Recently in Religion Category
"According to the biblical passage 2 Peter 3:8, 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.' Therefore, argues Camping, Rapture should occur 7,000 years after the Flood. And the 7,000th anniversary of the biblical deluge, by his math, falls on May 21, 2011."
The signs have been all over DC: Now, Salon's Peter looks into exactly why the world ends at 6pm next Saturday, May 21st. (Memo to myself: Stock up on Balance Bars.) And why is it, exactly? Well, it's been 13,023 years since the world began, apparently, and "Five means 'atonement.' Ten indicates 'completeness.' And 17 signifies 'heaven.' Thus: Armageddon." Well, it's hard to fault the math. (Pic via here.)
"'We're pretty excited about it,' admits Steve Vogt, of the University of California, Santa Cruz, a member of the team, in a masterpiece of understatement. 'I think this is what everyone's been after for the past 15 years.'" And then some! Apparently, astronomers have discovered the most Earth-like planet yet in Gliese 581g, a relatively short 20 light years away.
"[I]t probably has a solid surface just like Earth. Much more important, it sits smack in the middle of the so-called habitable zone, orbiting at just the right distance from the star to let water remain liquid rather than freezing solid or boiling away. As far as we know, that's a minimum requirement for the presence of life."
Some might remember that Gliese 581c was all the rage two years ago. Apparently, this one -- in the same solar system but only just discovered -- is even closer to the real deal. (Good thing the NASA authorization just passed...)
"I can't think of a surer way to lose both our national soul and the struggle against terrorism. Yes, Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Palin, there's a cultural-political offensive afoot to undermine our civilization. And you're leading it." Slate's William Saletan reviews the current GOP jihad against a potential mosque near Ground Zero (not to be confused with the mosque that's already been there for 40 years.) But, on the bright side, at least now we know not to take the ADL seriously anymore. (See, by way of contrast, J-Street's statement.)
"'This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country,' said Weinstein. 'It's literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we're fighting. We're emboldening an enemy.'"
I like Saving Private Ryan as much as the next guy, but this, in a word, is ridicky-goddamn-diculous. Apparently, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are routinely outfitted with sniper rifles etched with New Testament verse. "Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon...said the inscriptions 'have always been there' and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is 'not Christian.'"
Newsflash: Given that we're currently engaged in multiple wars and are strongly trying to avoid any appearance of being involved in any sort of anti-Muslim Crusade, arming our soldiers with "Jesus rifles" and crafting bible-thumping war reports for the Commander-in-Chief isn't just catastrophically stupid. It's basically writing the Al Qaeda recruiting posters for them.
Update: Also, "They started it!" is not an appropriate response to this dismal revelation.
Update 2: Trijicon stands down -- Jesus rifles are hereby discontinued, most likely because of quotes like these: "General David Petraeus also addressed the scopes this morning, calling the matter 'disturbing and a serious concern for me.'"
"[W]ith Reagan, the prophecy appreciation part of his brain functioned quite independently of the part that started wars (there's nothing in the Old Testament about Nicaragua or even Grenada). Bush seems to have taken the threat of Gog and Magog to Israel quite literally, and, if this story can be believed, to have launched a war to stop them."
One rather frightening story from a few days ago: As if the recent "Onward Christian Soldiers" war reports in GQ weren't Crusadery enough, it appears that Dubya explictly invoked the End of Days to convince Jacques Chirac to get involved in the Iraq War, making his appeal Christian-to-Christian about the unholy dangers of Gog & Magog. Uh, really? (Apparently, Chirac has confirmed it.)
"To paraphrase Al Pacino in 'Godfather III,' just when we thought we were out, the Bush mob keeps pulling us back in. And will keep doing so. No matter how hard President Obama tries to turn the page on the previous administration, he can't. Until there is true transparency and true accountability, revelations of that unresolved eight-year nightmare will keep raining down drip by drip, disrupting the new administration's high ambitions." In today's NYT, Frank Rich makes the case for a full investigation into Dubya-era crimes (as, in a switch, does Maureen Dowd -- with some unattributed help from TPM's Josh Marshall.)
Also linked in Rich's piece is a damning profile of Donald Rumsfeld's tenure at Defense by GQ's Robert Draper, which happens to include these bizarre and, diplomatically speaking, blatantly idiotic Christian-minded cover sheets created especially for Dubya's briefings. "This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine...At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout--as one Pentagon staffer would later say -- 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.' But the Pentagon's top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush's public standing...Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible."
As many readers here well know, I've spent a good bit of time over the past decade studying US history. (In fact, over the past few years, I've occasionally helped my advisor keep a textbook up to date that recently drew the ire of right-wing blowhard Bill O'Reilly. Apparently, those damn pesky facts were somehow mitigating O'Reilly's ability to spew forth the usual idiotic blather.)
Anyway, over that period of time, I believe I have in fact learned me a few things. So, as a public service of sorts, and because, after this morning's revelations, I've reached the limit of craven and/or patently stupid falsehoods that I can feasibly ingest over so short a time, some "U.S. History for Dummies." I expect most everyone who comes by this site with any frequency knows all this, but ya never know. Apologies for the didacticism in advance -- if this were this a Coors Light commercial, this would be where i vent. (And thanks to Lia for the timely visual tax lesson, above.)
At any rate, as most people remember from high school, the original 1773 Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes or high prices at all. (In fact, legally imported tea -- i.e. that of the East India Company, which was both suffering serious setbacks over in India and losing market share to smuggled Dutch tea at the time -- was actually cheaper in the colonies after the Tea Act, since it was now exempt from the usual obligations.)
In small part a reaction of the East India's commercial rivals to this sweetheart deal, the Boston Tea Party was mainly held to uphold the principle of No taxation without representation. Which I don't think I need to explain. So, with the minor exception of DC-area conservatives who attended the tea gathering in Washington (without crossing over from Virginia or Maryland), the, uh, "teabaggers" don't really have a leg to stand on here. This is particularly true after you consider that both ruthless gerrymandering and the vagaries of the Electoral College (I'm looking at you, Wyoming) actually tend to lead to over-representation of conservative Republicans in our halls of governance, even despite heavy losses for the "Grand Old Party" in 2006 and 2008.
Well, in fact, no state in the Union has any legal right to secede. (Not even Texas.) The existence of such a right was posited and debated quite often in the early years of the republic: by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, by the members of the Hartford Convention, by South Carolina's philosopher-politician John C. Calhoun, and countless others.
But the illegality of secession was eventually confirmed -- in blood -- when eleven states attempted to pull out of the Union in 1861, due mainly to differing opinions on the institution of slavery and its expansion into the western territories. As a result of this insurrection by the southern states, a violent conflict broke out, which we call the Civil War. It lasted four years, and it was kind of a big deal.
Prior to the war, the states of the Confederacy believed secession to be their natural right, while those remaining in the Union believed it to be tantamount to an act of treason. With the Union victory in that conflict, and the subsequent readmittance of southern states in such a manner that reaffirmed that no right of secession exists, the question was settled. So it remains to this day.
Another argument we've heard lately -- today Sen. McCain made it with his usual comrades-in-arms, Sens. Lieberman and Graham, while trying to protect Dubya's lawyers -- is that the CIA officials who actually conducted these recent acts of torture should be exempt from prosecution, because they were following the legal dictates of those higher-up in the administration. (To follow the reasoning around the circle, the torturers should be exempt because they were listening to the lawyers, and the lawyers should be exempt because they didn't do the actual torturing. Cute.)
Anyway, whatever you think of the merits of this argument, this is usually referred to as the Nuremberg defense, and it is in fact no defense at all. Argues Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles, devised by the Allies after WWII to determine what constituted a war crime: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Insert "CIA interrogator" for person in that last sentence and you can pretty much see the problem.
America is not a Christian nation. This will be patently obvious to anyone who's ever heard the phrase "separation of church and state." Unlike, say, England, America does not have and has never had an official, established church. This is very much by design. For proof of this not-very-radical claim, see the very first clause of the very first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If that doesn't do it for you, see George Washington's famous 1790 letter to the Jewish residents of Newport, Rhode Island. "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
Or consider that Thomas Jefferson skipped his presidency on his tombstone to make room for his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (We could also make mention of the Jefferson Bible, but let's start slow.)
