Gotta Love Those Fundamentalists.

I find it a bit of a shame how fundamentalists and other scallywags have perverted the meaning of the New Testament. I’m not saying that I particularly buy into the worldview of this famous tome, but I’m not willing to discount whatever lessons can be gleaned from it just because some freakishly empty robots want to fight over it.

It’s especially ironic that folks who would spend time memorizing quotes from the gospels are so resistant to doing even a modicum of research that would help provide context and deeper understanding. How many people have ever heard of the Council of Nicea? Constantinople convened it in 325C.E. I can’t claim to be anything near an expert on this topic, but I am aware of certain details that compel my attention.

The official record seems to suggest that the sun-worshipping Emperor was making a sincere attempt at achieving a consensus of opinion of all Christendom. It might not surprise you that I find this interpretation impossible. Constantinople was most concerned with consolidating the empire. A means of social control was necessary for the continuing influence of the Roman leaders.

Christianity ceased to be something that could possibly attain consensus when Jesus Christ died. As soon as he wasn’t there to speak for himself and answer questions, varying interpretations of his meaning arose out of the individual personalities that had encountered him. Eventually all types of people that had never even seen him alive began to hold forth on the subject. Did you ever play the “telephone game” in elementary school? There you go.

So a bunch of influential priests and power brokers sat around a table three hundred years after Christ, and decided to arbitrarily designate some “truths”. They summarized their conclusions in the Nicene Creed. One of the differences of opinion represented at the Council included whether or not Jesus was the literal “son of God” rather than a figurative one. That alone should give the fundamentalists pause.

Be Good For Goodness' Sake.

You know we've officially entered the Holiday Season when "conservative" talk radio starts its annual ranting about the supposed "War on Christmas". The tip-off for me came yesterday when local host Fred Honsberger started bitching about a new ad that's been appearing on public buses. Apparently it reads "Why believe in God? Be good for goodness' sake". It's a fairly innocuous message as far as I'm concerned, but it's reportedly quite offensive to a segment of fragile Christians. Honsberger is rolling out the lamentations about what he perceives as "attacks" on Christianity. He wants to know why folks would want to pick on these God-faring citizens. He's challenged the audience to come up with examples where Christians have harassed non-believers*.

Only a complete wingnut would try to make the case that Christians are persecuted in this country. Despite the protections of the 1st Amendment, people of "faith" are continually trying to get government to adopt their beliefs and language. It's obvious to me that religion has a much better chance of encroaching upon our public life than it has of being repressed by our leaders (or marketers). I'm fine with giving the flock a wide berth. They should be able to do anything they want (within the bounds of the law) in their places of worship. I don't even mind the occasional reference to "God" in political speeches. But I don't want anybody forcing their doctrine on me. I was raised as a Christian, and I've had plenty of time to either embrace or reject it on my own.

I don't understand how a secular humanist reminder to value good for it's own sake is particularly threatening to anyone in society. Not everyone is going to accept your own personal savior. And if you study the holy books, you find out pretty quick that the God they speak of wanted humans to make their own choices. It's not that impressive to commit to fate. If your salvation or damnation was decided for you at birth, then it really wouldn't matter how you behaved in life. I would think that this is an essential argument used quite often in the push for conversion. I know for a fact that it's an important underlying premise for those practicing within evangelical sects.

So what happens to "the lost"? There will always be a certain proportion of people that refuse to be "saved". What is to be done with those that recognize no divine parameters? If they aren't concerned with avoiding sin, or with the consequence of eternal suffering as a punishment for ignoring "The Word", what could we possibly do to influence their moral decisions? Surely we need to socialize them somehow. On what foundation can we build our ethical edifice? Fortunately we have the preserved writings of plenty of artists, writers, and philosophers that have grappled with these issues without relying on God for their authority. There is a wide range of approaches that can lead to the desired outcomes. There is no single path, as far as I'm concerned.

Honsberger claims that the aforementioned advertisement (which is illustrated with a Santa Clause character) somehow denigrates his beliefs. We can only assume from his reaction that he is convinced that his is the only way. He considers December 25th the birth date of the the only son of God, and therefore one of the two most sacred days of the year. I can respect that, but I disagree that the appropriation of the Santa Claus iconography for this ad cheapens anyone's faith. There is a long tradition of consumer manipulation based around this fat jolly guy dressed in red. What he has to do with the historical figure that died on a cross completely eludes my grasp.

When Walmart offers you a Merry Christmas next month, they won't be concerned with sharing the love of Christ with you. They are more interested in sustaining a marketing mythology that they have determined is helpful in reaching their sales objectives. Fred Honsberger would be better served confronting that whole mess, rather than a small secular group that is trying to promote cooperation and civility.


* I'll leave this task to the readers of Serendipity. I feel no need to insult your intelligence or historical awareness.

Who Put That Summum in My Backyard?

Christians are feeling harassed nowadays. At every turn they are facing persecution, denial, and even hostility. Their religion is on the brink of irrelevance, and the historical role it has played in American history is being ignored. So say the loudest among the 77% of the nation that self-identify as Christians. Frankly, this is a refrain I'm losing patience with. For someone with roots within the religion, but a lifestyle in which that heritage takes a background role, the constant whining is starting to grate. The reality is that it's difficult to go an entire day without running into a series of "God's messages"- along the road, through traditional media, and even in the workplace. But for some adherents, too much will never be enough.

One more in a string of controversies over this issue is playing itself out in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, and in the US Supreme Court. Within that small community lies Rose Garden Park, which has been home to a sculpture featuring the Ten Commandments since 1971. In 2003 a group of believers from the Summum religion donated a statue containing "The Seven Aphorisms" (which contain the tenets of their faith) to Pleasant Grove with the intention of having it displayed alongside the other works at the park. Unfortunately for the faithful, the mayor and the other town fathers rejected the gift. But when the Summum group brought the matter to the courts, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor.

At issue was the characterization of private speech in the public sphere. If the Judeo-Christian message of proscription is private, then those who decided to display it in Pleasant Grove, and to exclude "The Seven Aphorisms" of Summum, have violated the intent of our Free Speech guarantees. The Appeals Court judged the action to be content-based discrimination. Yet a dissenting judge in that decision claimed that the Ten Commandments sculpture represented "government speech" because the monuments in the park were subject to city control. Somehow the contestants in this case both cite Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, wherein American beef producers sued to defy a congressionally-mandated marketing campaign.

It seems odd to me that the basis of argument in this case is "free speech" rather than "freedom of religion". I have no qualms about saying that the action of the Pleasant Grove municipal leaders has violated the Establishment Clause. If this is (as they contend) "government speech", then they should not be allowed to favor the doctrines of one religion, while discounting those of another, more obscure faith. That seems obvious to me, and in fact this doctrinaire approach was something that our "founding fathers" were trying to escape when they distinguished us from European society. In the years since our promising start, Europe has evolved out of its reliance on religious law, and we have been "Left Behind", so to speak.

There's an inherent danger in prying open our government to the influences of any established religion. Even among Christian sects there are plenty of disparities that distinguish one from another. And there are still millions of citizens who subscribe to other faiths, or forego them altogether. Legal authority should be kept separate from spiritual authority. Objections that Christianity is indelibly connected to our history are beside the point- slavery, genocide, sexism, and exploitation are also tied to our past. If you open the door to one set of faith-based ideas in the public sphere, you must welcome (and even seek out) the balance of alternate views. It simply doesn't matter how odd you find them, or how much you disagree.

GOP in Crisis.

As the prospect of a John McCain presidency looks less and less likely to many people, the trickle of conservatives distancing themselves from the GOP ticket has turned into a steady stream. Over the last few weeks we've heard of prominent Republicans turning their back on the McCain/Palin ticket. It must be noted that there was no consensus candidate for the party during the primaries. The coalition that coalesced under the Bush banner began to show fissures as early as 2007. Christian Conservatives looked at the field with a distinct lack of enthusiasm, as one after another of their hopefuls fell away. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and arguably the leader of his faction, expressed his unwillingness to back the horses that seemed to be running strong.

