I was all set to write a hopefully cool post about "End Times" when leading End Times advocate Pat Robertson has to go and spoil it all by proclaiming that he he now believes in Global Warming!

Sheesh! Might this mean that the "End Times" aren't happening fast enough to suit his fancy? Or might be be hedging his bets in case something like too much peace screws up the End Times countdown?

I don't know. I can only speculate. I do know that it's now doubly frustrating to try to come to terms with End Times, because only yesterday I learned about photographer Jill Greenberg's artistic decision that a government takeover by Rapturists has so endangered the planet that children must be made to cry -- in the name of "End Times"! (Via Michelle Malkin.)

I kid you not.

Worse (for me) is that I have been trying to make sense out of Ms. Greenberg's linkage between the Rapture and making children cry, and it isn't easy. It's almost impossible, and I might need help from other bloggers who devote more attention to detail than I do. Because, no matter how nitpicky I might force myself to be, now matter how many times I look at the Paul Kopeiking Gallery's description of the "End Times" show, I can't figure out what's going on. As best I can determine, it seems that the crying children of today, were "touched on" by a lengthy quote from a speech Bill Moyers made in 2004. What was said by Moyers is fuzzy, but here's the quote:

Following her enormously successful series 'Monkey Portraits', which debuted in October 2004, Jill Greenberg’s new work takes a more serious turn and has already hit a national nerve . "End Times" combines beautiful, poignant imagery, impeccably executed, with both political and personal relevance. Greenberg’s subject is taboo: children in pain. She utilizes this uncomfortable image as a way to break through to the pop mainstream and begin a national dialogue. Jill Greenberg's images are sharp and saturated, stunning and quirky; her work is soaked with realism and imagination.

Bill Moyers' article “There is No Tomorrow” more than touches on Mrs. Greenberg’s subject matter. In the article he states the amazing statistics: “For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

One-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup Poll is accurate, believes the Bible is literally true. This past November, several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in what is known as the "rapture index."

These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans. Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre: Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "bibli-cal lands," legions of the Antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture.

That is why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations, where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." For them a war with Islam in the Middle East is something to be welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The rapture index - "the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity" - now stands at 153."

Jill Greenberg explains, “The children I photographed were not harmed in any way. And, as a mother, I am quite aware of how easily toddlers can cry. Storms of grief sweep across their features without warning; a joyful smile can dissolve into a grimace of despair. The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset. It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation. The most dangerous fundamentalists aren’t just waging war in Iraq; they’re attacking evolution, blocking medical research and ignoring the environment. It’s as if they believe the apocalyptic End Time is near, therefore protecting the earth and future of our children is futile. As a parent I have to reckon with the knowledge that our children will suffer for the mistakes our government is making. Their pain is a precursor of what is to come.”

For starters, stuff has been left out. Other portions have been rewritten. (I don't want to spend too much time on this, but for ease of readers, I'll try to keep the omissions in red.)

Between "oblivious to the facts" and "One-third of the American electorate," they've omitted this paragraph from the Moyers text without indicating the omission.

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. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

Look, I don't mean to be picky, and I understand that James Watt's musings might be a distraction from the point the photographer or the gallery are trying to make (I edit quotations regularly at this blog), but shouldn't there be something in there to indicate that a substantial chunk of the quote is missing?

NOTE: The Watts quotation was improperly attributed by Moyers to Watts, and Moyers apologized. See the updates below.

But the omission left me even more confused, and additional research made me wonder exactly what Bill Moyers said. The version posted at Truthout.org, is similar to the passage "quoted" at the photographer's web site because it too omits James Watt without explanation. But it includes the following language (shown in red) which Greenberg's gallery omits:

Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "bibli-cal lands," legions of the Antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That is why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations, where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." For them a war with Islam in the Middle East is something to be welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The rapture index - "the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity" - now stands at 153.

In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index. That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the twelve volumes of the left-behind series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): once Israel has occupied the rest of its 'biblical lands,' legions of the anti-Christ will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts, and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelation where four angels 'which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man.' A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144-just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

That last version, by the way, does not call it an "article"; it is said to have been a speech given by Moyers when he accepted the "Harvard Medical School's Global Environment Citizen Award" given to him by Meryl Streep.

Yet another version is quoted here.

What's intereresting about what Moyers said (or, is most frequently said to have said), is not so much that the overwhelming majority of sites mention Watt, La Haye, and Monbiot, but that the Rapture Index is given as 144, not 153:

A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 -- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

Does anyone know?