Is the reasoning here too circuitous for Rove, Gingrich, et al to follow? Ok, then, here's the cheat sheet: the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by a Congress of our Founders without declaim and signed into law by President John Adams. It begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Did y'all catch it this time? Good, let's move on.
After the picture was taken, conservatives went predictably livid, with Matt Drudge headlining the offending photograph with the usual red text, Dick Cheney deeming Obama "a weak president" on FOX News, and Gingrich arguing that it made Obama look "weak like Carter." "We didn't rush over, smile and greet Russian dictators," said Newt, and he wasn't the only potential 2012'er aghast at Obama's behavior. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada called the president "irresponsible" and the consistently shameless Mitt Romney painted Obama a "timid advocate for freedom".
Um, ok. Well, let's see here...
I could go on. With regards to that last one -- Reagan yukking it up with Mikhail Gorbachev, then of "the evil Empire" -- it didn't take long before (surprise) Newt was caught in a contradiction. Apparently, Gingrich had previously argued on his website that Ronald Reagan's good humor with Gorby was a sign of strength, not weakness.
Speaking of which, as Lawrence O'Donnell noted on MSNBC the other day, saintly old Ronald Reagan didn't just smile and shake hands with America's enemies. His administration sold them weapons under the table. So, please, assorted puddin'-heads of the GOP talkocracy, spare me your warmed-over tripe about poor diplomacy and weak leadership. As with everything else above, I've swallowed enough of your swill over the past few weeks to last me a lifetime.
It took awhile to get here, but Gus Van Sant's timely and vibrant biopic Milk, which I caught on Christmas day, is well worth the wait. In a year that witnessed a former community organizer take his message of hope all the way to the White House, and saw a majority of Californians vote for legislating and invalidating their neighbors' marriages (my favorite pin: "Can we vote on your marriage now?"), Milk couldn't feel any more of the moment. (If anything, I wish Milk had come out before the Prop 8 vote, when it might've done some good.) Arguably the best film about the realities of politics since Charlie Wilson's War, Milk is blessed with excellent performances across the board -- most notably Sean Penn, James Franco, and Josh Brolin, but also supporting turns by Emile Hirsch, Alison Pill, and others. And as a chronicle of a key moment in an ongoing civil rights struggle, Milk also feels like a watershed film of its own in its approach to its gay and lesbian characters. In short, it's one of the best films of 2008.
"My name is Harvey Milk, and I want to recruit you." So began the oft-repeated speel of the San Francisco city supervisor and "Mayor of Castro Street," who, in 1977 and after several attempts, became the first openly gay official elected to office in the US. But, seven years before those heady days, Milk (Sean Penn) was just a 40-year-old insurance man (and Republican, even), living a closeted life of quiet desperation in NYC. After a chance encounter and illicit proposition becomes an impromptu birthday party, Milk and new beau Scott Smith (James Franco) fall in love, talk about starting over, and decide to go West. Life is peaceful there...or is it? Even as Milk's camera shop in the gay-friendly Castro district becomes a salon of artists, thinkers, and free spirits, bigotry is rampant even in the streets of San Francisco, and the cops at best turn a blind eye to -- and at worst actively participate in -- antigay violence. No more, says Milk. Taking a page from the ethnic political machines of an earlier century, he organizes Castro's gays and lesbians into first a protest movement and then an organized voting and boycotting bloc. And when a redistricting plan emphasizing community self-rule in San Francisco is put into effect, Milk becomes an actual, legitimate political wheeler-and-dealer, with all the benefits and aggravations attending. (For more on the man and the movement, see the 1984 documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, now on Hulu for free.)
But, even as Harvey Milk rises to power in San Fran, a parallel movement stirs amid the churches and suburbs of Orange County. Led by former beauty queen, singer, and orange juice shiller Anita Bryant, the ever-so-Christian "Save Our Children" campaign gathers steam across the nation in its quest to roll back what meager protections gays and lesbians have managed to establish over the years. And when conservative state senator John Briggs (Denis O'Hare, seemingly forever destined to play assholes) brings the fight west in the form of Proposition 6, an initiative that would ban gays and lesbians from public schools, the battle for California is on. And even as Milk becomes the poster boy against Prop 6 and for recognizing gays and lesbians as full citizens and fellow human beings, he has to contend with trouble on the homefront -- not only in his personal life (his new boyfriend Jack (Diego Luna) is more than a little erratic) but in his political backyard, where supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin), from the Catholic, working-class district next door, is starting to act increasingly unstable. (But, I guess this is what happens when society is so permissive as to let a man get all hopped up on twinkies.)
Which reminds me: A word of appreciation for Josh Brolin's work here. Sean Penn is garnering kudos across the board, and a likely Oscar nod, for his portrayal of Milk, and they're very well-deserved. It's really an astonishing transformation Penn accomplishes here -- not so much because he's playing someone who's gay (homosexual), but because he's playing someone who's gay (happy).This is the same guy who sulked through Mystic River?) And, while Brolin will likely -- and, imho, justifiably in the end -- get edged out for Best Supporting Actor by Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight, his work here suggests he's got some serious chops. At first it seems as if Brolin will just be coasting on his recent Dubya impression -- another good-natured, hard-hearted conservative fratboy for the resume. Then, just as you think Brolin's endangering himself in terms of typecasting, it's suggested Dan White might also be a deeply repressed closet case. (I tend to find the argument that all frothing-at-the-mouth homophobes are in reality trapped in the closet to be too simplistic by half, but apparently there's some grounding for it in White's story. In any case, Brolin underplays it beautifully ) As Milk progresses, we begin to sense other reasons why White is such a strange and ultimately homicidal bird -- he's envious of Harvey, he feels personally screwed over by him, he's something of a friendless wonder, he's not the brightest bulb on the tree anyway, he feels trapped by, and powerless before, the authority figures in his life (his wife, his cop buddies, his church). Brolin lets all of this play out without tipping his hand in any one direction. It's a subtle, complex, and very worthwhile performance, and it's a testament to the film's heart that it extends such empathy even to its ostensible antagonist.
Speaking of empathy, this isn't at all a surprise coming from Gus Van Sant, always a very humanistic director, but it should be noted regardless: When it comes to full recognition of gays and lesbians, Milk laudably practices what it preaches. Jonathan Demme's Philadelphia was good for its time, but nowadays (it's on heavy rotation on AMC) it gives off a distinctly Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? vibe. And, as I said when it came out, Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain often seemed "as somber, restrained, and delicate as Kabuki theater." By contrast, the couples of Milk are passionate -- both physically and emotionally -- messy, flawed, and alive. Of course, there have been other well-rounded depictions of gays and lesbians in film in the past -- in Van Sant's earlier work, in the films of other gay directors like Todd Haynes, John Cameron Mitchell, and Kimberly Peirce, and in countless others. Still, Milk feels like an event of sorts. Unlike many of its forebears, it's a mainstream Oscar-caliber movie that just takes its characters' sexuality at face value and without apology. In that sense, it feels like a film whose time has come.
I said earlier that Dan White was ostensibly the villain of Milk, but that's not entirely true. Rather, to its credit, the film is pretty bold about pointing the finger where the trouble really lies: at the conservative-minded legions of organized Christendom -- or at the very least its right-wing, for-profit flank -- who've decided that arbitrarily upholding one proscription mentioned in passing in the Old Testament (shellfish, anyone?), and then ruthlessly enforcing it on the backs of their neighbors and co-workers, is more important than upholding the central tenet of the actual teachings of Jesus: "Love one another." (Along those lines, expect a good bit of "godless liberal Hollywood" bluster from the usual corners if this film gets any Oscar buzz.)
Which brings us to that Wal-Mart of spirituality, Rick Warren, who as you all know will be delivering the invocation at Obama's inauguration this month, and who has said all manner of intemperate things about gays and lesbians (as well as jews, pro-choice voters, and others) in the past, even going so far as to campaign for Prop 8 in California two months ago.