Meanwhile the Neoconservative Movement, which had seen its cabal rise to power behind the scenes of the Bush Administration, increasingly saw its policy recommendations maligned and discredited by real-world consequences. The nation had seemed to lose its stomach for "spreading democracy" with a strategy of forceful aggression. Finally, fiscal conservatives began to wonder what happened to their approach to governance. They wondered who was representing the old school values of their fathers' GOP. Gradually John McCain reemerged from the bankruptcy of his campaign and began to challenge seriously for the nomination. While he didn't inspire genuine excitement, he seemed like the most acceptable compromise candidate.

McCain was in the odd position of being the only high-profile Republican who was seen as both a genuine counterbalance to George W. Bush (whose administration had sunk to its lowest approval ratings in seven plus years), and at the same time experienced enough to be trusted to carry the Red State banner. The only problem was that he had alienated the Christian Right in his bid for the presidency in 2000, a minority group that consistently generated the energy believed necessary to capture the nation's top office. The solution to that problem was generated by influential Neocon Bill Kristol and a Karl Rove-protégé named Steve Schmidt. They urged McCain to select a little-known socially conservative governor from Alaska named Sarah Palin.

As is patently clear by now, Palin was able to fire up a crucial part of the Right-wing base. Out of what now appears to have been an increasing sense of desperation, they billed this newcomer on the national political scene as The Future of the Republican Party. It was a hell of a gamble, and at first (in the wake of an effective RNC Convention speech) seemed to pay off dividends. But quite obviously that pivotal decision looks to have been short-sighted. Palin did not live up to her initial hype, and many within the GOP appear to be experiencing "buyer's remorse". The single most frequently-cited reason by prominent conservative figures for abandoning McCain is his ill-advised choice of a running mate.

While it would be too simplistic to lay the responsibility for the crisis that the GOP is facing solely at Palin's feet (she is simply the manifestation of forces that have been at play for the last thirty years), it's no secret that she has become a symbol for the displeasure that so many lifelong Republicans have recently expressed. She is not the unifying figure that the party needs to consolidate the power it has generated over the last several decades. I don't believe I am alone in this assessment either. If you have doubts, just ask Colin Powell, William Weld, Charles Fried, Kenneth Adelman, Scott McClellan, Susan Collins, Senator Chuck Hagel, Lilibet Hagel, Jim Leach, Lincoln Chafee, Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, Larry Pressler, Lowell Weicker, Matthew Dowd, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley, Christopher Hitchens, Susan Eisenhower, Arne Carlson, Francis Fukuyama, Bill Ruckelshaus, Jeffrey Hart, Linwood Holton, Jackson M. Andrews, Rita Hauser, Mike Murphy, Douglas Kmiec, Peggy Noonan, Michael Smerconish, Larry Hunter, Jim Whitaker, Wick Allison, Andrew J. Bacevich, or the host of "ordinary" Americans who want a change.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 3.

PLEASE READ PART 2 OF THIS SERIES BEFORE CONTINUING.

When Sarah Palin suggests that Jeremiah Wright should be returned to the political dialog in this ever-intensifying presidential race, she is not-so-subtly underscoring an important message- religion matters in the political sphere. Palin knows that many Americans felt threatened by what they interpreted as Wright's radical approach to Christianity. In this respect Palin is very well-informed, as I'll prove later in this post. She knows exactly how high the stakes are in this election. She is also well aware that she was chosen to be John McCain's partner because he would otherwise have had significant difficulty getting support from the Christian Right. It is patently clear to many political observers that the GOP is using Palin as a tool.

Unfortunately for the Republican leadership, its selection of Palin as the future of the party carries with it great risks of backlash from the more moderate segments of the base. For as clearly as Sarah Palin appeals to the Evangelical Christian Movement, she also has the potential to turn off voters who choose to make their voting decisions based upon economic and foreign policy. But that's not all... the McCain campaign must make sure that religion remains the unspoken subtext of this contest, rather than rising to the surface of mainstream consciousness. The Arizona Senator has notably declared religion (and as an extension, Jeremiah Wright) as off-the-table within the larger political discourse.

Many of Sarah Palin's most fervent supporters (which include the Christian Right and many Neocons) have bemoaned McCain's resistance to attacking Obama for his past connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But what they don't seem to understand is that such an assault could lead to even more dangerous territory than the subject of William Ayers. Not only is John McCain's personal faith less than convincing, but Sarah Palin's religious associations are downright radical. It's clear that McCain's more cautious advisers envision a net loss if these subjects are explored in the mainstream media. While they may be able to whip up the spirits of those who have already proclaimed their unwavering support, they would be at great risk of alienating the remaining undecided voters.

From the evidence so far, I'd say that the moderates on the McCain staff are correct in their assumptions about this issue. Obviously the Fundies have received the message... they are not going to flip in favor of Obama. And should more information come out about Palin's Pentacostal roots, McCain can only lose. A few weeks ago there was a YouTube video depicting an "Assembly of God" bishop named Thomas Muthee blessing Sarah Palin in preparation for her run for the Alaskan governorship. It wouldn't have been all that startling, except for the inclusion of an invocation intended to protect Palin from "witchcraft". This is not the ordinary experience of the vast majority of Christians in this nation. Instead, most rational modern citizens see witches more as fun holiday imagery with which to decorate their front porches.

What was less emphasized about that video is that Muthee was also asking God to bring Palin campaign contributions. While a lot of Americans may be able to relate to this type of prayer, it's doubtful that they will be especially comfortable with a Vice President that believes in speaking in tongues, the laying on of hands, and prophesy. These are all modern day Pentacostal beliefs taught in the churches Palin has attended for years. Additionally, some of her preachers have been intolerant. Ed Kalnins was the senior head of Palin's church in Wasilla. Among his highlights* are sermons during which he preached that those who criticize George W. Bush are doomed to hell. That's not the type of revelation likely to counter the Obama campaign's assertion that McCain/Palin will essentially be a repreat of the Bush/Cheney years.


* Kalnins has questioned if people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted in heaven, has characterized the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq as part of a great worldwide struggle about Christian faith, and said that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode". Most frightening perhaps is that he believes that Palin's political ascent is decreed by God, and that the "Biblical End Times" are near (link). How he relates these two "prophesied" events is pretty clear.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 2.

PLEASE READ PART 1 OF THIS SERIES BEFORE CONTINUING.

Shortly after John McCain's Christian Outreach team returned from its inaugural road trip in Ohio, the Christian Conservative Movement began to coalesce behind him. At a subsequent meeting in Denver, 100 Evangelical leaders announced their commitment to unite in an effort to beat Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The figures at this influential conclave included Christian luminaries like Phyllis Schlafly, Steve Strang, Phil Burress, David Barton, and Donald Hodel. While some of these leaders hinted that they were ambivalent in their support for McCain as an individual, they were clear in their opposition to the Democratic challenger. According to Burress, "The stakes are too high. And if Obama wins I need to be able to get up on November 5th, look at myself in the mirror, and when I pray, say, ‘Lord, I did all that I could.’” (source).

As summer wore on, it was increasingly obvious that the McCain campaign had been successful in courting the Christian Right*, but it was still a bit of a mystery as to how these folks had been convinced of McCain's sincerity. After all, despite evidence to the contrary, John McCain had recently announced his church affiliation as "Baptist". But as confusing as his denominational loyalties might be, even more potentially problematic were suspicions that McCain is an atheist. So it was vitally important for the candidate to put his money where his mouth was. Many among the faithful, unconvinced by the pronouncements of their pastors and other church leaders, waited for God's Hand to be revealed. Lo and behold, it was.

On August 29th, John McCain introduced Sarah Palin as his choice for running mate on his ticket. It was at this point that things became clear to Christians and non-Christians alike. The Religious Right would not be abandoned during the election season of 2008. Almost immediately a flood of support flowed forth into the McCain campaign. The women he sought to elevate to the #2 position in the executive branch was a rabid social conservative. Not only did she work against extending same-sex rights as governor of Alaska, but she opposed abortion- even in cases where the impregnated woman had been raped or involved (willingly or unwillingly) in incestuous relations.

Palin was obviously "the Right girl" for the righteous. Although she made feeble attempts to reassure moderates that she did not seek to impose her personal religious beliefs on the nation, she continued to give all the proper signals to her constituency. They knew what her intentions were. They understood the embedded codes in her language in the same way they had with the current "Born Again" president. There was no mistaking Palin's allegiances. And despite the lukewarm feelings that the Christian Coalition has for the noted "War Hero", it has agreed to put their energy (and money) behind the McCain/Palin ticket. In fact, for the first time in this contest, clergy began to endorse McCain from the pulpit.

