And While We're On the Subject of Faith Based Delusions

Digby dug this up:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has tumbled into a new dispute over the Sept. 11 attacks of five years ago. Its Presbyterian Publishing Corp. has issued "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11" (Westminster John Knox), containing perhaps the most incendiary accusations leveled by a writer for a mainline Protestant book house. Author David Ray Griffin tells of concluding that "the Bush-Cheney administration had orchestrated 9/11 in order to promote this (American) empire under the pretext of the so-called war on terror."
"No other interpretation is possible," he asserts.

Okay, a few things straight off. I dislike George W. Bush and his band of dour thugs about as much as is psychologically safe (and sometimes a little more, which is why I refuse to watch the man on television). I've no doubt that he's committed many crimes and wrecked many lives. Still, I don't believe for one second Bush or anyone in his administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. My reason: look at the things the administration has tried to orchestrate over the last six years. If this administration had planned the collapse of the World Trade Center, you could still go to the north tower and get a nice piece of fish at the Windows on the World restaurant. The Bush administration may radiate malice, but eptitude and subtlety are beyond them.

The administration did indeed seize on 9/11 as a reason to launch an imperialistic project, but if 9/11 hadn't happened they'd have found some other reason. By now it should be clear that for the administration and its surrogates the answer to any foreign policy problem on the map, however remote or small, was to invade Iraq and occupy it for a huge amount of time. If a suicide-bombing penguin had blown up a research station in Antarctica, Bush would have rolled the tanks into Baghdad.

The comments section over at Digby seems caught up in the question of whether the Presbyterians, or their publishing imprint, are liberal or conservative. This is neither here nor there. The question is whether the allegations the book is making come even within the neighborhood of truth. The publisher defends the books author by saying that he "applies Jesus' teachings to the current political administration" and presents "an abundance of evidence and disturbing questions that implicate the Bush administration." That's nice, but leaving aside my lack of interest in what Jesus may have thought of George W. Bush's behavior, it doesn't appear that the author's evidence or questions differ all that much from those of other 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who spend more time worrying over apparent weaknesses in the official story (the metallurgy of the buildings, the odd coincidences) than they do building a credible foundation for their own competing theory of how the towers fell. That's not the path to good history (though it does reflect the same habits of mind that produced another religious product--intelligent design), and it's not the way to discredit the administration. Why play around with fantasy when the facts are bad enough?

The Grimmer Side of Believing in Magic

According to this L.A. Times article, the rise in fundamentalist Christian theology in the Sudan has helped lead to an ugly new variant of an old phenomenon, accusations of witchcraft against children:

On a continent where belief in black magic and evil spirits is common, witch hunts are nothing new, usually targeting older, unmarried women. But in the Democratic Republic of Congo, there's a new twist to this ancient inquisition. A majority of those said to be involved in witchcraft and sorcery are children, and such allegations against them are the No. 1 cause of homelessness among youths.

Of the estimated 25,000 children living on the streets of Kinshasa, the capital, more than 60% had been thrown out of their homes by relatives accusing them of witchcraft, child-welfare advocates say. The practice is so rampant that Congo's new constitution, adopted in December, includes a provision outlawing allegations of sorcery against children.

A rise in religious fundamentalism, revival churches and self-proclaimed prophets is one cause. More than 2,000 churches in Kinshasa offer "deliverance" services to ward off evil spirits in children, the group Human Rights Watch says.

"Some prophets who run these churches have gained celebrity-like status, drawing in hundreds of worshipers in lucrative Sunday services because of their famed 'success' in child exorcism ceremonies," the group said in an April report.

The article goes on to say that poverty and social dislocation are other causes of this phenomenon, but they're hardly mutually exclusive. Fundamentalist dogma tends to gain appeal during times of great social or economic stress, because of the certainties it offers and because of the way it grants frustrated and angry people a means of externalizing and personifying the miseries that beset them. Did your crops fail? Do your feet hurt? Are your cows sick? Find a witch.

