denomination of his acquaintance has completed construction of its new world headquarters, now called ‘Global Mission Center’. Hmmm. That rings a bell.



Corporate Christian America on a mission! Great time to get into the property market... ]]> 98@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:12:00 -0000 ‘Why do they hate us?’ Do we really want to know? http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=97 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=97#comm



Many Americans asked this question after ‘9/11’. The President of the US was among them. Within weeks the President , at least, decided he knew the answer: ‘They hate our freedom and our democracy’. (We knew who ‘we’ were; but, who were ‘they’?) The answer to such hatred was…bomb them out of existence or stick them in a prison from which they will never see the light of day. If they hate freedom and democracy, well then, we just won’t give it to them!

Few people seem to have asked the source of the President’s new certainty. Did he have the CIA phone Bin Laden, posing as Gallup pollsters?

This is the scene, deep in his cave in the mountains of Pakistan. Bin Laden answers his mobile phone: ‘This is the a global poll on the reasons for the destruction of the World Trade Center. Is this Mr Been Laid? Would you mind responding to a few (well, at least one) questions for us? Here is the first (only) one: Why do you think they hate us? Because of our democracy? Because of our freedom? Please answer yes or yes.’ Thinking it must be an Indian call centre (the giveaway is the inability to pronounce his name), Bin Laden hangs up just before a cruise missile hits the cave next door. The CIA agent shrugs his shoulders, and tells his line-manager, ‘I take that as a yes’.

No, this seems a bit far-fetched even for the CIA.

But, that answer continues to be accepted by a large portion of the American public. Now, however, for those who would like to hear a suggested reason from a real, live Muslim (not a member or affiliate of Al Qaeda, thus offering a quiet and calm case) in the shape of a short but powerful little novel, The Reluctant Fundamentalist,link by Mohsin Hamid. The Editor took this along for holiday reading, and would have finished it the first day if not for the desire to spread it out longer.

This is recommended reading for anyone who wants an insight into what the response to ‘9/11’ did to many Muslims who were previously favourable to the US and its values. Of significance is that religion is not even a factor in this book. What is a factor is…well, read it and find out.

It is interesting to consider, on reflection, that ‘we’ managed to do in these past two weeks what the ‘they’, the ‘9/11’ terrorists, hoped but failed to do. ]]> 97@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:06:00 -0000 The Rise of American Socialism Economic Meltdown http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=96 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=96#comm



There was a man in the first church of which I was pastor who liked to cite the proverb, ‘The Lord helps those who help themselves’. This was in the sparsely populated part of the state of Colorado known as the ‘Western Slope’, in a small town in which its every inhabitant defined the term ‘rugged American individualism’. I hadn’t been there very long, and was trying to adjust to the great distances we had to travel to find basic amenities, when I met an ancient cowboy during a hospital visit who told me he thought it was time to be moving on. ‘Its getting too crowded around here’, he said. Freedom, for him, was large open spaces between him and other people. That’s the West.

And, that proverb epitomises the creed of the West. Most who cite it undoubtedly think it can be found in the Bible. (Which, in case you are wondering, it cannot.)

Westerners also know that socialism is bad. It is difficult to find a dirtier word in the vocabulary than ‘socialism’, other than ‘communism’. But, since they both stand for the same thing, they are about equally egregiously nasty (sorry, I just like the word and have to find ways to use it). Whenever my wife and I mention how glad we are for the National Health Service in Britain, even with its difficulties, the response is, ‘But socialised medicine is…’, and they go into the horror stories of waiting lines that they are fed by the American media and politicians. A relative of ours has no health insurance for his family, because it would take over half his salary, and he would still have to pay $1000 deductible. But, he was horrified at the thought of ‘socialised medicine’. So, his family lives in fear of a medical emergency, whereas when our daughter needed an important heart procedure we had no worries.These two stories came to mind this week as the banking system collapsed. In the first place, finance bankers who lived the Western creed, ‘The Lord helps those…’ have learned where self-interest ultimately leads. In the second instance, none other than the cowboy boot wearing Republican President of the United States ‘nationalised’ several banks and an insurance company. Over here that is known as ‘socialism’! But, this is socialism with a capitalist twist—in this case ‘the people’ join their resources to help the ‘poor’ bankers who so recklessly threw their good money after bad money.

