A meeting of the Minds - three People, two Minds...
There is a wonderful post at
PowerLine today.
Hindrocket (John Hinderaker) had read an
op-ed with the text of a speech from Bill Moyers. From the STrib/Moyers:
(use
bugmenot to get a user account)
bq.
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
bq. (excerpted)
bq. So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse
bq. As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election -- 231 legislators in total and more since the election -- are backed by the religious right.
bq. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.
And back to John at PowerLine:
bq. In support of his startling claim that the religious right is deliberately trying to despoil the environment, Moyers offered three bits of "evidence." One was the popularity of the "Left Behind" novels, which use the second coming of Jesus as a plot device. But Moyers offered not a shred of support for the proposition--dubious on its face--that these works of fiction have somehow influenced the Bush administration's environmental policies.
bq. The second bit of "evidence" offered by Moyers was, in a sense, even odder. He harkened back to the early 1980s, when James Watt was President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior. Moyers painted Watt as a harbinger -- sort of a John the Baptist, since we're talking theology -- of the "let's destroy the environment" movement. Here is what Moyers said about Watt:
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious.
bq. I read Moyers' piece after several readers pointed out to us how over-the-top it was. I knew that Moyers' claims about Watt couldn't possibly be true, for two reasons. First, the concept of stewardship is so fundamental to Christian theology that the claim is laughable on its face. Second, I remember the Reagan administration. James Watt was a controversial figure; but one thing he was not controversial for was advocating environmental pillaging, on the theory that Jesus would be back any day now. That would have been quite a news story in the early 1980s, had it been true.
bq. I did some quick Google searches without finding anything noteworthy; in particular, I couldn't find Mr. Watt's Congressional testimony online. I put the matter aside, not having time to pursue it further.
bq. Friday morning, I was sitting in my office when my telephone rang. On the phone was a soft-spoken man who said, "I'm calling for Mr. John Hinderaker."
bq. "Speaking," I responded, in the brusque tone I use when fielding cold calls.
bq. The man said, "My name is James Watt."
Go to PowerLine and
read the rest of this amazing conversation.
Moyer's quote of Watt is fallacious, Grist retracted it and what Watt was interested in was stewardship, not plunder.
John Hinderaker closes with this wonderful observation:
James Watt has written to Bill Moyers, asking him to apologize for the lies in his Star Tribune article. After quoting Moyers' statements about him, Watt wrote:
I have never thought, believed or said such words. Nor have I ever said anything similar to that thought which could be interpreted by a reasonable person to mean anything similar to the quote attributed to me.
Because you are at least average in intelligence and have a basic understanding of Christian beliefs, you know that no Christian would believe what you attributed to me.
Because you have had the privilege of serving in the White House under President Johnson, you know that no person believing such a thing would be qualified for a Presidential appointment, nor would he be confirmed by the United States Senate, and if confirmed and said such a thing would he be allowed to continue in service.
Since you must have known such a statement would not have been made and you refused or failed to do any primary research on this supposed quote, what was your motive in printing such a damnable lie?
Before the advent of the blogosphere, Bill Moyers--arrogant, rich, powerful and well-connected--would merely have thrown Mr. Watt's letter into the trash. Today, he may still do so. But he and his friends in the liberal media no longer have a monopoly on information, and those who have been defamed by them, like James Watt, now have the means to make their voices heard.
Posted by DaveH at February 7, 2005 12:31 AM