Now, when the Rick Warren pick first came out, I didn't say anything here for two reasons. One was deeply selfish: That was the week I was finishing up my speechwriting app, and it didn't seem like the most opportune time to be too critical of the administration around here at GitM. (In the end, it didn't matter anyway, of course.) More importantly, though, I am -- and still partly remain -- of the mind that the bigger picture needs to be kept in mind here. If it keeps the right-wing fundies relatively happy and docile, and helps them to buy into the notion of a post-partisan Obama presidency, then Rick Warren can give all the one minute ceremonial speeches he wants, so long as Obama ultimately shows himself a friend to gay and lesbian rights in his presidential actions.
But, there's a sequence in Milk that brought me around a bit. When Dan White mentions the "issue" of gay rights in one crucial scene, Harvey replies: "These are not issues, Dan. These are our lives we're fighting for." And, put that way, the calculus changes. To straight progressive folk such as myself, one can easily -- too easily -- get to thinking of gay rights as an "issue" among many. But, for gays and lesbians all around the country, this is their lives. And, when considered thusly, the president of these United States -- least of all a president who ran and won on a campaign of hope -- should not be legitimizing bigotry, such as that continuously expressed by Warren without apology, in any kind of forum, let alone the most portentous and culturally significant inauguration in at least fifty years, perhaps ever.
In an eloquent column last week, the NYT's Frank Rich articulated basically where I stand on Obama's decision at this point: His choice of Warren is "no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history." Let's hope that Obama doesn't follow in the footsteps of the last Democratic president, who very quickly started backpedaling on gay rights once in office, vis a vis "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And, while I'm sure he's pretty busy these days, the president-elect (apparently a movie buff of sorts) could do worse than spend a few hours to reflect on the story of another community-organizer who believed in the transformative power of hope, who carried the hopes of his constitutents into higher office...and who faced unflinching and unwavering contempt from an irreconcilable opposition once he got there.
Sure, Reagan did this all the time. Still, it takes either a man whose memory is too wracked by age to be president -- or an inveterate liar -- to simply make up this kind of story. (See also Reagan.) Apparently, John McCain's heartwarming tale of the Christian guard in Hanoi, which he related again over the weekend at the mutual kissing of Rick Warren's ring, was in fact lifted from Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. (Apparently McCain, and/or his ghostwriters, are fans of the man.) Uh, Senator McCain, did you really feel you had to embellish your time in a Vietnamese prison camp? The situation should speak for itself.
For what it's worth, McCain is blaming the controversy on "the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd." Well, speaking as a member of the prObama World of Warcraft crowd (really, Senator, you're dating yourself -- again), I should note that the story actually originated with the Freepers several years ago, once the mythical maverick felt the need to start peddling false wares to the nation's conservative Christians. For shame, Senator.
Update: Forget Solzhenitsyn. According to scholars (via TPM), this tale isn't from The Gulag Archipelago at all, but rather seems to be a right-wing fairy tale emanating from the likes of Chuck Colson and Jesse Helms.
"Perhaps the most puzzling scene in the ad is an altered segment from The 10 Commandments that appears near the end. A Moses-playing Charlton Heston parts the animated waters of the Red Sea, out of which rises the quasi-presidential seal the Obama campaign used for a brief time earlier this summer before being mocked into retiring it. The seal, which features an eagle with wings spread, is not recognizable like the campaign's red-white-and-blue 'O; logo. That confused Democratic consultant Eric Sapp until he went to his Bible and remembered that in the apocalyptic Book of Daniel, the Antichrist is described as rising from the sea as a creature with wings like an eagle."
You're one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan? In TIME, Amy Sullivan parses McCain's recent "The One" ad to discover that it's basically a dog whistle for Left Behind evangelicals, declaring Obama is the Antichrist. "A new TIME poll finds that the most conservative evangelicals are the least enthusiastic about McCain's candidacy. Convincing them that Obama does have two horns and a tail might be the best way of getting them to vote."
Obama is the Antichrist? Has it really come to this? I know the GOP are feeling on the verge of "Left Behind" this November, but that's gotta be just about rock-bottom. It's hard to even imagine an anti-McCain ad that would stoop that low (well, other than that it would probably have to involve the Queen of Diamonds.) And, what with the crazies already percolating, feeding this type of chum to the confused anti-Greg Stillson types out there borders on the criminal.
Come November, these GOP asshats had better lose, and lose big.
"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I might not know him as well as I thought, either." After an unrepentant Jeremiah Wright ratcheted up the heat again at the National Press Club yesterday, thus bringing the punditariat to a full boil, an "outraged" and "saddened" Sen. Obama definitively cuts Wright loose.
A bit depressing that this had to go down, but, at this point, Obama really didn't have much choice. (Wright was practically begging for it, what with promoting the AIDS and Farrakhan stuff anew yesterday.) So, hopefully this helps bring an end to the sad diversion that was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Now, perhaps we can move on to other matters, such as the Rev. John Hagee and the "Strangelovian" obliteration of Iran...
Update: While we all mull the fallout from Wrightgate II, consider this: Sen. Obama picked up two more superdelegates today, Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky and DNC member Richard Machachek of Iowa. I believe that puts the post-PA total at 6 for Obama, 2 for Clinton, meaning Sen. Clinton is now a full 10 behind where she needs to be to stay "alive."
Update 2: Count three more supers for Clinton, and now three more for Sen. Obama. The new post-PA tally: 9 for Obama, 5 for Clinton, meaning Clinton is down 13 from her needed mark.
"'He would not have been my pastor,' Clinton said. 'You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." With Snipergate currently gaining traction in the media and footage and transcripts now showing that Clinton had repeated this lie several times, the Senator herself (along with a member of her finance committee) tries to change the story back to Jeremiah Wright. A valiant attempt by Senator Clinton, I suppose, although as noted the other day, her choice in pastors is rather questionable too. His repellent views on AIDS aside, I'll take Jeremiah Wright's commitment to social justice any day of the week and twice on Sunday over the virulent right-wing nutjobs of Clinton's so-called "Family" (which, contrary to what she says above, she did in fact choose.)
But, anyway, back to the main story today: Clinton's first response to Snipergate: "I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years, I misspoke." After it came out this wasn't a one-time exaggeration, her response then became: ""So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation." (Note the use of that old standby, the victim card.) Either way, a mistake -- like a misstatement -- happens once, Senator. If it keeps happening, it's called a lie.
Update: Clinton brings up Wright again, this time reading from prepared remarks. I'm with TPM on this one: "You can always tell when a scandal story has peaked and is ebbing, almost down to the minute: when your political opponents start to raise it explicitly against you."
"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told 'you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant...And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me." Jeremiah Wright is defended by a brother from across the pew, Mike Huckabee. Gotta say, I don't agree with basically any of Huckabee's policy positions, but, he can be a seriously likable guy at times (even if he did fold a defense of Falwell into his remarks.)
"Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's 'most elite cell,' the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen." From the gander to the goose, Barbara Ehrenreich looks at Clinton's own questionable religious ties with an ultrasecret conservative bible study group, The Family, about which a book is due in May. "This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is 'a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.'"
"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."
In response to the burgeoning controversy over remarks by his pastor, Sen. Obama discusses his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright at
Update: "'I think there was recognition that he’s obviously on the verge of retirement, [that] he’s taking a sabbatatical and that it was important for him to step out of the spotlight in this situation,' Obama said." Wright is officially out. With all the bodies dropping in both campaigns now, I'm reminded of D'Angelo's chess lesson in The Wire: "Pawns, man, in the game, they get capped quick, and be out the game early." (Although I guess, in this case, Obama lost a bishop.)
Update 2: Sen. Obama also addresses the Wright issue on a new Youtube video going around.
"I don't like what the Republicans have done to our country." Obama supporter, former Republican, and 2014 Alabama gubernatorial candidate Charles Barkley is mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. "Every time I hear the word 'conservative' it make me sick to my stomach, cause they're really just fake Christians, as I call them. That's all they are...They want to be judge and jury...These Christians are not supposed to judge other people, but they're the most hypocritical judges of people we have in this country. And It bugs the hell out of me. They act like they're Christians and they're not forgiving at all."
