Author: Andrew Sullivan

A reader writes:

I am as far from Mel Gibson’s theological and political world as one can get.  He is quite obviously a deeply troubled man with extreme views.  But I think calling the Passion of the Christ an “attack on the Gospels” goes a little far.  For one thing, I’m pretty sure you would never refer to “The Last Temptation of Christ” that way, even though that film takes far more liberties with the Gospels than Gibson does.  And let’s not forget it is the Gospels themselves that contain lines like “His blood be on us and on our children.”  A director should be allowed to make whatever interpretation of Jesus they want without being lynched, from the Left in Gibson’s case and from the Right in Scorsese’s. And let’s be totally frank here: the Passion’s depiction of a Roman crucifixion was spot on. 

I majored in Latin so I feel fairly qualified to speak on this.  People on the outer reaches of the Empire condemned to execution by the Romans were not treated nicely.  Roman guards flogged their victims senselessly before putting them on the cross.  It was a sport to them, similar to the cruelty shown by the Nazis in the camps. 

I think you can question making a film about several sentences in the Gospels.  You can question whether God wants us to live that horror of the crucifixion in such a visceral way.  But you can’t say that Gibson is inaccurate in depicting a barbarism that occurred millions of times over throughout the outer edges of the Roman Empire. 

Another writes:

Should we re-evaluate the Passion now that we see the person who made it in a more revealing light?  Maybe, but maybe not. You never cared for it, but two of the more decent, caring and yes, liberal Christians I know saw it and were deeply moved (I never saw it myself). Separating the art from the person is always a tricky business at best and impossible at worst.

Another:

When I first read your description of the Passion, I just assumed that you didn’t like it because it depicted the torture and execution of Christ too graphically. But then I thought about all of the depictions of other forms of torture that you have posted on your blog, and now I’m at a loss as to why you hate the film so much. If the crucifixion really was that bloody and violent, then isn’t re-creating it as Gibson did the most honest way of driving home the message of the cross? I honestly don’t see it being any different from you publishing pictures from Abu-Ghraib (or photos of dead children in Gaza, which you continue to post over reader objections).  Is there some other reason you seem to despise the film?

The point is that the extreme violence that Gibson added is not in the Gospels, and the treatment of Jesus as depicted would have killed any human long before Gibson’s endless pornographic violence reached its conclusion. It was a sadistic fantasy, with barely a word about Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness. Here’s a link to my impressions immediately after seeing the movie in 2004. Money quote:

The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn’t even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail – which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits.

One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man’s eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot.

Dan Ariely wants to know why we have paid more attention to the BP spill than other environmental disasters:

Here are a few characteristics that might differentiate the BP oil spill from the destruction of the Amazon. First, it is a singular event with a precise beginning. Second, while the tragedy was ongoing (and we are not yet sure if it has ended or not) it seemed to become more desperate by the day. Third, we have a single organization that we can villainize. In contrast, in the Amazon, there are many organizations and individuals at fault, both in the countries where deforestation is occurring and abroad. And fourth, the Gulf is so much closer to home (at least for Americans).

(Map of global forest heights from NASA via FD)

Jonah Lehrer explains them:

Here's one example of how stress destroys the body. Elissa Epel, a former grad student of Sapolsky's and a professor of psychiatry at UCSF, has demonstrated that mothers caring for chronically ill report much higher levels of stress. That's not surprising. What is surprising is that these women also have dramatically shortened telomeres, those caps on the end of chromosomes that keep our DNA from disintegrating. (Women with the highest levels of stress had telomere shortening equal "to at least one decade of additional aging.") When our telomeres run out, our cells stop dividing; we've run out of life. Stress makes us run out of life faster.