This site purports to quote the original article in the Star Tribune, and for that reason I suspect it may be the most accurate, but that's just my reportorial reporter hunch.

In any case, before I can even reach Jill Greenberg's actual words, I need to know what Bill Moyers said about the Rapture Index. Was it 144? Or 153?

Truthout quotes Moyers as having said 153. So do 106 sites quoting the Moyers Rapture-index. (Or Rapture Moyers index...)

But a full 1070 sites quote Moyers as saying the Rapture Index was at 144.

Hmmm . . .

Simple logic dicates that it cannot be both. Moyers accepted the Harvard award and gave the speech only once, right? He cannot have said 144 and 153.

I don't like to go pointing fingers at photographers, because I hate to put people on the spot. (Things like that can make sensitive people cry, and Ms. Greenberg does seem sensitive to criticism.) Nor do I think it is her fault or that of the gallery, as they probably lifted the quote from one of the 106 sites which take the minority view of the Moyers quotation.

Or am I being unreasonable in simply wanting to know what Bill Moyers said? (Perhaps what's important is what he might as well have said, or what he really ought to be saying said now that his 2004 speech "more than touches on Mrs. Greenberg’s subject matter.")

But it's not as if the Rapture Index is a trivial matter. (It's, like Ms. Greenberg's whole, um, inspiration for the crying children, so it must be very important.) I don't believe in it personally, but if the true believers are literally to be lifted up to heaven while the war of Armageddon commences on earth, aren't we entitled to know when? Moyers and his followers certainly seem worried enough. Why can't they get their dates straight?

All things considered, fairness dictates that I take this Rapture Index business seriously. I'm wondering . . . Might the Rapturists themselves be able to tell me?

What is this index? Where is it? Yeah, Rapturism strikes me as loony tune stuff, but at this point I just plain want to know.

This leading site describes the Rapture Index as a bit analogous to the Dow average. It fluctuates depending on a wide variety of factors which they list. Right now it's at 157. (High, but not as high as the September 24, 2001 record of 182.)

Bill Moyers received his award on December 1, 2004. Might they be updating the text to suit the current end times?

Can they do that?

As to the figure being "one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire," I didn't see that language at the RaptureReady site, but there's this:

Rapture Index above 145: Fasten your seat belts

Again, my apologies for being nit-picky, folks. (But after all, this is the end of the world we're talking about!)

Turning to the pictures of the crying children, it's clear that the driving passion behind them is Ms. Greenberg's horror over two things:

I know there are people who believe the latter, but I think it's about as wild as the 9/11 conspiracy claims, and I don't think I need to devote yet another post to Bush's rather conventional religious beliefs (which are similar to those of Hillary Clinton), nor do I think I need to contact the State Department and ask whether Secretary Rice believes that End Times are near and that at any moment good Christians will go shooting skyward towards the heavens.

But to Jill Greenberg the tie-in (the um, explanation) is that the pain her child subjects experienced is a precursor to the pain that the Rapture people who run the government will inflict:

Jill Greenberg explains, “The children I photographed were not harmed in any way. And, as a mother, I am quite aware of how easily toddlers can cry. Storms of grief sweep across their features without warning; a joyful smile can dissolve into a grimace of despair. The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset. It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation. The most dangerous fundamentalists aren’t just waging war in Iraq; they’re attacking evolution, blocking medical research and ignoring the environment. It’s as if they believe the apocalyptic End Time is near, therefore protecting the earth and future of our children is futile. As a parent I have to reckon with the knowledge that our children will suffer for the mistakes our government is making. Their pain is a precursor of what is to come.”

The children should be made to cry, because, hell, 153, 144, James Watt or no James Watt, the Rapture might as well be at hand.

Far from experiencing the ravages of "End Times," these children were not harmed in any way. And isn't it silly that they'd cry over a snatched lollipop?

We adults, we're different about these things, whether we worry about Rapture Indexes or not.

Frankly, if someone came up to me and handed me a "free beer," I'd probably say "thank you!" and start to drink it. I suspect many of my readers would too.

But let's suppose that once you started drinking your free beer, that same person snatched it away, then snapped a photograph of whatever look you might have on your face. We wouldn't cry, but wouldn't that be a tad irritating? Wouldn't it be rude? And while I don't have kids, I still have some memory of what it was like to be a kid, and I wouldn't have much liked it if someone had snatched something he'd just given me, then took my picture. If my mom had consented to such a thing and the picture had been exhibited in a public gallery (today it's all over the Internet), I might never have forgiven her. Isn't it possible that in a sensitive child, this might be what they call "traumatic"? There are two things going on: the lollipop snatching and the later, ongoing public humiliation.