"The two faiths have struggled with each other for years...In fact, probably no other organization in the nation has played a bigger role in perpetuating the idea that Mormonism is a cult than the Southern Baptist Convention." In light of the Huckabee-Romney race to be seen as Christian-in-Chief (subliminal ads and all), friend and colleague Neil J. Young of Little Bit Left ruminates on the enduring Mormon-Baptist divide for Slate. And, in related news, DoL Robert Novak argues that Huckabee may suffer from lingering internecine disputes within the SBC -- Apparently, for some of his co-religionists, he hasn't been conservative enough. (Finally, while on the subject of Republican candidates, religion, and history, I was heartened to see Ron Paul knows his Sinclair Lewis.)
"I can remember when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from -- I think it was law school, but I was driving home -- going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio and I pulled over and literally wept." Regarding the thorny question of the Mormon church and race (discussed earlier here), Mitt Romney, to his credit, addressed the issue about as well as can be expected this morning during the Russert treatment on Meet the Press, even going so far as to tear up a little (Video). My, we've come a long way from the days of Ed Muskie. Update: Must be catching...Now Clinton's crying too. Update 2: And Romney again.
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?" Well, Governor Romney, that's the question. I was busy the day of the "Big Speech," so I ended up watching some of it on Youtube [2, 3] and reading the rest online. And, while I'd definitely quibble with the notion that "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," it seems Mitt waited too long to pander to the evangelicals regardless: Huckabee's doubled up on him -- and everybody else -- in Iowa, and is now running second nationally behind Giuliani. And, as Drudge dredged up this morning, Huckabee has been doling out red meat to scary religious conservatives for well over a decade now, including recommending the quarantining of AIDS patients in 1992. Even though Romney will say pretty much anything, It'll be hard for the Governor to catch up with that kind of crazy, especially if he expects to remain at all electable.
"It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership...It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization." Slate's Chris Hitchens explains why Mitt Romney needs to start being more forthright about his Mormonism. I'm inclined to agree -- if nothing else, he needs to clear the air as Kennedy did in his 1960 address to Southern Baptists (a strategy Romney avoided in his run against JFK's little brother in 1994.)
A self-proclaimed paragon of virtue, Governor Romney has recently been publicly tsk-tsking Barack Obama's candor about his drug use. But I doubt I'm the only American who'd feel more sanguine about my child experimenting with marijuana than he or she espousing some of the notions that the Mormon Church declared holy writ within my lifetime. "[I]n antebellum Missouri and preaching against abolition, Smith...announced that there had been a third group in heaven during the battle between God and Lucifer. This group had made the mistake of trying to remain neutral but, following Lucifer's defeat, had been forced into the world and compelled to 'take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the negro or African race.' Until 1978, no black American was permitted to hold even the lowly position of deacon in the Mormon Church, and nor were any (not that there were many applicants) admitted to the sacred rites of the temple." As Hitchens aptly points out, "Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one." Update: Facing a surprising (to him) Huckabee surge among Christian conservatives, Mitt Romney announces he'll discuss his faith in a major speech next Thursday, akin to Kennedy's 1960 address. I presume he won't be delving into this former aspect of his faith, but you never know.
Jerry Falwell, 1933-2007. My thoughts on this are basically the same as on Strom's passing in 2003, and once again I'd refer everyone to Hunter S. Thompson's Nixon obit. Of course, it's bad form to speak ill of the dead...still, I'm sure countless people and pets around the world passed yesterday who are more deserving of eulogy than this contemptible, hypocritical bigot. Let's just hope, for Falwell's sake, that God is more compassionate and forgiving than he ever was.
The King of the World? Director and documentarian James Cameron announces, for a forthcoming Discovery Channel special, that archaeologists have discovered the tomb of Jesus...and his son. "'How possible is it?' Pfann said. 'On a scale of one through 10 -- 10 being completely possible -- it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half.'"
"Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to embrace decline for a nation. To embrace Him leads to renewal, for individuals and for nations." Not to be outdone over on the Republican side, right-wing GOP Senator Sam Brownback throws his hat in the ring as well. From what I've seen of Brownback, which isn't much other than a few Sunday show appearances, he seems like the scariest kind of cultural and religious conservative -- a smart and articulate one. (And, to his credit, Brownback has tried to add such important issues as prison reform and AIDS awareness to the usual catalog of medieval social positions held by the religious right.) The McCain team would do well not to underestimate him.
Speaking of politically partisan reading material, a brief plug: If you're looking for a stocking stuffer for the politically inclined, How the Republicans Stole Religion (formerly How the Republicans Stole Christmas), a book I worked on last year with pundit and former seminary student Bill Press, is now available in paperback at a bookstore near you.
Admirably ambitious and running the emotional gamut from syrupy to sublime, Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain is a resolutely uncommercial big-think sci-fi piece that I expect will strongly divide audiences. (My guess is, you'll either love the film or turn on it in the first half-hour.) I found it a bit broad at times, particularly in the early going, and I definitely had to make a conscious decision to run with it. That being said, I thought The Fountain ultimately pays considerable dividends as a stylish, imaginative, and melancholy celebration of the inexorable cycle of life, from birth to death ad infinitum. In its reach, The Fountain at times suggests 2001, and even if that reach probably exceeds its grasp by the end, it should still be applauded for so fearlessly tackling such heady themes, box office be damned. And if nothing else, The Fountain will not only make you contemplate the meaning of it all, but contains several haunting images, like scraps of a fever dream, that will resonate long after the movie's over. All in all, not bad for ten bucks.
Like Requiem for a Dream and especially Pi, The Fountain is more about mood than plot, per se. Nevertheless, we begin in the sixteenth century, with a scruffy conquistador (Hugh Jackman, having a banner year) paying respects to what appears to be his beloved (Rachel Weisz) before embarking on a suicide mission against a Mayan temple. Before we're fully acclimated to what's going on, we've leapt to the twenty-sixth century (No, no Twiki), where that conquistador is now a bald, tattooed, Tai Chi practicing monk, traveling across the cosmos with an ailing tree and suffering visions from an age long hence. After a few bewildering minutes here, we find ourselves in our present, where neuroscientist Tom Creo (Jackman) is struggling against time to develop a cure for his wife Izzy (Weisz), before she succumbs to a brain tumor. As The Fountain progresses and we switch back and forth through these three timelines, a picture slowly coalesces of a man-out-of-time (no, not him either), determined beyond all bounds of hope or reason to defeat death and defend his one, true love from its thrall.
In all honesty, The Fountain suffers from some clunky moments in the early going, particularly when Weisz is forced to deliver exposition regarding Mayan beliefs about the Tree of Life, Xibalba (the Mayan underworld), and the Orion Nebula. And some, such as former Slate writer David Edelstein, couldn't seem to get past the Clint Mansell score, which -- as in Pi and Requiem -- is hypnotic-bordering-on-intrusive. But, once you get past the somewhat unwieldy set-up, I found the movie's themes considerably more sophisticated and less banal than most reviewers are giving it credit for. The romance here is pushed front-and-center, sure, but I found The Fountain moving less as a simple love-conquers-all tale than as an eloquent Zen meditation on mortality. (As one character puts it in the film, "Death is the road to awe.") If matter is neither created nor destroyed, then, in a way, we are all immortal -- the elements that make us up were around since the Big Bang and will continue to be around, reconstituted in other forms, long after we're dead ("in the stars above, in the tall grass, and the ones we love," to paraphrase a poet when he contemplated a similar plight to Jackman's.) Indeed, in this fashion, each of us -- made up of a combination of matter that, however briefly, has achieved sentience -- is the universe trying to express itself. That is no small thing.
Moreover, in The Fountain (and akin to Jacob's Ladder), Jackman's character ultimately isn't fighting to save his love as much as fighting his fear and despair over loss, not only of Weisz but of himself, his own ego: in short, his fear of death. As Weisz's character says several times over, "I'm not afraid anymore....Finish it." Jackman's Creo is afraid, so he won't or can't. "Without accepting the fact that everything changes, we cannot find perfect composure," writes Shunryu Suzuki in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. "But unfortunately, although it is true, it is difficult for us to accept it. Because we cannot accept the truth of transiency, we suffer." To my mind, this suffering, and the overcoming of it, lies at the heart of Aronofsky's The Fountain. I thought the richness of both its vision and its ideas helps it elide over a lot of the pacing and exposition problems in the early going. So, in sum, go see The Fountain: I'm not sure you'll like it -- it's very possible you'll love it -- but I'm willing to bet, either way, that it'll stick with you.