Under federal law, it is illegal for tax exempt organizations to endorse or oppose a political candidate by name. But now there is an organized effort by the Alliance Defense Fund to defy the first amendment protection of separation of church and state. This nonprofit organization has been notably linked to efforts to excoriate homosexuals, and are unwavering in their belief that pastors should be involved in politics. In receiving this sort of assistance without inconvenient questions of ethical propriety, John McCain has clearly abandoned any remnant of secular soul he had retained until a few months ago. Whether or not his alliances have been forced upon him, he should be held accountable for his associates.



* Figures like Rod Parsley (a Pentacostal Diminionist), McCain's self-admitted spiritual guide, who remains adamant that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution . He has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

Or John Hagee (pastor of a "non-denominational" charismatic church in Texas, and leader of a media empire), the founder and National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization Christians United for Israel. When McCain learned that he had earned Hagee's endorsement, he said, "I'm very proud to have Pastor Hagee's support". Hagee strongly and vocally supports an American-Israeli pre-emptive military strike on Iran. He predicts that Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and will be destroyed by God. He denies global warming and has claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for New Orleans after the city allowed a gay pride parade to take place.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 1.

John McCain has offered signals that he is about to tone down his focused strategy of character attacks, and get back on the subjects and challenges that most citizens are concerned about. Still his campaign chairman Rick Davis (a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac former lobbyist) defends his continuing advertising strategy, while leveling character assassination charges against David Axelrod (Davis' counterpart on Obama's side). Apparently Axelrod's been accusing Davis of selling access to his chief. Meanwhile Davis is out on the stump trying to put forth the case that VP candidate Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong in the "Troopergate" Scandal, despite last Friday's announcement that the Alaskan Legislature had found her guilty of an ethics violation.

Does anybody really think that these chaotic politics are going to subside during the last three weeks heading into the election? I certainly don't. In fact, Sarah Palin is trying to shake things up even more with her calls to revisit the Jeremiah Wright flap that hit the media months ago. It's understandable that she would want to change the subject from her abuse of power tactics in Alaska, but her method of altering the dialog may result in a more careful analysis of some of the figures that have shaped her own thinking. John McCain has been adamant about not wanting to inject a discussion of religion into the race. I can empathize with this view, since I've been sick of the conflation of faith and policy for the last eight years.

In 2000, John McCain spoke eloquently about the developing rifts in the American scene. He notably bemoaned the "corrupting influences of religion and politics", and even went as far as suggesting that portions of the religious right were divisive and un-American*. He specifically identified Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance". He also directed his criticism at his primary rival George W. Bush for giving a speech at the "Conservative Christian" Bob Jones University without addressing the institution's ban on interracial dating. What McCain did in the run-up to that election, not even a decade past, was truly a "maverick" move and likely cost him a primary victory.

My, how things have changed since then. In 2006, while McCain prepared to enter the current presidential race, the Arizona Senator decided to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University. That school was actually founded by "intolerance agent" Jerry Falwell, who since McCain's earlier denunciation of him "has said that Jews can't go to heaven unless they accept Christ, that the Prophet Mohammed was a terrorist, and that gays and feminists bore responsibility for 9/11" (source). While McCain claimed ,"I'm not trying to make up to anyone, either liberal or conservative or anyone else", it was clear that Falwell got the message. He replied, "I do think, like any wise politician moving toward a presidential election, he is trying to build alliances".

And perhaps it was necessary for a wizened politician seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency to embrace a group that makes up a large proportion of the most loyal base of the party. There's no doubt that McCain realized that he had to compromise his formerly-expressed values in order to have a chance at winning. This past summer McCain put together a nine-member Christian Outreach Team to travel to battleground states. In early July, he sent his exploratory committee to its first destination, where they met with the Ohio Christian Alliance. Apparently it was clear from that meeting that Evangelical Christians had specific demands that had to be met in order for Mccain to gain their support. It soon became quite clear what these demands entailed.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2.



*"The political tactics of division and slander are not our values," Mr. McCain said. "They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country" (link).

Setting the Palin Narrative, Part 1.

There's a lot of speculation on the internet about Thursday's VP debate.That's to be expected given the extraordinary way that Sarah Palin was presented to the nation at the GOP convention. Nobody knew who she was, and she delivered a laconic speech complete with a homespun delivery and a series of snarky little witticisms. Naturally the speech was written for her (and she had read it adroitly off the teleprompter), but people responded as if she had created it herself. It injected a shot of adrenaline into the moribund Republican party, and once people found out about her staunch social conservatism, Palin was built up into the physical representation of the future of the GOP. It was as if people were watching the discovery of the next Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

Right Wing pundits across the land became melodramatic in their excitement. They proclaimed the speech a "Grand Slam" heralding a new direction in politics. They worked overtime to build expectations for the unknown governor of Alaska. The McCain campaign, realizing the benefit of letting the energy cycle within the closed system, wisely kept Palin's appearances limited to pep rallies. Meanwhile the conservative-leaning media outlets concocted a narrative that had resentful Hillary Clinton-supporters flocking to the "historical candidate" (no matter that the glass ceiling was actually broken by Geraldine Ferraro and the Democrats 24 years ago). "Palinmania" and "Palin Derangement Syndrome" (a term that accurately conveyed the unquestioning zeal of her fans) became household words.

Opponents of the McCain/Palin ticket were stunned into an awkward and mute silence. Nobody had anticipated this choice. The Obama camp, along with his enthusiastic base, began to search for any information they could find about this little-known politician. It was his fanbase, and not his staff, that landed the first blows against the "Palin Factor". Scurrilous accusations, mixed with valid criticism, flooded the Web. The more scandalous and exploitive rumors (such as the suggestion that Palin's Down's Syndrome-afflicted infant was actually her daughter's baby) caused a backlash of appalled censure. Although the Obama campaign disavowed the salacious charges, the Palinmaniacs tried to hold it to account for the ever-intensifying smears.

As the Democrats tried to formulate a strategy to confront this novel sensation, cool heads initiated a more evenhanded examination of the claims coming out of the McCain/Palin campaign. It became clear that many of the Governor's reforms and "accomplishments" had been presented in a misleading light. Palin's record was picked over, and there emerged a new narrative- that of a typical (albeit inexperienced) politician with the facade of a "reformer". Many of the statements Palin had made during her GOP Convention speech turned out to be misleading (at best). Skeptical observers wondered whether the young candidate had been properly vetted. The sheen of the "maverick" began to dull underneath the gaze of the media.

While Palin's handlers tried to keep her sequestered from any genuine press scruitiny, eventually mainstream interviews would be inevitable. How would she perform without a script? A chous of "conservative" commentators rose up to defend her, and reassured audiences that Palin was smart and well-spoken, and would look even better under pressure. They warned her detractors not to underestimate her. Television journalists like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric took this advice to heart, and abandoned their usual softball tactics. When their conversations with Palin were aired, the perception of the candidate changed quickly and decisively. The GOP's narrative was almost immediately challenged. And the "Palin factor" evolved.

Read Part 2

Who Is John McCain Trying to Fool?

Frankly I had little intention of watching John McCain's convention speech the other night. I'm not going to vote for John McCain. The aspiring candidate has crafted a presentation aimed directly at the heart of the GOP. I'm not a Republican (I'm not a Democrat either). So why would I spend my time analyzing an event that isn't held for my benefit? Well, my father (who happens to be a lifelong Republican) suggested that if I was going to share my political opinions, then it would be appropriate for me to tune in. While I reject the idea that you have to watch the speeches of the figures that you criticize in order to have the credibility to comment on them, I was indeed curious to see the message he'd deliver. And so I watched it... live.

I feel some obligation to disclose that I believe John McCain is a decent man, and that he genuinely cares about the United States (while his running mate will always consider her own interests first, and Alaskans second). I have no interest in entertaining personal attacks on the man. The reasons I am threatened by a McCain presidency are varied, but they start with my perception that he is too hawkish. He did nothing to dispel that view on Thursday night. He talked about standing up to Iran and Russia, and I fear that he would initiate a military operation before expending all other options. I don't believe the United States should be the "world's policeman", nor do I think that we should get involved in military conflicts over oil.