It is not difficult to condemn the excesses of Wall Street as greed. The world’s financial system is based on self-interest (also known as the free market), where the object is to make as much money as possible for oneself. Self-interest can lead fairly easily to greed. It should not be surprising that, in an environment that rewards people for making more money, people will do anything for such reward! How can people be faulted for doing what they are trained to do, and do it well? The housing crisis brings to mind the words of the prophet Isaiah, ‘Woe to you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you…!’ (Isa 5:8). The problem of unrestrained market forces is not a new one! And neither is the condemnation! Nor, the solution.
Theologically, ‘self-interest’ is the basic definition of ‘sin’. Those who live for themselves cause harm to other people (when I win, you lose), and ultimately to themselves. Is it not odd that the world’s financial system is based on such a premise? And that Christians will vote to sustain its abuses?

Now that America has embraced socialism of the financial community, it might be useful for Americans to ask why an arch-free marketer would use socialist tactics. Might it be because a world of ‘rugged individualists’ renders community concern helpless? When the ‘God helps those who help themselves’ mentality reigns, the rich get richer, and the non-rich become poor. On the other hand, the prominent prophetic call to assure justice for the ‘widow and orphan’, and ‘the poor in the land’, calls for communities to take care of the casualties of the system.

Socialism arose as a political movement in response to the unbridled capitalism of the Industrial Revolution, where a few became obscenely wealthy at the expense of the workers who created the wealth by their labour. As a result of the communist threat to Western democracies, the whole of western Europe adopted some form of socialism, undercutting the seed-bed of revolution. The USA, alone, has remained reactionary, offering only pale copies of European social insurance; i.e., Medicare/Medicaid, which takes only the worst aspects of socialised medicine.

If it were possible to set aside the freighted political terminology these concepts raise, and to lay aside the un-Christian notion that God helps only those who are self-sufficient (what, after all, is the meaning of grace than God’s assistance to the helpless?), and to listen to the words of Jesus in his last message to his disciples, we might see a way out of an economics based on greed.
On the last day, Jesus says, the King will come and say to his own, ‘I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ His people will ask when they did this, and the King will answer, ‘As often as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me.’

Might Jesus add, today, ‘I lost my home, and you gave me shelter.’?

Sadly, the new American socialism is not this sort of care for the ‘least of these’. In this version, the ‘least’ are giving aid to the ‘greatest’. Naomi Klein asked a question this week which seems to me to point in the direction of Jesus’ judgement day question (why does it take a 'liberal' to ask such questions?). She asks, ‘If the state can intervene to save corporations that took reckless risks in the housing markets, why can’t it intervene to prevent millions of Americans from imminent foreclosures?’

Indeed. Why not? ]]> 96@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:52:00 -0000 Snail Love http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=95 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=95#comm


Amazing Colour



This lovely couple got together on the morning of my daughter's wedding. Love was in the air.

Normally when I find a snail in my garden I either step on it, or throw to the next-door neighbour's garden. These were saved through the fact that they seemed to be joining in the joy of the love in the air. It was only after looking at the picture that I discovered the remarkable beauty of their shells, and the stark diversity of their design. ]]> 95@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:22:00 -0000 Russia, Bad; Georgia, Good Repeat Until Convinced http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=93 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=93#comm so it seems)

It was only the next day that scenes of Russian advances into South Ossetia were seen, followed by scenes of their advances into Georgia, smoke rising over the town of Gori.

Smoke rising over civilian populations is never a reassuring sight.



It was only at this point of the reporting that the Georgian president introduced the explanation that he was responding to a Russian advance. Something seemed a little fishy about this to the Editor.The Gazelle would have ignored this story had it not been for the input of Russians of close acquaintance. One, with whom the Editor has traded ironic barbs over the American interest in Iraq, as well as American missionary efforts in Russia (in which we have too often been of like mind), not to mention the new-found nationalism of Russian Orthodoxy and Putin, helped put things in a certain perspective. He mentioned something that was little reported at the time that the West supported the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. Putin had drawn a clear parallel then to the claims of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thus warning the US and Europe of the potential consequences of the decision. A second Russian spoke of her anguish on seeing the negative coverage of Russia on TV. She has studied in the US, and is unquestionably positive towards the West, but was personally shocked to discover how quickly Russia was vilified. It was felt personally.

Both of these people are representative of how deeply integrated Russians have become into the rest of the world since 1992. As such, they are reminders that old Cold War concepts have to be discarded in order to understand what is going on here, and on how to respond.