[One addendum/caveat/boast: As it happens, I saw The Fountain Monday night at a very private screening/cocktail affair. (How'd I get in? Long story...basically, Aronofsky and I have a mutual friend.) I've admitted earlier to being an inveterate celebrity hound, and in terms of celeb-spotting this was manna from Heaven. Of maybe 40-50 attendees, 10-15 were instantly recognizable folk: Not only Aronofsky, Jackman, Weisz, and Ellen Burstyn (also in the film), but a gaggle of other high-profile celebs: Bowie(!), Lou Reed, Mike Myers, Iman, Helena Christiansen, Ben Chaplin, Elizabeth Berkeley, etc. So, I'm almost positive I'd have liked and recommended The Fountain regardless, but I'm forced to admit (re: would like to brag) that I saw it under more-than-ideal circumstances. (Yes, I played it cool despite being famestruck, but I'd be lying if every so often in the first half-hour of the film I found myself thinking "Am I really sharing an armrest with Famke Janssen right now? How bizarre." Not very Zen of me, I know, but sometimes I'm just a material guy.)]
Shady, harrassing "robocalls", voter intimidation in Virginia, sketchy-acting electronic voting machines: yes, folks, it's Election Day in America, and the frantic GOP are up to their usual bag of tricks. In the inimitable words of Baltimore Deputy Commissioner for Ops Bill Rawls: "American Democracy. Let's show those Third World %@#$ how it's done."
Regardless, each side has had their November Surprise (for the Left, Haggard's hypocrisy; for the Right, Hussein's hanging), and now -- at long last -- it's showtime: Time to show "the decider" what we really think of him.
For what it's worth, I can now personally guarantee at least one vote for the not-particularly-embattled Spitzer/Clinton/Rangel/Cuomo ticket. I even used an old-school levered voting machine, so mine should more likely than not get counted.
Predictions? Of course, I'd like to venture a 1994-like tidal wave, but I've been burned by too many election nights in the past. So I'll play it relatively safe...the Dems win the House, picking up 18-22 seats, and gain four seats in the Senate: Missouri, Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (So long, Santorum!) It looked like control of the Senate might've hinged on the Allen-Webb race in Virginia, but now that Harold Ford seems to have faded in Tennessee (one has to wonder how much Corker's gutterball ad helped him), a Dem Senate looks really unlikely. Still, I'd love to be surprised in both states.
Obviously not winning the House at this point would be a grievous blow for the party. But, whatever happens tonight, it has to be better than the last midterms.
The last two times I posted exit polls here (in 2000 and 2004), I've been led astray, but if I see anything good from the Senate races, I'll post it below. In the meantime, the NYT has a quality election guide here, and there are a couple of good explanations of what to look for tonight here and here. On this end, I and several of my friends who've been burned over the last few election nights together will be huddled around the TV, yearning to breathe free. Hopefully, at long last, it'll be our night.
As y'all probably know by now, Dubya -- so eager to exploit and enlargen executive power in other arenas -- vetoed his first bill in five years yesterday, when he decided to capitulate to the sad remnants of his base, set back medical science a few more years, and nip stem cell research in the bud once again. While Dubya said the bill would have forced "American taxpayers...for the first time in our history...to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos," he made no argument for criminalizing fertility clinics, where similar embryos get tossed away unused every day. "'If that's murder, how come the president allows that to continue?' asked Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). 'Where is his outrage?' Harkin called the veto 'a shameful display of cruelty, hypocrisy and ignorance.'"
Stick a fork in him -- As suspected, former Christian Coalition wunderkind and Casino Jack flunky Ralph Reed is politically finished after being forced to concede the Georgia Lieutenant Governor's race, a campaign he was a mortal lock to win before his Abramoff shenanigans leaked. Almost as sweet as Reed's comeuppance, we now know that, despite the GOP's gamble, the Ballad of Casino Jack does in fact play at the polls this election season. Better start dancin', Boehner...
"The Reed story confirms what many devout Christians have argued since conservative social activists became a force in national politics in the 1970s: Engaging in worldly political maneuvering is ultimately debasing...Hearts are better changed one at a time in the churches than through elections or legislation." With Ralph Reed's recent shenanigans as a newspeg, Slate's John Dickerson surveys the continuing crackup of the evangelical GOP.
In related news, another member of Team Abramoff, former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed, runs into more campaign trouble, this time involving his 1999 attack on proposed federal wage and worker laws in the Marianas Islands. "'The radical left, the Big Labor Union Bosses, and Bill Clinton want to pass a law preventing Chinese from coming to work on the Marianas Islands,' the mailer from Reed's firm said. The Chinese workers, it added, 'are exposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ' while on the islands, and many 'are converted to the Christian faith and return to China with Bibles in hand.' A year earlier, the Department of the Interior -- which oversees federal policy toward the U.S. territory -- presented a very different picture of life for Chinese workers on the islands. An Interior report found that Chinese women were subject to forced abortions and that women and children were subject to forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry."
Let my Cameron go. By way of Lots of Co. and Quiddity, and in keeping with the Shining remix of last year, here's the new trailer for Ten Things I Hate About Commandments. Looks totally Biblical.
"'There is a growing feeling among conservatives that the only way to cure the problem is for Republicans to lose the Congressional elections this fall,' said Richard Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail pioneer." More trouble for the GOP: The Christian Right looks ready to desert the party in 2006 unless "Congress does more to oppose same-sex marriage, obscenity and abortion." "'I can't tell you how much anger there is at the Republican leadership,' Mr. Viguerie said. 'I have never seen anything like it.'" And November's perfect storm blows stronger...
"I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq." In a must-watch (or at least must-read) event, the inimitable Stephen Colbert took it to Dubya hard at last night's White House Correspondent's dinner, and Bush, according to press reports, was not amused. Great stuff throughout:
* "I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."
* "Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias...Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash."
* "I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."
* "I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen. The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."
* "But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on N.S.A. wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew."
* "But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction."
* "I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."
* "See who we've got here tonight. General Mowsly, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld."
* "Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is." (Note: YouTube has smaller clips, too.)
Just in time for Passover and Easter, a friend of mine in the program passes along these handy maps of American religious groupings, based on 2000 census data. It's hard to get a sense of religious diversity in any given area from these color-coded, religion-specific maps...still, they're worth taking a look at.
The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Characters, with a handy graphic of who's a member of what "legion." The site also includes impressively detailed individual entries on each character -- not only the big guns like Methodist Superman, Episcopal Batman, Catholic Daredevil, and Buddhist Wolverine, but also everyone from Presbyterian Wolfsbane to the Mormon Power Pack. (Via Triptych Cryptic.)
"'I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ,' Scarborough said, introducing DeLay yesterday." The WP's Dana Milbank reports in as the right-wing "War on Christians" crowd embrace Boss DeLay as a martyr."When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: 'God always does his best work right after a crucifixion.'" Update: Salon's Michelle Goldberg has more.
"[Ralph Reed] has damaged Christian political work by confirming for some the stereotype that evangelicals are easily manipulated and that evangelical leaders use moral issues to line their own pockets." In related news, former Christian Coalition head and current candidate for Georgia lieutenant governor Ralph Reed also finds it hard to shake the taint of Abramoff, and even finds himself persona non grata among evangelical conservatives such as Melvin Olasky of WORLD magazine.
A month after the school board was swept of intelligent designers (to Pat Robertson's chagrin), a judge in Dover, PA dismisses ID as a classroom alternative to evolution. Good to see both science and common sense win one for a change.
"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets." In the world-gets-even-scarier-department, Iran's hardliner president publicly indulges in Holocaust denial. Clearly, Iran is living up to its axis-of-evil appellation these days, but remember: Ahmadinejad's election was in part blowback from Dubya's amateurish and tone-deaf Middle-East policy in the first place. At any rate, it's clear that our Iran situation is worsening, and that Iranian possession of nukes is a truly frightening scenario.