And while we are on the subject, I abhor the dependency on oil that McCain promotes as the main element of his proposed energy plan. The overwhelming message I heard at the Convention is "Drill. Dril often. Drill now", as if that would solve the problem of dependence. He's name-checked alternative sources of energy (primarily nuclear plants and liquified coal), but he has given us no indication how he would encourage this diversification as president. The same thing applies to creating American jobs- he claims to support the idea, but has provided no substance on the issue. It's the age-old Republican platform we've heard for years... dole out tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy, and that will create jobs. It hasn't happened yet, despite decades of trying.

John McCain has tried to paint himself as a "maverick" during this campaign. He's talked about change. But what has he been doing for the 21 years he's been in office? He's certainly talked a good game. He used to be against the Bush tax cuts. Now he wants to extend them. He used to talk about the need for experience and qualifications in the executive branch, until he chose a woman with no national experience and limited education. In his speech he says that he supports alternative energy, going so far as to briefly name-drop wind and solar power. But the truth is that he's 0-for-8 on crucial legislation that would support renewable energy (including energy tax credits to wind & solar power industries). And that's only in the past year alone. Now he's chosen a partner that wants to open up the remaining protected land in ANWR to "Big Oil".*

Here we have a guy that's giving every indication that he represents oil interests, the military-industrial complex, and the Christian Right. Still he talks of shaking Washington up. Where's he been the last eight years? Who does he think the entrenched powers have been during the vast majority of that time? He speaks of bipartisanship, and reaching across the aisle. So did Bush in 2000. He talks about ending the political rancor and vitriol plaguing the country. But then who does he choose as a running mate? Sarah Palin, who boasts about being an attack dog (with lipstick!). Why else would he have chosen an extreme right-wing Fundamentalist Christian with little to recommend her other than her smugly naked ambition? Who is he trying to fool?





*For a master list of McCain's Flip-Flops, see this site. Very informative and well-sourced.

Sarah Palin's "Issues".

Normally I wouldn't have had any desire to watch the Republican Convention, especially the announcement of their VP nominee. But as most of you no doubt realize, this is not a normal election cycle. I wanted to see how Sarah Palin would bear up under the wave of both rumors and substantial revelations that have been issued since her "coming out". I guess you could say that means that the selection worked, at least for the time being. There is no doubt, after last night's speech, that Palin has energized the "Moral Majority", Christian Right wing of the base. Her reception was tremendously supportive, and she looked to be in her element among those homogeneous, Midwestern Republicans.

Initially my resolve was to watch the presentation until Ms. Palin got on the subject of family. If I had stuck to that, I would have had to tune out after she thanked the crowd for their enthusiastic reception. So I decided I would have to wait until she started talking about the issues, and about half way through her routine, she finally did. I struggled through what appeared to be a Paula Poundstone performance, realizing that the McCain handlers had made sure to take great pains to keep her on message. First came the attacks on the media, for having the audacity to question a candidate that they knew little or nothing about. Palin's listeners loved that, as they have assured themselves that any criticisms are motivated by "liberal bias".

Next Palin outlined her experiences as Governor. As most people already know, there's not a lot to say about the 20 months she's been serving in the position. She talked about having sold an aircraft on eBay. That got a hearty laugh. She talked about having brokered a deal to build a pipeline to bring natural gas into the lower 48. Of course she didn't mention that the previous governor had already done this, and she merely invalidated that contract. What seemed deliberately left out of the "official record" was that she stripped US companies of the construction opportunity, and awarded it to a Canadian company. So much for her vaunted support for creating "American (she means US, of course) jobs with American energy."

She also talked about her strident opposition to earmarks.* What is not so well known is that Alaska leads the nation in earmarks, in terms of federal tax dollars received per capita. Despite her contention that she is against this system, while she was serving as Mayor of her little hamlet, she lobbied Washington for millions of dollars for her home state, and then worked with disgraced Senator Ted Stevens to do the same. Palin even had the audacity to claim to have been against federal funding of the "Bridge to Nowhere". The truth is that she supported the project until national media decried it as a symbol of pork barrell spending, While it's correct to say that she cancelled the construction of the bridge, what she hasn't bragged about is having kept the federal funds already doled out, and diverting its use for other "state priorities".

As far as future policies are concerned, she made it clear that her energy plan is focused and concentrated on drilling in Alaska (that's a big surprise!). This should help her award even more energy rebates to Alaskans next year. What it does for (or to) the lower 48 is anybody's guess. Ultimately Sarah Palin underscored the fact that she is a provincial politician. She consistently portrayed herself as just a "hockey mom", as if this were the answer when people ask what kind of person can help us reverse the damage of the last eight years of the Bush administation. Do you remember the last executive candidate to sell himself as just an "ordinary guy" and a Washington "outsider"? Ask yourself how well he has served your interests.

I have no doubt that Ms. Palin appealed to the rank-and-file within the "conservative" movement. But any whisperings that she might expand the base, or reach into other segments of the populace are starting to fade away. She may indeed have gained a few folks with her promises to serve as an "advocate" for those with disabled children, but I don't think she made any progress with "community organizers" after she derided them as having no "actual responsibilities". Perhaps there are folks throughout small-town America who are thinking that she is "just like them". However, after last night's speech I am prompted to ask the question, "Who really knows who Sarah Palin actually is? I'm sure the media will be inspired to help answer that question.


*As some readers may know, earmarks are specific requests for federal funds for narrow projects within a state. They are often referred to as "Pork Barrell" spending.

When Will Families Be Off-Limits?

So do we have this established now? I believe that Ms. Palin has shown questionable judgment as a mother, and I wonder how anyone could possibly trust her in the capacity of President. And that is exactly what this is about. I wouldn't be attacking anyone so strenuously if I wasn't genuinely concerned about seeing them in a position that demands complexity of mind, training, education, and experience in national politics. Sarah Plain clearly lacks all of these crucial qualities. On top of that, she has put forth "family values" as her strength. How anyone in her position could consider this an asset is entirely beyond me. But that is the public profile the GOP has assigned to her, and thus I consider it fair game to focus on it.

But Barack Obama and a legion of conservatives disagree. They all insist that "families are off limits". It actually sounds funny coming out of the mouths of Republicans. After all the invective that they have poured out on Michelle Obama, Chelsea Clinton, Billy Carter, and every single member of the Kennedy clan they can get their hands on... this smacks of rabid hypocrisy. Yet I understand why they want to change the subject after they introduced it in the first place- it's simply not working in their favor. They foolishly took Sarah Palin at face value- listened to the things she said about abortion, abstinence, gay marriage and creationism, and said "She's our girl!" Now they realize that she couldn't possibly live up to the standard they set for her.

Everyone is flawed, obviously. I'm sure Sarah Palin has her good moments, in addition to all of the mistakes we've seen and heard about already. It's quite possible that it would be entertaining (in a reality-TV sort of way) to see what type of shenanigans the Palin clan gets into during the next four years. But the problem with that is that there could be international consequences if her ticket gets elected. So why do we focus on her "family values"? Because that's how she was sold to the lower 48. And because we've had to hear this kind of self-righteous crap from the "Moral Majority", Christian-Right, nut-bags for decades. And we are tired of it and want it to stop. Still no matter what we've done it hasn't gone away.

We've been forced to this point out of exhaustion, frustration, resignation, and cynicism. It's completely appropriate to counterattack with the weapons they've been bludgeoning us with for years. The desired result is that they get so defensive that they themselves make public pronouncements condemning it. And then it will be over, and the public will have to turn their attention to something else. The minute the GOP gets off the "family values" train is the point that I'll back off Sarah Palin's relationship to her family, and her peculiar approach to parenthood. Because (like most Progressives) I am at heart a tolerant and non-judgmental guy. I'd love to agree to live-and-let-live. I want the Palin family to prosper.

Finally there's the question of Obama's insistence that "families are off-limits". Is anyone truly puzzled by this gesture? First of all, the guy's always been about the issues. That's because he's thought a lot about policy. He's not a knee-jerk reactionary or a fundamentalist. He recognizes nuance, and that's refreshing for a lot of us. But he also understands the value of taking the high road, and he's a shrewd politician. He realizes that if everyone agrees that "families are off-limits", then the Republicans are basically disarmed. That's all they've got in this election. They lose on substance. If we don't talk about Sarah Palin's "family values", then what is left to say? The reality is that no one really knows. And that's a disaster waiting to happen for the GOP.