When witchcraft or satanic abuse accusations are thrown around, they're usually aimed at those least able to defend themselves. Women, immigrants, poor people, slaves, and children have been, and will always be, targets.

Take these examples from European history (courtesy CSICOP):

Milan, Italy, 1630

British journalist Charles Mackay (1852, 261-265) described a poisoning scare that terrorized Milan, Italy, in 1630, coinciding with pestilence, plague, and a prediction that the Devil would poison the city's water supply. On one April morning people awoke, and became fearful upon finding "that all the doors in the principal streets of the city were marked with a curious daub, or spot." Soon there was alarm that the sign of the awaited poisoning was at hand, and the belief spread that corn and fruit had also been poisoned. Many people were executed. One elderly man was spotted wiping a stool before sitting on it, when he was accused of smearing poison on the seat. He was seized by an angry mob of women and pulled by the hair to a judge, but died on the way. In another incident, a pharmacist and barber named Mora was found with several preparations containing unknown potions and accused of being in cahoots with the Devil to poison the city. Protesting his innocence, he eventually confessed after prolonged torture on the rack, admitting to cooperating with the Devil and foreigners to poisoning the city and anointing the doors. Under duress he named several accomplices who were eventually arrested and tortured. They were all pronounced guilty and executed. Mackay states that "The number of persons who confessed that they were employed by the Devil to distribute poison is almost incredible," noting that "day after day persons came voluntarily forward to accuse themselves" (264).

Lille, France, 1639

Mackay (1852, 539-540) reports that in 1639 at an all-girls' school in Lille, France, fifty pupils were convinced by their overzealous teacher that they were under Satanic influence. Antoinette Bourgignon had the children believing that "little black angels" were flying about their heads, and that the Devil's imps were everywhere. Soon, each of the students confessed to witchcraft, flying on broomsticks and even eating baby flesh. The students came close to being burned at the stake but were spared when blame shifted to the headmistress, who escaped at the last minute. The episode occurred near the end of the Continental European witch mania of 1400 to 1650, when at least 200,000 people were executed following allegations of witchcraft.

Wild stuff, isn't it? People who believe in religious teachings often like to claim that it's hard to be moral without religion. I, conversely, think that the real bitch is to be moral with it.

A Revelation

Mike! McGavick revealed today that he once drove drunk, and did several other things he wasn't proud of. He has yet to reveal why he thinks it would do anyone any earthly good to vote for him.

Wittman's Wake

McCain the center the awful awful awful liberals that attack my islamo-quack-quack-quack North Korea little man like Saddamedamgorgonzola glad he's gone but islamic fascism HitlerHitlerfofitlerbannanafannagogitlerfififofitlerhitler goosestepping over Arabia--Aarby in a world where Irish teenagers sneak out to visit bizarrebazaars and the merchants (of death) with the houkas I slept with a houka once she charged me ten dollars and was gone in puff of smoke ha ha ha ha Lieberman why oh why do they dislike people who hate them don't they know I hate them for their own good Saddam hated Iran who hated Osama so why do they wait dangerously close to asking a question a question don't question my heart Teddy Roosevelt had a big heart unless you were an atheist but they don't count for anything anyway they're part of that conspiracy conspire inspire up up up swingingonastarandspringingfromasponge into space on to heaven with Holy Joe and marvelous marvelous marvelous me.

The Reason Why You Can't Take Toothpaste On a Plane

This is how easy it is to blow up a plane by bringing a variety of liquids onboard (courtesy tapped):

Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.

First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.

Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

So here's the plan, we're going to make airport security an even bigger time-waster than it already is to avoid even the slightest chance that a terrorist can bring his plan to its likely fruition--an unholy, smelly (and quite exothermic) mess in a toilet. (The whole process sounds so delicate that one good bump would either blow our terrorist up or force him to start over.) Instead of confiscating everyone's soda and mascara, wouldn't we be better off just making a common sense rule that you can't take the champagne bucket into the john? That would stymie the terrorists without inconveniencing any but the fussiest first-class passengers.