"They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical." As liberal Christian groups protest GOP cuts in poverty programs, the Post looks into why the usual right-wing suspects are AWOL on the issue of poverty.
"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that 'God put me here' to deal with the war on terror. The President's belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that 'he's the man,' the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reelection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose." By way of Salon's War Room, The New Yorker's Sy Hersh scrutinizes the terrifying dogmatism and tone-deafness at work in the White House with regards to Iraq.
Here's more: "[Rove and Cheney] keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,' the former defense official said. Bush's public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. 'Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House,' the former official said, 'but Bush has no idea.'"
Update: According to the Daily News, who published a similar story yesterday, the White House won't comment on the Hersh piece.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city." In a righteous froth over the recent turnover of intelligent designers in Dover, PA, Pat Robertson plays to type and calls out the Big Gun against Pennsylvania's evolutionaries.
In a mixed day for the Pastafari, the Kansas School Board opens the door to intelligent design, just as the voters of Dover, PA remove all eight school board members who were pushing the issue in the Keystone State. (Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania court challenge to intelligent design will continue.)
"'The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,' Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 'Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.'" Senate hearings delve further into the exploits of "Casino Jack" Abramoff and former Boss DeLay aide Michael Scanlon, as well as the cynicism and hypocrisy driving the GOP machine.
Meanwhile, more DeLay flunkies are found to be greasing the wheels for Abramoff, and the stench of corruption spreads to Interior Secretary Gail Norton's office. There, it seems an aide, Italia Federici, received a $250,000 bribe from Abramoff clients (in the form of a payment to an environmental group she co-founded with, natch, Grover Norquist), in return for White House access. Says Senate panel chairman John McCain, it's "a complex and tangled web...a story alarming in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It is breathtaking in its reach."
"I think that the Republican Party fairly recently has been taken over by the Christian conservatives, by the Christian right. I don't think that this is a permanent condition, but I think this has happened, and that it's divisive for the country." So says former GOP Senator John Danforth, himself an Episcopal priest, in keeping with his recent editorials on the subject. Kudos to you, Senator, for saying aloud what needs to be said. By the way, I have a book recommendation for you...
"'I promised,' she says, 'that from now on I would write only for the Lord.' It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's 'Slow Train Coming'." Goth-lit-queen Anne Rice has been born again, and it doesn't involve coffins or blood transfusions. Indeed, she's now apparently halfway through a trilogy on the life of Christ, "the ultimate supernatural hero... the ultimate immortal of them all"...but she notes it won't be like Left Behind.
Personal plug: Bill Press' How the Republicans Stole Christmas, which I worked on earlier this year, was released today. As I noted last April, its basic thesis is "The Religious Right are neither religious nor right" (discuss amongst yourselves), and it aims to put the lie to the fundies' constant invocations of Jesus to justify their greed, intolerance, and hypocrisy. (And, along with being a long-time Dem campaign manager and pundit, Press also spent a decade in the seminary, so he knows of what he speaks.) Now, as they say, in bookstores everywhere.
"'What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions,' Lander said. 'You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence...Evolution is a way of understanding the world that continues to hold up day after day to scientific tests.''" As a Pennsylvania court weighs anew the constitutionality of adding creationism to biology curricula, scientists (again) try to explain how evolution differs from claptrap like intelligent design -- namely, that evolution produces hypotheses that are empirically verifiable (particularly in these heady days of genetic manipulation.) Well, yes...but what of the Pastafari? Why are we so eager to keep schoolchildren in the dark about the benedictory influence of His noodly appendage?
"[B]elievers in science are now wondering how the rejection of Darwinian evolution, once presumed to be discredited, keeps returning to claim a place in high-school biology classrooms and in popular thinking. The answer is that we're in thrall to the powerful legend of the Scopes trial. For anti-Darwinist beliefs aren't returning; they've just never gone away." Slate's David Greenberg invokes the misunderstood legacy of the Scopes trial to explain the persistence of creationist thought among Americans today.
"It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." 700 Club guru and former GOP presidential candidate Pat Robertson calls for the head of Venuezela's Hugo Chavez. (Venezuela is obviously livid, and the Dubya administration, for their part, quickly disavowed the idea.)My, isn't he just the model of Christian forbearance? Some words of wisdom, Pat: Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
Wanna see something really scary? GOP freakshow Rick Santorum invokes the Founders to rail against the pursuit of happiness. Yes, Rick, the Founders did care about public responsibility, republican citizenship, and the common good, and they went out of their way to explain that these revolutionary American ideals were most assuredly not the province of narrow-minded theocratic nutjobs such as yourself.
"'He's a friend,' the president said...'He's testified in public, and I believe him.'" In a roundtable with Texas journalists, Dubya backs Karl Rove and Rafael Palmeiro, as well as (somewhat half-heartedly) the teaching of "intelligent design." A bit of a gullible sort, ain't he?
As seen in the NYT Science Times, a volunteer at the Smithsonian discovers a forgotten cache of photos from the Scopes trial, which took place eighty years ago this month.
Bucking the Dubya trend, Bill Frist comes out for expanded federal stem cell research. Evidently, Catkiller's 2008 gurus decided he should hype his M.D. and/or tack moderate -- which is probably a mistake...the GOP moderates will likely stick with McCain, while the fundies may now look to Sam Brownback or some other winger freakshow as their primary hopeful. But, hey, the right thing is the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
Republican Rick Santorum -- the Senator of the proud state of Pennsylvania -- has rooted out the malevolent cause of the Catholic Church's recent sex abuse scandals. Celibacy? Harry Potter? Guess again. They were due to Boston itself, "a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America,." Um, ok. Could we expect any less from a guy who publicly compares Democrats to Hitler and consensual gay sex to bestiality and pedophilia? Pennsylvania, get your act together -- You're embarrassing the republic with this joker.
On the eve of the Half-Blood Prince, letters are unearthed in which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, decries the Harry Potter books. "It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly." Well, if the future pope could handle the Hitler Youth, I think most kids' eternal souls should be able to weather the Harry Potter tomes just fine.
Ambitious Dems Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. and Governor Mark Warner try to establish their presidential bona fides by joining in on the anti-Dean pileup. I wouldn't have used Deans's "white christian" line -- We shouldn't be in the business of reinforcing the GOP's hold on white Christian voters, particularly when so much of the Republicans' bellicose, intolerant, and avarice-fueled agenda is flagrantly anti-Christian in any real sense. Today's GOP may talk the talk of Jesus, but their leaders continually prostrate themselves before the altar of Mammon. As any good Christian knows, you can't serve them both.
All that being said, it's highly dismaying to watch the Dems eat their own like this. Obviously, our lazy, cowed excuse for a national newsmedia is going to leap at every possible note of intemperance to emanate from Dr. Dean, because it's an easy story that won't tick off the White House and doesn't involve much in the way of reporting. So every two-bit Democratic official that wants to start generating some media buzz and moderate cred for a 2008 bid is currently mouthing off to reporters about the former Governor of Vermont.
Do Republicans do this? Not hardly. I don't remember GOP officials rushing to lambast Bill Frist for his "against people of faith" photo-op, or Tom DeLay for all the garbage that routinely comes out of his mouth, to say nothing of all the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, etc. But one Dem uses stronger rhetoric than usual to characterize the opposition and we fall over each other to condemn him in the name of electable statesmanship. It's pathetic. Word to the wise, Dems: Let Dean be Dean -- we didn't pick him for his social nicety -- and concentrate your rhetorical firepower on the opposing trench.
On the Sunday shows, Republican Senators Arlen Specter and Sam Brownback go toe-to-toe on stem cells. "Brownback questioned 'what it does to the culture of life' when government approves performing research on the embryos, which he considers 'young human life.' Specter shot back, asking what it does 'to the culture of life when you let people die because there are medical research tools which could keep them alive?'" For what it's worth, Specter believes the Senate has the votes to override a Bush veto, even as Boss DeLay erroneously invokes various world religions to keep the House in line.