You Go, Sarah Barracuda!

So it looks like the Palin family and the McCain campaign have finally found a way to put one nasty rumor to bed. Of course they've used a tactic that none of us expected- they announced that Sarah and Todd Palin's 17-year-old-daughter is indeed pregnant now. They say that she is "about five months" along the way. I wonder if the dirty deed was accomplished before or after Bristol got over her nasty bout with mononucleosis. I guess we know what she was doing during her 5 months of bed-rest while away from school. Anyway, the time-line (if accurately reported) would indeed seem to rule out that Trig is her baby. For some reason, a lot of Palin's fanatical supporters believe this somehow should suspend any investigations into her family's life. But that's a ridiculous supposition.

As I've noted before, Sarah Palin has politicized her personal life by claiming to represent the "family values" plank of the Republican platform. Indeed she led off with an introduction to her growing clan in her acceptance speech. She wanted potential voters to get to know what she is about. First and foremost she proudly proclaimed that she is a "hockey mom". And the Christian Right Social Conservatives ate that up. They applauded her decision to birth a child that she knew had Down's Syndrome. They cited her parenting as "executive experience". Who else can we count on to potentially lead our country, if not a good mother? So now when I am told that it is inappropriate, cruel, and/or wrong to shed light on her family life, I have to call "bullshit"*.

When I heard about the rumors that questioned the maternity of Trig, I immediately went on record as saying I considered them a distraction. I wasn't going to form any conclusions before I got as much information as possible. I decided instead to take Sarah Palin at face value, and confront her version of Trig's birth. You should know that well by now- it's the tale of her following through with a political speech in Texas while her amniotic fluid was trickling down her leg. It's the one wherein Ms. Palin is aware of the fetus' disability, and the attending risks of delivery... whereby she completes her speech and gets on an 8-hour airplane flight. She doesn't alarm the on-flight staff of her difficulties. She grins-and-bears her premature labor. After all, she's hunted moose!

Finally Ms. Palin touches down in Anchorage, where the state's most advanced and equipped medical facilities reside. But she chooses instead to be driven to her hometown doctor. She pops out the kid, regroups, and returns to work three days later. She juggles her Blackberry and her breast pump. This is the conservative version of heroic motherhood. What strength she has! She would never let parenthood get in the way of her work; she just lets her family accentuate her career. That's why she sure she can step up to the plate if something happens to McCain. Her kids will be alright. She has a large extended family. She ALSO so happens to have a pregnant daughter that we've just been informed about. But Ms. Palin is super-lady... all things to all Republicans.

What's remarkable is that she's as equally comfortable in knee-high go-go boots and a short skirt as she is all buttoned-down and preaching the benefits of abstinence-only education in our high schools. You know the type of educational institution I'm talking about- the kind that daughter Bristol recently spent 5 months away from. We should all be so lucky as that lovely teen-aged girl. She has a super-involved mama who can properly care for her disabled infant, give mothering advice to her kids, and assume the presidency should the worst-case scenario occur. In the meantime she just has to go on the road for a bit before she gets a super promotion that allows her to sit around and consider how her new job will best benefit Alaskans. You go, Sarah Barracuda!


* Here's another question that's gnawing at me- If the Palins were so concerned about Bristol's privacy, why did they choose to throw their kid under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so? If they were genuinely concerned about making sure her pregnancy did not become an issue, they could have simply kept her out of the public eye for the next two months. That's what they wanted to do anyway. Instead they decide to quell those "nasty rumors" by dropping the dime on their daughter. They could have simply released Trig's birth records instead, and everyone would have gotten red in the face and slinked away. Something is definitely rotten in the Great White North Territory. This needs to be addressed. The Palin family and the McCain campaign have made it all fair game right from the beginning.

My Weekend Trip to the Conservative Blogosphere.

This has certainly been an interesting extended weekend. The McCain campaign's decision to roll out their pick for VP came at an intriguing time. Initially the GOP must have felt very self-satisfied about having eroded the "bump" that Obama received after last week's convention. But there were risks as well. People have had plenty of free time over the last few weeks to do their own independent research on Ms. Palin. As a result there is a landslide of information, rumor, innuendo, and disclosure about the current Governor of Alaska. Perhaps the Republican National Committee believed that it could firmly establish a public persona for the little-known politician. However that assumption appears a bit flawed only a few days after their "historic announcement".

I decided to participate in the drama of the event by engaging online communities that I'd ordinarily avoid. In the process I had countless exchanges with self-professed "conservatives" and Palin supporters. There is no denying that the Theo-con wing of the Right has been invigorated by the prospect of a "family values"-espousing politician as second-in-command of the nation. I learned very quickly that they take the defense of Sarah Palin personally. They relate to her story on such an intimate level that to impugn their hero is tantamount to assaulting them. With the knowledge that I was coming into their house uninvited (so-to-speak), I did everything I could to avoid invective, vitriol, and insult in my own responses.

Despite my best efforts I was met with a wave of animosity and a general refusal to engage in a reasoned adult discussion. If you are skeptical about this, simply follow this link for a sample of the experiences I had on just one forum. Here are (just a few of many) highlights for those who would rather not wade through the morass:


"Be careful out there, a snark will get you and crew your detestable body parts into metaphysical mince meat." (Ed. note: actually I found this one kind of witty)

"As Malcolm Reynolds might say, I would bet my rutting life that child has a better upbringing and home life than you did. And as you are evidently a sufferer of moral retardation, the cases seem muchlike. Perhaps Trim or Trig or Tick or Tuck or Tug or whatsisname won't grow up to be an Internet dirtbag like you."

"I call troll on Merge and will not engage him again. He is engaging in creeping Cyrus Pinkertonism. May whatever God or Demon he believes in have mercy on his soul."

"Merge - you stepped into a known big pile of moose shit and kept smearing it all over your body. Stop already."

"Now, please go away you irritating little man. You are not engaging in political discourse, you are engaging in the most boring form of dikhed verbosity."

"No questions here, it's just fun watching an elitist know-nothing try to defend the indefensible."

"merege: what part of "fuck you' do you not understand--no sanctimony here, just pure loathing."

"Your net value to the participants is either zero or negative. It is a nuisance value.
If I every take a blog seriously, I will ban or suspend right and left among those who bore me."

"Do you actually believe the shit you post?"


That's pretty impressive stuff from a group of folks that (presumably) identify with the "family values" plank of the Republicans. Of course there were also a smattering of folks that rose above the ordinary shit-flinging, and simply "agreed to disagree". There always are. And I have to be fair and point out that there are many so-called left-wing sites wherein conservative posters (even ones employing frank sincerity and rational argument) might be similarly attacked.

I want to make it clear that I wasn't hurt or personally offended by any of these comments (although I didn't especially enjoy being called a "baby-killer" on another site). I knew exactly what I was getting myself into when I initiated contact with this bunch. Remember that I listen to conservative talk radio on a daily basis. The nasty tone flows downhill certainly. The truth is that I benefited greatly from these interactions. I got to see some interesting viewpoints that I wouldn't have otherwise encountered. The anonymity of the net allows folks to get beyond the niceties that apply in face-to-face encounters. One gets to see within their minds in a way that is much less adulterated by ordinary social decorum. It's just a shame that so many of us have become inured from ever entertaining an opposing position.


Addendum: It appears that Ann Althouse has some difficulty fielding dissenting opinion over on her blog (either that or she didn't appreciate the flow of traffic away from her site). I posted a comment tonight, and within a couple minutes she had deleted it. I understand that the shepherd has to protect her flock, but she appears to have an awful low regard for her regular posters' collective ability to defend their views. I guess eternal vigilance is required for her to stay on message. Maybe we should give her a break, and not rile her up too much- Hitler was a failed artist too.

Addendum #2: (9/2/08) Either someone from Althouse must have read this post and alerted Ann. Either that or she's read the e-mail I sent her. Now she's reinstated my comment and dropped it straight into another unrelated thread without any context. Very interesting... see it here.

What they do in the name of God.

