Month: April 2006

Some readers have objected to my attempt to coin a new word to describe those who would deploy the teachings of Jesus as a political ideology as "Christianists." They don’t like the analogy to Islamists, and think it imputes to politicized Christians an endorsement of terror or violence. The latter is not in any way my intent. In the war on terror, many have distinguished between Muslims and Islamists. The distinction made is between those who sincerely hold to an ancient faith, and those who are deploying that faith as a political weapon, who see no distinction between state and mosque, and who aggressively foist their religious doctrines onto civil law. And this is a critical distinction. It helps us to criticize regimes like the Taliban or Iran’s, while not tarring all Muslims with that label.

That is my intent with the term "Christianist" and "Christianism." The truth is: I do not recognize my own Christianity or the Christianity of millions in the blasphemous words of Tom DeLay or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. These individuals are political figures, using faith as a weapon to advance a political agenda that aims at policing people’s moral lives, removing people’s civil rights, and marginalizing minorities. Today, in the NYT, Garry Wills brilliantly defends Christianity and Jesus from such blasphemy and hubris. In this, I think many evangelicals and even fundamentalists quietly but overwhelmingly concur. The distinction between religion and politics was long understood among American evangelicals; and it is central to Jesus’ message. It took hubristic liberalism to galvanize American evangelicals into a politicized response; but subsequently the movement of right-wing Christianism has achieved a momentum all its own. It has even spawned a Catholic off-shoot: the theocons who also want to deploy faith for political gain and an assault on liberty. Wills is right that a left-wing Christianism would be no better. Democrats should do all they can to resist that temptation.

So: no apologies from me. People who believe in the Gospels of Jesus Christ are Christians. People who use the Gospels of Jesus Christ for political gain, and for a political program of right or left, are Christianists. And Christianism, like many "isms", is an ideology that will corrupt faith and poison politics. It has already done both, under the auspices of this president and his acolytes. It is long past time that real Christians took their faith back from these political charlatans. One first step is to deny them the name that they have so artfully coopted. It starts with language. It always does.

The British comedy series, "Yes, Minister," and subsequently, "Yes, Prime Minister," was a masterly insight into how people in government view themselves, especially the permanent civil servants who implement government directives. In Britain, these people form a professional government caste. Sir Humphrey is the master of that caste; and he had something to say about leaks of classified information that is certainly pertinent to the current American debate. Money quote:

Prime Minister: We must do something to improve my relations with the press, which deteriorated considerably when my private secretary told them I felt I was above the law when it came to official secrets.

Bernard: Yes, you may well hang your head.

PM: What’s the constitutional position, Humphrey?

Sir Humphrey: Well, in a sense, Bernard was right. The question, in a nutshell, is what is the difference between a breach of the Official Secrets Act and an unattributable, off-the-record briefing by a senior official? The former – a breach – is a criminal offence. A briefing is essential to keep the wheels turning.

Bernard: Is there a difference or is it a matter of convenience and interpretation? Is it a breach of the act if there is an unofficial, non-attributable briefing by an official who’s been unofficially authorised by the Prime Minister?

Sir Humphrey: Not if it’s been authorised by the PM, no.

PM: That’s what I say. I should decide if it’s in the national interest for something to be disclosed, not officials.

PM: Last week’s leak must’ve come from an official.

Bernard: But what if the official was officially authorised or even unofficially authorised? What if the PM officially disapproves of a breach of the act, but unofficially approves?

Sir Humphrey: Then a leak would be unofficially official, but officially unofficial.

Everything clear now?

Sy Hersh’s new piece is now posted. Money quote:

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that ‘a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.’ He added, ‘I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?”

Gulp.

The children captured as "enemy combatants" in Afghanistan and subsequently released, have nothing but good things to say about their time at the camp, and America. They were sequestered from the adult prisoners and gave up no useful intelligence. Of course, most twelve-year-olds do not qualify as, in Rummy’s words, "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth." But their treatment was humane. Money quote:

The food in the camp was delicious, the teaching was excellent, and his warders were kind. "Americans are good people, they were always friendly, I don’t have anything against them," he said. "If my father didn’t need me, I would want to live in America."
Asadullah is even more sure of this. "Americans are great people, better than anyone else," he said, when found at his elder brother’s tiny fruit and nut shop in a muddy backstreet of Kabul. "Americans are polite and friendly when you speak to them. They are not rude like Afghans. If I could be anywhere, I would be in America. I would like to be a doctor, an engineer _ or an American soldier."

Some, of course, will use this to dismiss the inhumane treatment of adult prisoners at Gitmo. That’s a non-sequitur. Moreover, it shouldn’t be news that the U.S. treats minors decently. But, given Rumsfeld’s record, it is.

First they came for the cartoons …

The Onion, as always, is on the cutting edge.

I don’t know why today has become NYT day on the blog, but what the hell. Another reader writes:

"Bruce Bartlett has some rather strange concepts of marketing when it comes to the New York Times. He’s right about the blog thing, but nothing else. He thinks it’s strange that the New York Times would cut itself off from 40% of the population. Not at all, actually. There are only two national newspapers in the United States: The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. One is conservative, one is liberal, as it should be. It is wise for the Times to seek out a different market from the Wall Street Jounal, otherwise they would be out of business. If they simply produced a replica of the Wall Street Journal every day, I’d just buy the Journal.

He also says that the TimesSelect concept is wrong. He says they should use the Journal’s method. But that, too, is silly. You only try to sell what people are willing to buy. The Journal can sell its news because it has news that is only available from the Journal and that news has financial value to its readers. The editorials from the Journal are nothing but republican propanga. I can get that free from FOX news or my republican senator. So, they can’t really sell their editorials. The Times, on the other hand, rarely produces unique news features. On the rare occasion that the Times breaks a story, I can read it in my local paper, because they use the New York Times wire service. So, the only thing the Times can sell is their editorials.

Of course, I don’t actually buy TimesSelect, but that doesn’t make it a bad idea. I don’t buy it because I can always find a back door around it. I have not missed a single Krugman piece since he "went behind the wall." If I had to buy those pieces, I would. The only error the Times commits is their failure to close the back door access."

I should confess that I read the NYT every day on dead tree. I signed up for TimesSelect when I wanted to research the archives. But the NYT opedders have ceased to be part of the bloggy-conversation, which is increasingly the national – and international – conversation. That’s a shame. 

A loyal NYT reader emailed me his poetic response to TimesSelect. It comes in three forms. A Limerick:

There once was a paper of repute
Whose columnists none could refute.
But wanting more cash,
It hid them in a stash–
Essentially making them mute.

A Haiku:

Loyal readers balk.
Are blogs now our only hope?
Curse you, Times Select!

And a Sonnet:

My love, why art thou never where I seek?
In days of old, I met you ev’ry night,
And read your lavish prose as loyal geek.
But now I fear that this was false delight.

In place of lengthy expositions true,
Of flat earth, int’rest rates and refugees,
I find one paragraph, or maybe two,
Beyond which I must pay outrageous fees.

Is this the way our joy was bound to go?
My great devotion taken not as praise,
But opportunity for easy dough,
Without regard for imminent malaise?

You brashly call your heartless act "Select"–
And thus select yourselves for my neglect."

The malign movement to remove male body-hair seems to be gaining in some quarters. I’ll never forgive circuit queens for starting this trend, and gay men have actually moved on. Go, bears! Straight guys, alas, always a lagging indicator, may now be experiencing a crest in the back-waxing movement. For the love of God, stop.

Finally, someone in authority has taken full responsibility for the breach of the 17th St. Floodwall that was primarily responsible for the destruction of downtown New Orleans. Harry Shearer explains.