With the nuclear detente and Priscilla Owen now on her way to a judgeship, congressional attention turns to stem cell research. With the right-wing fundies already on the warpath over the loss of GOP nukes, how will they respond in the unlikely event of Dubya's threatened veto getting overridden?
In the face of growing bipartisan support (and withering hopes for Social Security privatization) in Congress, Dubya declares he will veto a bill easing stem cell restrictions. In five years, Dubya has never used the veto before...but of course he's always ready to answer the bell when the right-wing fundies come-a-knockin'.
Upon Tony Blair's third election victory (albeit one that may well lead to his ousting), the WP's Dan Balz makes the case that the Dems could learn much from Labor "Blairism". I don't think simply moving to the center is the right answer for the wayward Dems -- We need to focus less on that type of protective camouflage and more on articulating our own principles, particularly as they differ from those of the GOP, who routinely and as a matter of pride put corporate profits before the American people. Still, there is some food for thought here.
One intriguing passage: "Where Blair, Brown and Labor cannot help the Democrats is on the social issues or the intersection of religion and politics. There is nothing comparable in British politics. Howard tried to make abortion an issue at one point but quickly abandoned it under pressure from all parts of the spectrum. When Blair proposed using the words 'God bless' in a speech before the Iraq war, his advisers hooted him down."
"During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), should either leave the church or repent." Chan Chandler, a N.C. Baptist minister puts pandering for Dubya above saving souls, a decision which would likely serve him in good stead among Rick Scarborough's "Patriot Pastors," a Christian Right group now mobilizing the zealots for the coming filibuster fight. Update: Chandler claims "a misunderstanding."
Hmmm...in retrospect, perhaps they should have picked the aardvark. In surprisingly short order, the Vatican conclave chooses conservative enforcer Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope, which likely means trouble ahead for progressive Catholics. Once one of Hitler's pups (albeit somewhat reluctantly), Pope Benedict XVI, a.k.a. "God's Rottweiler," has spent his career railing against "the dictatorship of relativism" and acting as a divider, not a uniter...and he's shown he's not above moonlighting as one of Dubya's hounds if need be. On virtually every major issue facing the Church today, Benedict XVI stands firmly on the side of the fourteenth century, and his ascension to the papacy seems to herald an era of retrograde retrenchment for the Vatican. Boo hiss.
"'I think Senator Frist has backed himself into a corner where I don't see how he can avoid pulling the nuclear trigger,' said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report." According to the WP and various lookers-on, the Senate Majority Leader is "all but certain" to go nuclear on the question of judicial filibusters in the next few weeks, mainly so he can shore up his possible presidential candidacy with freak-show conservatives. In addition, his nascent 2008 bid also explains why Catkiller has chosen to appear on a forthcoming fundie telecast that claims Democrats are "against people of faith." That's a low blow even from you, Senator...How dare you? Update: Election 2008 maneuvering heats up among the GOP as Frist's allies go after John McCain for his apostasy on the nuclear option.
Pulling his Captain-Walker-for-the-fundies schtick again, Mel Gibson is apparently now planning a Pope John Paul II biopic. Hoo boy.
Well, you may have missed it after all the hoopla surrounding the recent deaths of comedian Mitch Hedberg (who's responsible for the only really funny experience I've ever had in a comedy club) and civil liberties pioneer Fred Korematsu, but apparently Pope John Paul II was called up to the Head Office over the weekend. Since it's not being reported anywhere, really, I thought I should at least mention it.
At any rate, now the search for a successor begins in earnest, one that might well have considerable ramifications for US politics (although, unfortunately, a progressive pope seems unlikely.) Well, just don't put the aardvark in charge, and let's keep Lord Papal away from the chair, shall we?
Christie Todd Whitman may refuse to name names, but Episcopal minister and former GOP Senator John Danforth got the general point across last Wednesday in the NYT: "By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians." It's gotten to the point where even Rick Santorum feels he may have to modulate his right-wing schtick in order to get re-elected in 2006.
A tip for Santorum: Being a moderate these days means occasionally taking tough stands against your own party, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is proving with his compromise Social Security plan. "Graham's plan would raise Social Security taxes for high-income earners, and reduce their eventual retirement benefits." So, naturally, "the free-market group Club for Growth, meanwhile, is running TV ads in South Carolina attacking Graham for proposing tax increases."
A couple of navel-gazing notes from the past few weeks:
* I've successfully defended my dissertation prospectus, currently and very drably titled "The Legacy of Reform: Progressive Persistence in National Politics, 1920-1928." So, now I'm really ABD (All But Dissertation), and all systems are go for my upcoming writing year.
* Although it won't be out until October, and will require some minor last-minute revisions right up until then (to account for new developments such as the Pope's probable passing), I've spent the past fall and winter researching and editing -- and have now finished up -- a third collaboration with Democratic commentator Bill Press, entitled How the Republicans Stole Christmas: The Republican Party's Declared Monopoly on Religion and What Democrats Can Do to Take it Back. In a nutshell (and as you probably guessed from the title), its very timely argument is "The Religious Right is neither religious nor right." At any rate, since the book is basically in the can and the book cover has made it to Amazon, it seems as good a time as any to tell y'all about it.
* "If you go out in the woods today, you're in for a big surprise..." Steve Belcher, a high school friend of mine who recently finished a stint at the NY Film Academy -- he's the fellow I was making a few short films with over the winter -- has sent along "Sleeping In," his first very short project, in fabulous Quicktime. Just goes to show, pretty much can anything happen in Central Park these days.
In a nod to her husband's V-Chip triangulation strategy of 1996, Senator Hillary Clinton joins perennial bluenoses Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) in calling for a new ratings system for television, video games, and the like. Ok, fine, if this helps Sen. Clinton gain cred with Bush-leaning soccer moms, so be it...a uniform ratings system isn't the end of the world. But I'd be more heartened if Hillary spent less time trying on the moralistic protective camouflage of the GOP and more time articulating the differences between the Democratic and GOP conceptions of "moral values."
For example, Republicans love to throw the Bible around. Well, last I checked, the New Testament has more to say about compassion, tolerance, the hypocrisy of self-appointed moral arbiters, and the excesses of the wealthy than it does to recommend the small-minded bigotry and pro-corporate, devil-take-the-hindmost avarice of today's Republican party. The Dems would do well in 2006 and beyond to draw attention to these huge shortfalls in GOP "values," rather than rush to appropriate their shallow, scapegoating dramaturgy. (In fact, perhaps they should take a page from groups like the surging evangelical-environmental movement.)
Tinky-Winky may keep Jerry Falwell up at night, but apparently it's Spongebob Squarepants that haunts the dreams of James Dobson, founder and head of right-wing freak show organization Focus on the Family. (Must've been that David Hasselhoff cameo.) At a inaugural function this week, Dobson castigated a new tolerance promotion video featuring Spongebob, Barney, Winnie-the-Pooh, and other children's characters of suspect orientation as "pro-homosexuality." Said Dobson's #2, "We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids...It is a classic bait and switch." Um, yeah, ok...fight the power, y'all.
"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington." At a recent awards dinner, Bill Moyers laments the rise of theocratic "End-of-Days" types under Dubya. Meanwhile, with the White House in their collective pocket, religious fundies now look to spread the word through the states.
Hope is on the...wait, what's this? Oops, sorry about that. Turns out Hope took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere back there in Idiotville. Welcome to Despairtown, baby.
So, that's that, then...the Idiot Wind blows anew. The American electorate has spoken and -- despite all the shadiness and incompetence of the past four years -- has given Dubya and his cronies the imprimatur to go hog-wild. 51-48%...this is pretty much a mandate, folks. (Big of those Red Staters to ensure that we will be woefully unprepared for the next terrorist attack on a Blue State.) Y'know, H.L. Mencken's whole Tyranny of the Booboisie schtick has always grated on my lefty sensibilities, but at this point I have to admit he may have been on to something.
Ugh. I'm too young to remember 1984 very well, but I'm curious as to how last night and this morning compared for America's Left. (I've since been reminded by several people I trust that 1968 and 1972 were much more grievous blows.) Thing is, 2004 started out with such promise over here. But, right around the time I ended up on crutches in May, events personal and political took a nasty turn, and the past few months have been some of the most dismal I can remember. Now, it seems, I may just look back on this time as relatively calm and worry-free.