If there is one thing that has become eminently clear during the last several decades of American politics, it is that there is a lot of traction to be gained by appealing to the Christian population of the nation. There used to be a tradition of attempting to keep religion and politics separate in the United States. Preachers and ministers once preferred to keep "worldly affairs" out of the houses of God. But after the confusion and disillusionment of the Watergate Era, society was aching for some moral clarity. A born-again peanut farmer was the surprising beneficiary of that change, and a new lesson was learned in the corridors of state power. Ronald Reagan discovered quickly that there was a large segment of the populace searching for linguistic cues indicating the presence of faith. His speech-writers carefully crafted his addresses to deliver the message.

George H. W. Bush stepped back from his predecessor's example, deciding instead to convey the image of a competent bureaucrat rather than a true believer. However his son (who desperately needed something to do that didn't involve drugs and alcohol) was tagged with the mission of connecting to the growing evangelical movement. Leaving this task up to his hapless offspring exposed the lack of importance Bush Sr. attributed to this demographic. He paid the price for that oversight during his re-election bid. His successor (Bill Clinton) conveyed the image that he was a God-faring Southerner and managed to sustain that impression until the GOP leadership got wise and attacked him as a spiritual hypocrite. The lines were drawn in an accelerated culture war that continues to this day.

When the younger Bush ran for the presidency, he set the tone for his campaign by trying to sell himself as a "compassionate conservative". It didn't matter that he had put to death more men and women than any governor in history. Nor did people care that he was mainly concerned with corporate interests and the burgeoning oil and weapons industries. What counted were his constant references to God. He employed veiled language that intentionally spoke to Millenarian Christians. He claimed that his favorite philosopher was Jesus. After 9-11 he kicked the strategy into full gear. He talked of his revelation that God had chosen him to fight a holy war against evil-doers. When he sent troops to the Middle East to invade Iraq he asked the troops to pray for him. He never missed a chance to align himself with divinity.

A new political constituency has arisen in our times. The Christian Right (led by men like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Gary Bauer) continues to cultivate its influence with Republican leaders. They have formed a holy (?) alliance with Neocons and free market radicals. Together this coalition has been capable of turning out numbers that have made it possible to fix national elections. As long as they march in lock-step accord they can have a substantial influence on the political agenda of our government. In unity, they must be taken seriously by every politician across the land. But what exactly do they have in common? Many observers have suspected for years that each one of the subgroups making up this coalition has a different set of ultimate goals.

Where is the Christian feeling in a never-ending war for the control of resources? What about the flagrant disregard for the more unfortunate among us? Is stewardship of the Earth part of the mandate that God bestowed upon Man? While fiscal conservatives may give lip service to the "protection of the sanctity of marriage" and the "pro-life" cause, what is their true agenda? There's been an almost invisible fissure slowly widening into a great schism for years. The vast disagreements among what used to be indivisible elements within a conservative front are becoming self-evident to every member of the GOP. Meanwhile Democrats like Barack Obama are starting to appropriate the revivalist-tinged stylings that have been the sole province of Christian Evangelicals for years.

We are entering unsettling times that foretell a struggle for the definitions of hope, morality and care. Who among our politicians has the right to invoke the name(s) of God(s)? Is the profession of faith sufficient in itself, or are "good works" necessary for true spirituality? For a long time now the Republicans have appropriated for themselves a trio of potent symbols- the cross, the dollar and the flag. Is it possible that the Democrats could wrest at least one of these from the hands of a dying party? Or are the terms of this war already set in stone?

45 Minutes with Quinn and Rose.

The local affiliate of NPR (90.5 DUQ) is having a pledge drive. These multi-day events are the bane of my commute. It's simply too masochistic to keep tuned in for the intermittent programming, and be continually reminded of my negligence regarding the support of the station. Certainly the easy answer would be to make a donation, but that still wouldn't solve the problem of what to listen to during these drives. Anyway I've been listening to even more talk radio than usual, and that means more raving "conservatives" with their hateful invective directed towards anyone that doesn't toe the party line. Just in case you are unfamiliar with the format- there is no progressive voice on talk radio. I keep hearing rumors of a mythic beast called Air America, but I've chalked up such reports to urban legend.

So on a recent morning I got my very first taste of a local hack-program called "Quinn and Rose". I have to say that I didn't know that the usual rhetoric could be amplified within the confines of the "minor leagues" of radio. These folks are eagerly trying to foment the new crusades. Almost everything I heard had to do with an imagined final conflict between Christians and Muslims. Jim Quinn apparently believes (I only know this because he said it outright) that Islam is the most fundamental threat to our nation's existence. He went as far as implying that anyone who did not accept the superiority of the Western World, and its contributions to the rest of the planet, are foolish and dangerous. In his own words, he can't understand how anyone could accept the teachings of a "seventh-century faith" formed in fire, blood, and the sword.

Today he was focusing on the new efforts to integrate respect for Sharia into Western court systems. He was bemoaning the Archduke of Canterbury's decision to set up separate provisions for the adjudication of Muslim social law in Great Britain. As if this weren't bad enough for this reactionary nut, he's also recently become aware of a Texas Court of Appeals ruling that provides for the consideration of Sharia law when it comes to cases involving matters of Muslim marriage. The specific ruling only suggests that the judgment of Imams should be taken into consideration in such instances of legal conflict, but somehow Quinn has decided that the United States will soon turn into a Muslim theocracy. And he demonstrates unintentional irony by repeatedly playing the novelty song "They're coming to take me away" to discount Muslims, their beliefs, and the liberals that "support" them.

Frankly I'd be a bit surprised if Quinn and Rose failed to convey their loony-toon War of Civilizations to the home front. They dedicated a significant portion of the 45 minutes I listened to their program to the assertion that both Democratic nominees for the presidency are anti-Christian. Rose actually said that Hillary Clinton has previously shown that she "hates Christians". When a skeptical caller responded by asking her why she thought that was so, Rose hung up on him. She expressed wonderment that the man was questioning her judgment, and repeatedly stated, "I don't have to explain myself to him. Why should I waste my time?" While this is the standard answer given by most political reactionaries when they have nothing backing their statements, it seemed a bit incongruous for a radio talk show. Still somehow I wasn't surprised by Rose's debate strategy. Though I am puzzled about the role she is supposed to be playing for Quinn. She's weaker than Alan Colmes was five years ago, and only parrots the convictions of her partner.

Meanwhile Quinn has it all figured out. The downfall of our nation had its roots in the social revolution of the 60's. According to Quinn, Hillary Clinton "was a co-conspirator" in the movement to undermine traditional Christian morality during that tumultuous period. Had he invested even minimal time into doing research to back up this ludicrous claim, he would have learned that Hillary was president of the Young Republican chapter at Wellesley college in the late 60's. But that fact doesn't fit the script, so why would Quinn bother with it? Of course he's got some choice words for"Hussein Obama" as well. Since the Democratic candidate is appropriating a "revivalist style" and including not-so-subtle references to his Christian faith in his stump speeches, Obama is obviously appropriating the methods of the Anti-Christ. Rose agrees, and finds this very creepy. I guess using Christian rhetoric to justify anything other than preemptive invasions of foreign nations and/or giving tax breaks to the rich is out-of-bounds. Oh well.

George Ratliff, "Hell House" (2001).

Last Friday I packed in an entire weekend's worth of going out, and so I was perfectly satisfied to go over to a friend's house and watch a movie on Saturday. I brought with me a selection of documentaries that I thought would be of interest to the people that I knew would be there. It's a lot of fun to share things with folks that they'd otherwise have little chance to see, and it fulfills my purpose of purchasing DVD's rather than renting them. After watching the first choice, I decided that I'd pick the follow-up movie. I hadn't seen Hell House in a long time, and I was looking forward to revisiting the story in like-minded company. No one else had even heard of it before. Given the particular makeup of our small crowd, I believed that this feature would be alternatively edifying, amusing, disturbing, and irritating.

Hell House (2001) , directed by George Ratliff, examines the phenomena of a haunted house constructed and operated by a Pentecostal Church. On its surface, the concept sounds completely bizarre. Most fundamentalist Christian sects condemn Halloween as a Pagan holiday meant to subvert morality. But instead of condemning the holiday, Trinity Church in Dallas has found a way to use it to its advantage. Every year a multitude of organizations offer walk-throughs which, in keeping with the spirit of the time of year, are meant to scare the crap out of anyone willing to pay the admission price. These attractions are particularly appealing to young folks, who are usually limited in the type of thrills they are offered. Trinity Church is well aware of this dynamic, and is perfectly willing to exploit it- in order to save souls.