A reader writes:

Your dissenting reader could not have actually read the site he linked to. S/he uses it to support a possible bipolar diagnosis for Gibson, saying "his behavior – certainly his rage – is actually rather common in the manic phase of unmedicated (or self-medicated) bipolar disorder." But on the linked site it says: "Anger or rage are not typical symptoms of bipolar disorder. While certainly someone might exhibit rage while in a manic phase of bipolar disorder, it is not a symptom one could draw conclusions from." The expert continues to question the validity of a bipolar diagnosis:

Re: Gibson's self-absorption – "Focusing on one’s own feelings and how another person’s behavior affects us is not a sign of bipolar disorder."
Re: Gibson's warped perspective – "Such a discrepancy in perspective or connection to reality can be a sign of a psychotic break — but it’s not a typical symptom of bipolar disorder."
Re: Gibson's threats to kill Grigorieva – "This is not a symptom of bipolar disorder, but could be connected to someone who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

The linked-to expert essentially comes up with a more likely explanation for all of Gibson's behaviors than bipolar disorder: drug and alcohol abuse. If you are going to argue that Gibson is bipolar, this is definitely not the website to direct people to. And so what that Gibson "admitted" to being bipolar? How better to excuse unacceptable behavior than to claim mental illness?

Another writes:

I agree about the need for police intervention. However, I do think the diagnosis of bipolar disorder is relevant to domestic abuse.  I've had relatives with bipolar disorder.  Some swung between mania and depression and were not abusive.  However, one was diagnosed as "rapid cycling mixed."  This person had periods of mania and depression and also a mixed state (simultaneously manic and depressed) that manifested itself as anger/agitation.  In the mixed state (which gradually became the more constant state), this person became viciously abusive, irrational and increased his drinking.

The correct extended-release mood stabilizer transformed him into a different person.  In fact, the transformation was so startling it made me reconsider everything I ever believed about nature versus nurture and personality.  Jail time is likely the only way to force Gibson onto the proper meds.

The Tablet calls several writers who have criticized Israel's assault on Gaza and refusal to freeze the settlements on the West Bank "Jew-baiters." I, Glenn Greenwald, Stephen Walt, and Philip Weiss are operating an "open sewer of hate," for arguing that US interests lie in getting a two-state solution sooner rather than later, and in our outrage at the way in which the Israeli government has shown contempt for the US president in the last couple of years, egged on by many neocons. There are no substantive arguments in the piece, and there are no quotes in the piece from any of the bloggers and writers concerned that could even faintly be called anti-Semitic. There is just cherry-picking of vileness that often shows up on comments sections (which this blog does not even have). I mean: seriously. To argue from a bunch of selected comments on other sites that I have made a "career as a Jew-baiter" is so disgusting and transparent a smear it refutes itself. 

Meanwhile, the current Israeli prime minister has just been caught on tape saying in 2001 that he openly deceived president Clinton and has this view of how to deal with the Palestinians:

“beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable.”

Why is Netanyahu not an "open sewer of hate"? None of the writers the Tablet cites has ever written anything even faintly as disgusting or as racist as that.

Jonathan Rauch compares them. The whole thing is worth a read. Here is part of his conclusion:

I believe that, slowly but surely, family values are renormalizing and will continue to renormalize around later family formation and an ethic which stresses responsible childbearing over abstinence from sex—if only because economic and cultural forces are pulling so hard in that direction. At a time when even many young traditionalists (evangelicals, for example) take contraception for granted, are unable to abstain from sex until marriage, and are unwilling to accept shotgun weddings, it is hard to see how the old unity of sex, marriage, and procreation can be sustained. In today’s world, progress has got to lie in the direction of discouraging early family formation and encouraging (and improving) education.

Therefore it is hard to see how limiting marriage to heterosexual couples can continue to make much sense even in Red America. I don’t think excluding gay couples from marriage will do anything to strengthen or restore the old sex/marriage/procreation unity, and I think trying to hold homosexual couples to the old norm while heterosexuals live by the new one will be counterproductive as well as unfair.

(Image: Kate Kuykendall (L) and her wife Tori Kuykendall (R) with their daughter Zadie attend a gay rights rally against the Proposition 8 measure at the El Pueblo de Los Angeles park on March 4, 2009. By Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images)

A reader writes:

Thank you for posting about how the Palin endorsement has impacted the Georgia race for Governor.  As you know, Karen has shot to the lead in the polls after floundering in second or third in the race to make the runoff in several weeks.