But, ok, enough wallowing...let's start taking it frame-by-frame. Given the war, the economy, and Dubya's obvious incompetence, how on Earth did we lose this election? Well, give credit where credit is due...all this exit-talk of "moral values" proves that Karl Rove pulled off his gambit: He got the extra 4 million evangelical votes he was targeting, partly, it seems, by judiciously invoking rampant anti-gay hysteria. Yet, for some reason or another -- a lousy ground game, perhaps? -- the Dems inexplicably didn't counter with extra votes of our own.
Where do we go from here? The Dems are facing an ugly Rule of Four...We lost four seats in the Senate, at least four seats in the House, and likely four seats in the Supreme Court. Whatsmore, we now appear officially dead in the water in the South and Midwest. And, with Kerry and Daschle gone, our standard-bearers now appear to be Hillary Clinton (about whom the country has already made up its mind), John Edwards (whom I still admire, but he couldn't carry his home state), and Barrack Obama (who's probably too inexperienced to make much headway in 2008.)
Obviously, it's now well past time for the serious party overhaul we should've began last cycle, when Al Gore had an election stolen from him that he should have won hands down. Daschle & Gephardt are already in the dustbin of history, and Terry McAuliffe should probably follow them there. I for one don't think Howard Dean was or is the answer, but he's one of the only people injecting new blood and enthusiasm into the party right now, so he should have a seat at the table. Right now, I think Edwardsian populism is our strongest ideological card, but as I said, it didn't seem to make much headway last night.
Silver lining? Yeah, right. Well, as this Washington Monthly forum noted in September, second terms are notoriously scandal-prone (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica), partly out of press boredom, and Dubya's ilk seem particularly scandal-worthy...perhaps we'll finally hear a little more about Halliburton. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of horrifying policy decisions emanating from this administration that'll keep lefty blogs like this one in business. And, on a purely selfish note, my likely dissertation topic on the fortunes of progressivism in the twenties is now seeming much more sexy in the wake of last night's 1928-like cultural divide. Of course, none of these are really any consolation at all.
At any rate, I generally believe that America tends to get the president it deserves. So, God help us, we've brought this upon ourselves. And now, for we 48%, the hard work begins...we have to lick our wounds, get our act together, and figure out how we can best combat the rightward drift that's afflicting our nation. Alas, I fear Dubya will do much of the heavy lifting for us, by running the nation further into the ground over the next four years. Still, we gotta keep on keeping on, y'all. I do not believe this darkness will endure.
"[Bruce] Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: 'This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them...This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts...He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis.'" Ron Suskind, co-author of The Price of Loyalty, delves into the sadly myopic halls of Dubya's faith-based presidency (and attempts to explain why our current Prez can't distinguish between Sweden and Switzerland...no one in the White House ever openly challenges his ignorance.)
"This is one of those Bush/Cheney invitation-only lovefests where the president could walk out in his boxer shorts and speak in pig Latin and the crowd would still chant 'four more years.'" With the debates over, it's shore-up-the-base time for Dubya (Hence, the return of the dreaded "L-Word".) And, along those lines, evangelical leaders are working hard to get believers out for Bush. Update: Liberal Christians push back.
"'Do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other.' CAN WE TRUST JESUS TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR?" Via Mad Magazine and Eschaton, If Dubya was running against Jesus. Y'know, this is just the type of tax-and-spend fringe-lefty liberalism we've come to expect from hippy-dippy longhairs like Christ.
Apparently, evangelicals are still waiting by the phone for their GOP convention invites. "'People who are not part of the religious right might be alienated if they put too many conservatives as the public face of the party,' said Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta." You think?
Speaking of Dubya and "shared values," I neglected to post this earlier, so the links are kinda stale now. (Compounding my bad form, I also forgot where I saw them originally.) Nevertheless, much to the chagrin of many pastors and theologians, the Dubya campaign is leaning heavily on churchgoers to join an ecclesiastical voting army this November. "Even Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission and a prominent Bush supporter, recoiled at the idea of churches becoming directly involved in a political campaign. 'I am appalled,' Land said in a statement. 'I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way...It's one thing for a church member motivated by exhortations to exercise his Christian citizenship to go out and decide to work on the Bush campaign or the Kerry campaign. It's another, and totally inappropriate for a political campaign, to ask workers who may be church members to provide church member information through...directories." Will Karl's Crusade against Kerry-Edwards falter before it's even begun?
Dubya jumps in the polls after Reagan's photo-op funeral, and decides to celebrate by lying about Iraq and 9/11 all over again. C'mon, y'all Republican moralists out there...Where's the outrage? Clinton was impeached for far less, and we already know the Baptists won't put up much of a fuss.
"The problem is not that George W. Bush is discussing policy with people who press right-wing solutions to achieve peace in the Middle East, or with devout Christians. It is that he is discussing policy with Christians who might not care about peace at all - at least until the rapture." Rick Perlstein uncovers the Bush administration's recent meetings with Apocalyptic Christian zealots to discuss shifts in Israel policy.
Iraq increasingly a quagmire, deficits soaring, the economy in the tank...what Bush worry? As Rick Perlstein points out, it's easy for Dubya to remain preternaturally calm when he believes he's divinely ordained.
Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each...Because the world demanded it, The Life of Brian is back in theaters. Best hurry and get your tix before churches buy 'em all out.
He's big, He's mean, He's pissed...He's the Son of God? The NY Times examines the rise of "Angry Jesus" among conservative evangelicals and other Christian groups feeling swamped amid a rising tide of secularism (Never mind that Mel's paean to gory Christian martyrdom is the highest grossing film of 2004, and that the White House of the most powerful nation on Earth is currently manned by a born-again biblethumper.) C'mon y'all...to use the parlance of the movement, WWJD? Somehow, I'd think He'd err on the side of love and forgiveness, not run around like the Rock wreaking havoc on sinners and unrepentants. But perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
We've heard from the pope (sort of) ("It is as it was?" Jesus was a tall blue-eyed white guy?), we've heard from Harry Knowles, but now the "real" reviews of The Passion (which I'll probably see this weekend) are coming in fast, and so far they all say the same thing: Too much violence and gore, too little charity and grace. David Edelstein sums up the emerging consensus view: "This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith." And even Roger Ebert, an admirer of the film (and one whom I rarely agree with these days), confesses: "This is the most violent film I have ever seen." Hoo boy. I was afraid of that. Beware the packs of bloodthirsty bible-thumpers on your way out, y'all.
From fighting the undead to praising the risen-again, the new trailer for Mel's Passion (referred to by the ever-emphatic Harry Knowles as a "dead language gore film about one of the greatest stories ever told") is now online. Looks like they've decided to go the subtitle route.
The official teaser for Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ is now online. Compared to the unofficial (and violent) one that made the rounds a few months ago, I have to say this one's on the uninteresting side. In related news, I find it rather ridiculous that Gibson screened the film for the AICN guys this weekend, while denying a viewing to concerned religious groups (or, for that matter, the Pope.) For some reason, I don't think a standard-issue Harry Knowles shill (in both literal and figurative purple prose, no less) is going to allay the fears of either the Vatican or the ADL about this film.
Fresh off calling upon the Lord to snuff out a few justices, televangelist and former GOP Presidential nominee Pat Robertson advocates nuking the State Department. I presume John Ashcroft and the FBI are conducting a full investigation of this possible terrorist threat.
"We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court...One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?" Pat Robertson calls on God to put a hit out on three Supreme Court justices following Lawrence v. Texas. Well, while we're praying for people's "removal"...
AICN gets its hands on the powerful (and very graphic) trailer for The Passion, Mel Gibson's forthcoming version of the Christ story, as told in Aramaic and Latin. Given Gibson's ultraconservative Catholicism, his rejection of the Second Vatican Council (which, among other things, repudiated the idea of Jewish collective guilt for the death of Jesus), and his father's background of Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, I must admit I fear the worst about this project...but I'll reserve judgment until I've seen the movie. To be sure, the trailer is a startling piece of work.