This project requires months of preparation and a multitude of volunteers. George Ratliff documents every step along the way. It all starts with a brainstorming session among veterans of former productions. They work out several "scenes"- each of which represent some type of sinful behavior, and the kinds of extreme consequences that can result. These vary from a drunk-driving scene complete with gory fatalities, to a hospital room with an AIDS patient and an abortion gone horribly wrong. There are school shootings, drug deals turned violent, and rape scenes. These tableau often go so far over the top that they are emotionally disturbing. They are not meant to be "fun" in any way. They are supposed to serve as cautionary messages to those who would choose to break God's rules. Naturally they often reflect the simple stereotypes that many fundamentalist Christians are so fond of espousing.

In each of these vignettes, there are histrionic actors who have auditioned for the highly-coveted roles. Ratliff makes a point of including these auditions in the documentary. It is very surreal to watch these clean-cut, wholesome Bible-Belters assume the personalities of criminals and other ne'er-do-wells. Seeing their eyes light up with excitement as they speak about wanting to be the "rape girl" or "demon" in this year's Hell House is illuminating in a very strange way. Actually, a lot is conveyed through the depictions of the "fallen" that they hope to represent. They display a stream of unintentionally humorous misconceptions about what they politely refer to as "alternative" lifestyles (especially funny is the crimson-hued Star of David that some eager beaver mistakenly painted to convey a pentagram in the "occult scene"). The entire endeavor is fittingly ironic because Pentecostals themselves seem so alien to the uninitiated. Ratliff has included footage of their church services, in which they dance to their own version of contemporary "rock music", flail about, and speak in tongues.

The climax of the Hell House experience is being shepherded into a wood-paneled room, and being exposed to the hard sell of conversion. A drill-sergeant-like preacher is there to confront all the shocked patrons into re-examining their relationship with "God". Those who have not yet been "saved" are pressured to enter one last well-lit chamber, where they will meet church representatives anxious to bring them into the glory of faith. Others file out into the dark world of their doomed ordinary lives... their pockets $7 lighter than when they first entered. The apparent inconsistencies between the protests that fundamentalists direct toward violence and sex in media, and the explicit nature of their own attempts to scare people into Christ's arms, shine with a heavenly brightness. Aside from a few very subtle hints, the filmmakers of Hell House make a solid effort not to reveal their biases. If you watch it, I have a feeling you'll have difficulty containing your own.

So What if God Wants a Heat Wave?

I woke up this morning to find that the temperature outside was 60 degrees Fahrenheit. This was mildly surprising, but not shocking. The weather has (of course) been intemperately mild for more than a decade. Yesterday was unseasonably warm. It's almost gotten to the point that I expect a periodic break from the cold, even in the middle of winter. While I have to admit that I find this new phenomena pleasant, it seems to me to be an obvious case for concern. The previous record for today was 60 degrees, but today the high is predicted to be 65. I would have to be completely superficial to enjoy it without a second thought. Given the tone of many people who make offhand comments about the weather, I'd have to guess that quite a few of them have decided not to worry about what it means.

It could be a matter of resignation. After all, what can one individual do about global warming? It's not as if human activity will grind to a halt if I lose sleep over climate change. In fact there is a large proportion of the United States that still believes that rising temperatures are merely part of a natural cycle. Their argument is that we are foolish to think that we can have an effect on the Earth's functioning- we are just too small. (Incidentally, a lot of these same folks are pushing a foreign policy that could lead to a "nuclear winter"). Then there are the people that simply deny that the average temperature is rising at all, despite the factual data that clearly demonstrates that it is. They back up their beliefs by pointing out the conclusions of a small group of politically-motivated scientists that claims that climate change is an illusion. There is always going to be the dissenting voice.

Even among the population that accepts the proposition that human activity has caused global warming- the majority puts this problem low on the list of priorities. They may have gone to see Al Gore's documentary, but they're too busy facing daily challenges to engage in any activist work that could call the attention of politicians to the situation. Many of them are trying to figure out how to pay their bills in a time of increasing economic uncertainty. Still there are folks who get hit hard by the reality of climate change, and for them the effects are very immediate. Yesterday tornadoes swept through the Midwest and South, killing at least 27 in Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. The amount of property damage caused by these storms is formidable. Of course these tragedies echo what we saw a few years ago with Hurricane Katrina.
Sadly there are few observers that make the connection between the growing intensity and frequency of natural disasters, and the behavior of "man".

The fact is that society seems to be becoming more and more out-of-touch with the environment. People in America are less active in outdoor activities. NPR reports that the number of citizens that engage in fishing, hiking, and camping is steadily decreasing every year. Hunting is the only wilderness pursuit that remains constant (1 in 10 Americans still do it), and that behavior is only dubiously aligned with a "Good Shepherd" philosophy toward nature. In short, not only do we ignore our natural resources- but we actively despoil them. The idea of the Earth as a living organism is not widely taught, whether in schools or in the media.

Perhaps it really doesn't matter whether the "bio-system" rejects humanity as a parasite. In the long run, the universe will remain relatively unchanged by our departure. The circumstances are not dire from a Christian perspective, because adherents look for their eternal reward in Heaven- not in Eden. Wealthy Americans meanwhile are diverting resources into space technology. Who can forget Dubya's announcement that we are going to put a colony on the Moon? Maybe we will be successful in fully exploiting this planet's resources to the extent that we can hop on the next inhabitable sphere as our atmosphere deteriorates. Anyway, it's not like a bunch of Americans don't enjoy the balmy weather in the meantime. And if the oceans rise, and New York is swallowed up by the sea- it's just God's punishment for the widespread immorality they practice in that modern-day Sodom.

The War on Christmas Continues.

Do you have any Christmas rituals that you participate in year-to-year? For me, Christmas Eve means one thing only- it's time to do my bit for the "War on Christmas". I don't know if you are aware of it, but there's been a long and bloody conflict being waged throughout this great nation for decades. The shock troops are geared up and ready, and both sides are digging in for the long and bloody annual siege. Yes, I am doing my part. I've been all around town today, engaging the enemy's front on the battle or words. Complete strangers have been firing salvos, and each time the dreaded words "Merry Christmas" wound me just a little bit more. All I can do is hunker down and return the attack with the most trusty weapon of all... I respond with "Happy Holidays", and then it's on.

Every year the great heroes are feted. The ever-expanding and evil empire of Walmart is abuzz with activity. The AM radio stations have their fight songs on a continuous loop- strains of melody extolling the battlefield legends like Santa and Christ fill the air. Formidable sums of money are spent in a frantic arms race to determine who exactly is the merriest of all. Tonight the city will grow quiet and the Christian soldiers will gather for their solemn ceremonies in the churches of all the great neighborhoods throughout the metropolis. They will fortify themselves with the words of their illustrious incense-bearing generals. They will cast their beady eyes around their ill-lit chambers, and see that there are strangers in their midst. Some of them will be wearing jeans, and that will be cause for alarm. It may occur to them that the enemy has infiltrated their camp. Still their resolve will be strong to carry their banner forever.

On the other side, Jews and atheists will be undermined by the insidious consumerism that each side will bemoan as the tactic of their enemy. There's often no way to tell who is who in this indeterminate and seemingly endless war. Some will even try to extricate themselves and stake a claim of neutrality. But they are fooling only themselves. There is no value-neutral path. You are either with us or against us. This message is broadcast in diverse ways, but is unmistakable. The propaganda machine is fueled by the fervor of the righteous. Half the houses in your town will be lit with the warm colors of festivity and energy consumption. You will have some mission to fulfill, as no one is left untouched by the madness of war. Some will seek to inure themselves from the pain by consuming spirits, while others will bravely make due with unadulterated egg nog or diet coke.