As a side note, Ms. Handel has a somewhat sordid history with the Atlanta LGBT community.  In her first two races for a seat on the Fulton County Commission (Atlanta) she actively sought the LGBT vote, going as far as joining the Log Cabin chapter here and pursuing an endorsement from Georgia Equality.  She said she supported domestic partner benefits for Fulton County employees and said she was not opposed to adoption by gays and lesbians. 

Well, as you might expect, she did a 180 soon after winning her seat on the commission and setting her eyes on statewide office.

She voted against domestic partner benefits for county employees, then ran successfully for Secretary of State in 2006 while completely denying she ever joined Log Cabin, pursued an endorsement from Georgia Equality, or said she supported gay adoption. The Journal-Constitution documented all of this here, here, and here.

In addition to being one of the worst kind of political opportunists, Ms. Handel is like Ms. Palin in other ways; she can’t seem to serve a full term for any elected office; she quit the county commission to become Secretary of State and quit as Secretary of State to run for Governor.

And it's paying off:

[Handel] came in first in Georgia’s Republican gubernatorial primary Tuesday evening and will face Nathan Deal, a former Congressman, in an Aug. 10 runoff.

A reader writes:

I know you have aired the "so what" view in the past, but given your rehashing of the issue after returning from Bearville, I think it deserves another go.

So what if Trig is not Palin’s biological child? If you published conclusive proof tomorrow, Palin would just go on Oprah and confess. She would tell Oprah all about the big bad liberal media, and claim that her story was fabricated for the sake of the real mother and Trig. The audience claps at her bravery, her followers cry, and a few months later everything would return to normal. Her base would love her even more after the Oprah interview than they do now.

Palin’s family dysfunction endures her to her followers. It proves she’s "real" and not an "elitist." The rest of the world would see her confession as another sign of her dysfunctional family, but that’s how they see her now anyway, particularly after the whole Levi/Bristol debacle. One of my best friends was raised by his grandparents, under the guise that they were his biological parents. It’s more common than you think in certain areas of the country.

Yes, Palin brings Trig to campaign events and book signing. Yes, she uses Trig to prove she’s a "real person" and "conservative" and "pro-life." So what? Worst case scenario is that she voluntarily took it upon herself to adopt a child with down syndrome and raise Trig as her own, which supports the "real person" and "conservative" and "pro-life" message anyway.  The mainstream media would treat the issue as too sensitive to push during the debates, and the whole thing would go away.

If this is an odd lie, it’s not the same as proving a pro-life Christianist had an abortion, or a "family values conservative" had an affair.  It's not a moral failing like John Edwards, or even Bill Clinton. In the end, the American people can forgive a lie of this type because the truth is not immoral and not directly hypocritical.

I can see this, and am sure it might redound in her favor, which is why many liberals in the MSM are as adamant about not exploring this as the conservatives. My view is simply that a broad swathe of sane people will realize that someone who perpetrated such a fantastic hoax, if indeed she did, who stuffed pillows up her dress, who claimed the mantle of giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome while doing nothing of the sort, would destroy her as a candidate for president.

Her base would rally, but shrink. But my interest in this is simply to get the full evidence to resolve it – regardless of its unknowable consequences. I would very much like to be proven wrong in harboring any doubts about her story. In fact, I see no downside for her in disclosing what she has in her possession. If you wanted to shore up your base, why not pwn for good and all that demented blogger who hates America?

Jonathan Glancey profiles London's tallest residential tower and the world's first building to incorporate wind turbines into its structure:

The plan was first made public six years ago and work is unlikely to be completed before 2020. It's a colossal challenge, as well as an opportunity, and the £113.5m Strata, the first of three skyscrapers planned for here, is a symbol of the dynamism and energy the project demands. And that energy must, of course, be seen to be green. It's early days, but if the turbines work as planned, and aren't too noisy for residents in the pricey penthouses beneath them, they should generate 8% of this 43-storey building's energy needs. This is roughly enough to run its electrical and mechanical services (including three express lifts and automated window-cleaning rigs) as well as the lighting, heating and ventilation of its public spaces, which include an underground car and cycle park.

Pity it's so butt-ugly.

(Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)