My guess is that the London terrorist plotters are kind of like that shoe-bomber; they're people that the real terrorists don't feel too bad about losing because they're kind of stupid and given to plans that they probably stole from an episode of Get Smart. Terrorists don't need to take out planes. There are lots of crowded places for them to wipe out--malls, sporting events, titty bars, subway platforms, hotel lobbies, music festivals. The list is endless. One thing they might do, as sort of a clever bank shot, is set up some shitball terrorist wannabes in Washington. They'll get them to concoct some overly complicated and stupid scheme to blow up an airliner, let the FBI catch them, wait for the media freakout and the predictable TSA clampdown on somethingorother, then send some suicide bombers to what should be a very long, snaking, out-of-control airport security line. The loss of life would be horrific, of course, but on some level you'd have to smile at the irony.

But knowing the security mind as I do, they'd probably start making us stand in security lines to get into the security line. We'd all be nude, of course, to better facilitate the cavity search that would await us at the gate. I'm sure passengers will take it in stride (actually it's hard to take a cavity search in stride, but I'm sure we'll do what we can) because what price peace of mind?

Free Booze

Majikthise has a line on a wine offer for bloggers, specifically a free bottle of 2004 Amilie Cabernet Sauvignon-Merlot.

Click here for the rules.

Five Crock of Shit Quotations

Heard about this from Kevin Drum. I'll play:

I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 - 1791)

Not such bad advice if you're Mozart, but pretty crummy advice if you're George W. Bush.

I can't think of any sorrow in the world that a hot bath wouldn't help, just a little bit.
Susan Glasee, The Visioning, 1911

Human Rights Watch says some prisoners in Uzbekistan might disagree with you, Susan.

Forgive many things in others; nothing in yourself.
Ausonius

Rubbish. Following this advice is a recipe for neurosis.

Political advertising ought to be stopped. It's the only really dishonest kind of advertising that's left.
David M. Ogilvy

Spoken like a man preparing to sell something. Orwell pretty much hit it when he said that all propaganda lies, even when it's telling the truth.

It is as hard to see one's self as to look backwards without turning around.
Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862)

Henry, meet the mirror.

Sillius Sodus

I'm not generally given to reading Rabbi Gellman, but thanks to Atrios I couldn't avoid him. Of all the takes I've seen on Joe Lieberman's collapse that were not uttered by the candidate himself or one of his few remaining flunkies, this wins the Palm D'or for fatuous punditry:

Please understand, this is not a political rant. Yes, I support the war and yes I support and admire President George W. Bush, but I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion about how best to fight the war on terror. My disappointment is with my people. I simply do not understand why so many Jews bailed on Joe. I cannot understand why Joe's percentage of the Jewish vote was not in the high 90s instead of the 54-57 percent range (according to Lieberman’s campaign). I have opinions on way too many things I don't know nearly enough about, but I know about Jews. I am a professional Jew, and yet if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy I would not know what to tell you.

In truth I am also bewildered about why Jews do not support President Bush more than the pathetic 22-26 percent (depending on which exit poll you look at) he received in 2004. Bush would win a landslide in Israel, and never once invited Yasir Arafat to the White House, but that is a bewilderment best left for another day. What has frozen me is the lack of support for Joe by Jews. Joe voted the Democratic line 90 percent of the time. Twenty-nine other Democrats also voted for the war and none of them was targeted (yet). Joe is the most famous Jewish politician of all time (unless you count former New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia whose mother was Jewish). He is an observant Jew and obviously he was on the presidential ticket in 2000. He is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent ... and he is one of us! What more do you want of the guy?

Well, leaving aside the hyperbole of Joe Lieberman as the most famous Jewish poltician of all time (I didn't know he beat out Golda Meir and Yitzak Rabin), the rest of Gellman's argument rests on a fundamental misreading of U.S. politics. Voters in the U.S. don't vote strictly along ethnic or religious lines. U.S. catholics did vote for John Kennedy, but split pretty heavily when it came to the other JFK, John Kerry. Yes, Barak Obama won the vast majority of the black vote in Illinois, but a white candidate would have probably done just as well among black voters because even though the republican in the race was black, he was also a raving lunatic.