Or is the latter mitigated by the fact that it is political in nature? Frankly, I think the political justification is a red herring. Does it matter that the photographs have titles like "End Times," instead of "Little Child Crying Because Photographer Stole His Lollipop"?

I don't think I'd feel any differently had the same thing been done by a conservative photographer righteously pissed off about Radical Islam, who made the kids cry in exactly the same manner, and gave them titles like "Sharia Law," or "Young Muslim Bride." I'd be equally outraged.

The problem with poor bleeding heart me I just believe in consistently applying the same ethical principles to children that would be applied to adults, in the hope that they might grow into ethical adults. This gets a little tricky because unlike adults, children have to be raised, trained, and disciplined, and that is often painful. Teaching a child to be honest is painful. Giving a child something and then snatching it away for no reason, whether that makes the child cry or not, strikes me as the wrong way to treat or raise a child. I never liked the idea of scolding children because of things they did not do. (I objected earlier to making children lie down in an imaginary slave ship for this very reason.)

Except for punishment, I think doing things like this to children is a bad idea. I don't care whether you believe Bush and Rice are Rapture-driven maniacs; it is wrong to take it out on children who had nothing to do with it.

Frankly, this reminds me of the hair-shirt, "don't you know there are children are starving in Asia!" stuff, except it's worse than a mere tedious lecture. To my warm and fuzzy mind, it's much more dishonest, and much more abusive.

It also makes me wonder whether George Lakoff's highly respected thesis has become outmoded:

If your baby cries at night, do you pick him up? The answer to that question, suggests cognitive scientist Lakoff (Univ. of Calif., Berkeley), is the single best indicator of liberal or conservative values. Driven by curiosity about how liberals and conservatives can ``seem to be talking about the same things and yet reach opposite conclusions'' and why conservatives ``like to talk about discipline and toughness, while liberals like to talk about need and help,'' Lakoff sets out to discover where the difference lies in the two moral visions. He finds it in models of the family and of family-based values: Conservatives favor the ``Strict Father'' model, while liberals conceive of the family as a ``Nurturant Parent.'' That difference, Lakoff argues, yields systems of logic so disparate that liberals and conservatives cannot even begin to understand their opponents' reasoning on issues like abortion, welfare, capital punishment, and gay rights. (Emphasis added.)

What do I know? In any case, leading expert Stephen White says that I'm in no position to judge these things, because I am not "in the photography world."

'People in the photography world, anyone who is sophisticated about photography, knows that this is not offensive,' he said. 'Taking away a lollipop is not child abuse. There's no irreparable harm. I'm just not sure there's any significance to the photographs, either.'

If there's no significance to the photographs, then the photographer went to a huge amount of trouble getting a whole lot of people all upset. Over nothing. Worse yet, if Mr. White is right, it means that I have wasted a lot of time by blogging about this.

Yes, he nearly says that too:

In the end, 'This is more a story about blogging than about photography,' said Stephen White, formerly a gallery owner and currently a private dealer and collector in Studio City. 'It's about a generation that's so caught up in itself that everything it says it thinks is significant, even though it's not saying anything at all.

Sheesh. To think that talking about "End Times" isn't saying anything at all.

I can't imagine what possessed me to bring it up.

MORE: As commenter Eric Blair points out below, Bill Moyers' attack on James Watt was shown to be wrong, and he apologized for it. More here, and here. But a lot more was taken out than the remarks misattributed by Moyers to James Watt.

What I am trying to find is the accurate text of what Moyers actually said -- at the Harvard award, in a column, or otherwise. Is there an actual version anywhere or just mangled pieces of edited text floating around?

If you are going to quote something, the source should be given, and all omissions be noted.

Where is the source for God's sake?

MORE: Moyers' apology was noted by James Watt here.

AND MORE: While I haven't been able to track this down, it occurs to me that Moyers and the Star Tribune may have pulled the piece entirely. If that is the case, no wonder I'm having trouble, as there may be no "there" there.

It doesn't speak well of anyone who'd rely on claptrap discredited by its own author as justification for making children cry.

(I'm afraid all we have are unreliable quotes from unreliable sources, based on an unreliable and discredited speech by an unreliable Harvard award winner.)

UPDATE: Harvard's web site has a complete transcript of the actual speech Moyers gave. It mentions Watt, La Haye, Monbiot, and gives the number of 144. It appears identical to the one attributed to the Star Tribune, so I think it's authoritative -- if wrong!