With the addition of this perspective, Bush’s hard-talk in the following days rang even more hollow than usual. How can the invader-of-smaller-countries-on-contrived-issues speak with moral authority in such a situation? How, indeed, can the president over-stretched in two hot wars be taken seriously when he warns Russia of ‘serious consequences’?
Thus it was with some surprise that the Editor, following an extensive review of American on-line coverage of the story, discovered a universal American condemnation of Russia. Even editorial cartoonists showed no difference between left and right of the political spectrum. All portrayed Russia as a ravenous bear consuming the poor little country. Enlightenment on this phenomenon came, in part, from a little article in the Guardian—with a report of the PR campaign by Georgian president Saakashvili (at a cost of 500,000 euros) to bring America on to his side.

My Russian source informed me, to my further surprise, that John McCain has been very close to the Georgian president from the days of the ‘Revolution of Roses’, and his chief foreign policy advisor has been a key player in American policy in Georgia. Further investigation shows this advisor to be a paid consultant to the government of Georgia. No surprise, then, to hear McCain pronounce so movingly, ‘Today, we are all Georgians’.

Well, it would appear McCain is.

It should alarm Americans to learn that the air-time given by the major suppliers of news has been gained through the efforts of a public relations company, rather than through journalistic investigation! Why are the journalists not asking hard questions? Whose interests are they assisting?

Today we learn that McCain’s hard stance on the crisis has been a benefit at the polls. Given his invested interest in Georgia, and his Neo-Con advisors on the ground there, the questions have to be asked, ‘Who benefits from this crisis?’, and ‘Who wants McCain to be president?’

My Russian correspondent thinks Putin would be quite happy. ]]> 93@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:46:00 -0000 The Occasional 136 A Deep Satisfaction http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=92 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=92#comm



After Whirlwind Rachel



J R R Tolkien noted, somewhere in his essay On Faery Stories (an article that people who want to produce films of Tolkien’s works should read before filming), that happy stories are soon told. He proved it to himself (at least) when he tried to start writing a continuation of The Lord of the Rings story. His attempt, titled ‘The New Shadow’, picks up some 105 years after the downfall of Sauron, with a new Evil already rising, but disappears down a dark path after just a few pages (see The Peoples of Middle-Earth, Volume 12 of ‘The History of Middle Earth’ edited by Christopher Tolkien). Happiness cannot last long, according to Tolkien’s Augustinian anthropology, and there is not much to tell about it beyond the most unrealistic ‘They lived happily ever after’.

I note this simply to mention to readers that the main reason little has appeared here recently is due to this factor: happy stories are soon told. (Which makes a pleasant change from depression as a cause…)

The happy story? My youngest, my daughter, has married. The day was wholly a joy, from the last minute crises of the morning before the ceremony, to the intimate service, to the last dance by the radiant bride.

And it brought together our children and grandchildren for ten days. As a Trans-Atlantic grandfather, it is difficult to find a joy greater than that of having a 3 year-old throw her arms around his legs, saying ‘Gra-a-and-pa!’; and having her say ‘Tighter’ as we hugged each other good-bye. And, we all sat together evenings, talking around the dinner table (usually the garden round-table, no matter the weather), simply enjoying being together.

And the Groom? He sang a love-song to his bride for his after-dinner speech. He sang of his love for my daughter. I have no doubt of it.

There is no ‘happily ever after’ in real life, if that means life without sorrow or difficulties. But, having just marked 36 years of marriage—going on 40 years of friendship—I can confirm that the deepening of love through difficulties and sorrow does mean there is long-lasting joy in committed love to one person.

May you have ‘joy-ever-after’, my young lovers! ]]> 92@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ default Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:31:00 -0000 On my own doorstep The Latest in Crime http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=90 http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/entry.php?id=90#comm



Hardly a day goes by now without news of knife crime. So far this year 16 teenagers have been murdered by knife-wielding youths in London alone. The level of concern this registers is evidenced by the thousands who turned out for a march against knife killings just yesterday. Nowhere are knives more common, sadly, than Manchester.

Slashing out seems to have become the first response to differences of opinion. Showing a knife is certain to ‘gain respect’.

The police rang my doorbell yesterday. It seems that in the early hours of Saturday morning a young man was accosted by another with a knife on the street in front of our house. He was brought onto our property, and made to sit down on our porch steps—at knife-point. And robbed.

No injury. But, the latest crime-fad has found its way to our doorstep. While I was soundly asleep. Should I be afraid? Or, profoundly sad?

An ordinary doorstep. ]]> 90@http://dailygazelle.com/pivot/ linkdump Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:28:00 -0000