What marks this year as different from all those preceding it? Who are the bold foot soldiers who have distinguished themselves with true and mighty valor? In listening for dispatches from the militarized zone last week, I heard the inspiring story of a suburban man who has erected a 15-foot cross on his front lawn. Now this would not be particularly notable in this climate of terror, as many have seen fit to erect gaudy displays meant to honor their symbols of victory. But this cross has an unusual figure nailed to it- it is that fat and bearded jolly bastard Santa Claus. Reportedly his neighbors are divided on the meaning of this gesture. Could this be a message to both sides in this soul-depleting conflict? Should we continue to invest our resources in such a fruitless and divisive fight? Is it good for us? Is it good for the larger society? Must we continue until the other side is vanquished permanently?

Meanwhile Kevin Miller over at KDKA 1020 has been seeking to expand the sphere of conflict beyond its typical borders. Not content to merely decry the enemies of Christmas, he has taken it upon himself- not just to work on X-mas Eve, but to issue a new war cry for the traditionalists among his people. That's right, friends and neighbors. He has taken a bold and courageous step. He is calling for the return of "the dress". This holiday season (according to Miller) we should seize the spirit to return to the halcyon days of old. We should hearken back to the pure days of Eden, and remember the wise words of our Christian fathers- it is for the men to wear the pants in a family. There might be a role for women in The War on Christmas, but it is vitally important that they do their fighting in a dress. Otherwise they will never be "ladies".* And so it goes in our war-torn society.


* I swear to Santa that I'm not making this up.

Who is Mike Huckabee?

It's remarkable how quickly the political landscape can shift leading up to the primaries. If you'd have asked me six weeks ago, I would have told you that Rudy Giuliani was a virtual shoe-in as the Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential election. But no sooner had Pat Robertson endorsed him, then the race began to markedly change. Despite the illustrious support of the hate-mongering host of the 700 Club, it appears that Christian Conservatives are unsure about Giuliani's reactionary credentials. I knew that they would have a problem getting behind the pro-gay, pro-choice, and pro-gun control former mayor of NYC- but I didn't think they would decide on an alternative as quickly as they have. It really seems like the Evangelical rank-and-file is preparing to line up behind Mike Huckabee.

Not too long ago this former Arkansas Governor looked like a long-shot. The only thing most people knew about him was that he had recently dropped 110 pounds of excess weight. Few realized that he is an ordained Baptist minister. Huckabee has used this fact to knock Romney from his second place standings in the polls. By strategically bringing his Mormon competitor's beliefs into question, he has managed to bring his own faith into the forefront. After watching this not-so-subtle but effective maneuver, I wondered what other surprises Huckabee had up his sleeve. As his political star rises, his record and positions are going to be analyzed in much greater depth. I wanted to get a head start in understanding where he is coming from.

Huckabee was born into a middle class Arkansan family in 1955. He attended Baptist universities, and upon graduation worked as a staff member for a televangelist. Later he served as a pastor for several Baptist congregations and became president of the Arkansas State Baptist Convention. He credits "divine intervention" for much of his success , and has publicly stated that politics and religion are absolutely inseparable. Huckabee considers abortion akin to "holocaust", characterizes homosexuality as abberrant, unnatural and sinful, and opposes gun control. He has supported a "Covenant Marriage Act"- which seeks to limit divorce and the resulting lawsuits, and compels troubled partners to seek counseling. He has tried to designate October as "Student Religious Liberty Month" in an effort to promote school prayer. And Huckabee has been clear about his belief that creationism should be presented in public schools.

Despite his social conservatism- when Huckabee was running for state Lieutenant Governor he worked to be seen as a political moderate. This was on the advice of his campaign manager, Dick Morris. When he ascended to the Governor's Office, he made good on his promises. He tried to adjust property taxes to make school funding equal across the state. He tried to put a small portion of the state's sales tax toward parks and resources. He made an effort to decrease the number of children in Arkansas without health insurance. In his second term as governor, Huckabee mandated annual body mass index measurements for all public school children. At the same time he tended to more frivolous pursuits like deciding where the University of Arkansas should play its football games, and playing in a band called "Capitol Offense".

Despite his generally wholesome public perception, Huckabee has garnered some controversy. He is quite vulnerable to the influence of campaign contributors. Having been bought and paid for by the poultry industry, he has worked hard to fight measures to decrease water pollution. He also granted clemency to a longtime supporter named Eugene Fields, who had been convicted of four 'driving while intoxicated' charges. More damningly Huckabee has been criticized for granting clemency to a convicted rapist (Wayne Dumond), for what some have called political reasons. When Dumond was released with Huckabee's help, he went on to sexually assault and murder at least one woman in Missouri.

A lot of fiscal conservatives are loath to throw their support behind Huckabee, as they accuse him of having been a tax-and-spend Governor. Still Huckabee backs the "Fair Tax", which would replace all existing federal taxes with a single national sales tax. Meanwhile his stance on immigration is also raising eyebrows. Although he claims to be in favor of a secure border, Huckabee would also like to see illegal immigrants extended rights and benefits including college scholarships and the free access to jobs. He says he has never heard of an incident where a lawful citizen's opportunity to work was supplanted by an illegal immigrant. In his opinion they merely occupy jobs that Americans "don't want". That contention should resound heavily in the ears of the American worker.

Huckabee VS. Romney.

Things are heating up in the Republican primary race for the 2008 presidential elections. In a mere three weeks, party-members in Iowa are going to be casting votes for their favorites. If the results mirror current polls, Mike Huckabee is going to run away with the victory. Mitt Romney is his closest competitor, trailing by almost 15%. This is an odd situation for Romney, because until the beginning of December he had been the clear front-runner in this defining primary state. In fact he had a consistent lead for more than five months. What changes have caused this shift in loyalty? One could make a good case that Huckabee's systematic campaign of targeting Romney's Mormon faith has borne fruit.

Huckabee has not been shy about identifying himself as a "Christian Leader". Indeed there's a fair amount of truth to his claims. He's an ordained Baptist minister, and that particular credential promises to serve him well among the Christian Right. Not only does that position serve as an asset for Huckabee, but it also threatens to be damning for Romney. Because every time the man from Arkansas makes a point of calling himself a "Christian", the former governor of Massachusetts blanches. Many Protestant evangelicals (including Huckabee's Baptists) consider The Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) heretical. Regardless of how much effort Romney puts into downplaying the effects of his faith, there is no doubt that it is qualitatively different from Christianity.

For better or worse, many Americans make political decisions according to their religious beliefs. Many among the faithful are immovably convinced that they are in the right, and that all disbelievers are (at the very least) wrong. It is for this reason that Romney is at a major disadvantage. If the majority of evangelical Christians see Mormonism as a "cult", it's not likely that they'll choose an adherent as their standard-bearer. The ironic thing is that Romney would have a much stronger chance at being successful with a Democratic support base. In that camp, regilious affiliations are often beside the point (JFK being an illustrative example). That's one of the reasons Romney was able to become Governor in the liberal state of Massachusetts. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any Republican nominee can win the general election without the support of the Christian Dominion of America.

Huckabee has (of late) become even more blatant in his appeals to God's One True People. In an interview in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Huckabee was asked whether or not he considered The Church of Latter Day Saints a "cult". Although he responded in the negative, he followed his answer with a not-so-subtle question. He asked the reporter, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?" It was an extraordinarily strange forum for the Baptist to begin his interfaith theological examinations. One would have to be a complete political simpleton to believe that Huckabee's intentions were innocent. But still, much of the media is allowing him to backpedal from this divisive strategy. If they are correct in their analysis of Huckabee's sincerity, then I think such true ignorance should automatically disqualify him as a serious presidential contender. (Yet I would be dishonest if I said I didn't believe the current president is capable of posing a similarly stupid question.)

While I think that Huckabee has distinguished himself as either a crass political opportunist or a backwoods rube, I am not willing to discount a candidate's religious beliefs from the political dialogue. It is completely appropriate to question a potential leader's faith, especially when it has been used consistently as a badge of integrity. Rather than resort to idiotic concerns (such as framed in Huckabee's ridiculous question), we should examine the candidates' opinions on the validity of direct revelation. George W. Bush has continually expressed his belief that he is doing "God's work". Is that acceptable in today's sophisticated international arena? If we have reservations about a man's faith, it seems only natural to question his judgment. Mormons believe that the Brethren (upstanding male members of the church) are able to receive direct revelations from God. Haven't we had enough of being led by men claiming to be divine representatives? Are we that nostalgic for the Middle Ages?