Ethnic voters living in this country are not going to necessarily vote the same way, or for the same reasons, as people who live in their country of origin. Pakistanis in London don't see issues the same way as Pakistanis in Islamabad do. And I'm sure U.S. Jews see issues differently from Israeli Jews, Russian Jews, Polish Jews, Canadian Jews or Ethiopian Jews. The politics of any diaspora is complicated, with generational, regional, and religious dimensions. It can't be reduced to "he's one of us" because it begs the question of who "we" are.

It is possible that many Israeli Jews would vote for George W. Bush (and they can have him if they want him). Israeli Jews didn't live anywhere near Hurricane Katrina. They haven't had to put up with stagnant wages, jobless recoveries, "Kenny Boy", or Guantanamo. Their tax dollars and their kids aren't being shipped off to the blood and money pit of Iraq. There are a lot of things going on in this country that are not their problem. So they may just look at him and see a man who supports Israel. Fine. But U.S. Jews, QED, have to live here. They get a closeup view of Bush, and many of them apparently don't like what they see. And I guess they don't much care for politicians, Jew or Goy, Democrat or Republican, who make a habit of parroting the President's talking points.

Now, a few parting shots. "He [Lieberman] is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent..."

"Modest and self effacing": I really have to question whether a man who abandons his party after losing a primary to run on the ticket of "Connecticut for Lieberman" is either.

"Moral and Faithful": I know nothing about Lieberman's marriage, and if that's all Gellman is talking about I'll provisionally take "faithful". But Lieberman doesn't seem that faithful to his party, his colleagues, or to his youthful ideals. He'll jettison those the moment his career is threatened. (Once upon a time a young staffer for McGovern became a politician. He lost a race somewhere along the line--beaten up for being too liberal. So he, well, you know the rest...) As for "moral"--again, as long as it's a question of whose sex organs interact with whose, I'll accept the word. But Lieberman's backing of Alberto Gonzales's archipelago of torture farms, and his willingness to throw downfield blocks for people who lied us into a war don't sound moral to me.

"Principled and Intelligent." I think we've sufficiently covered Lieberman's principles. As for his intelligence, one need only look at the campaign he ran against Lamont to see Lieberman is completely blinkered and out of his depth. He can't really defend his views convincingly, and propounds ideas that six-year-olds could see through. Osama is really more evil than Hitler and more dangerous than the Soviets, Joe? A vote for Lamont is a vote for Osama? Only an idiot would think that, or in Lieberman's case, a principled, intelligent, useful idiot.

Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but I'm guessing that around 43% of Jews in Connecticut noticed some if not all of the things I've noticed about the erstwhile Democrat, and decided Joe Lieberman wasn't "one" of any "them" that they wanted to be associated with. I hope this cures your bewilderment, Rabbi Gellman, for a few minutes anyway. Good night, and good luck.

New Blog

Now that football season is nearly upon us, I have a new, all-Raiders all-the-time blog called The Raider Diaspora.

Vote

If you're from Connecticut, a registered Democrat, and here because your dryer is squeaking (it's probably either the belt or a missing screw in the bearings--either way, easy fix, don't panic), get out and vote for Ned Lamont. You'll have whiter teeth, fresher breath, fewer cavities, and sexier, tighter abs to attract whichever gender you prefer to fuck. Well, okay, but you'll at least pull a pretty nasty thorn from your side, and that's sure to make you feel better.

So vote, and call someone about the dryer. It's a cheap fix. Really.

Howard Johnson's Right About Olson Johnson's Being Right

Kevin Drum quotes from a Publius post that says that, while the blogs actually weren't at the center of Joe Lieberman's political problems, Lieberman's supporters are hell bent on making it look as though they are. This will, because perception is reality in these matters, make bloggers more powerful in the Democratic party. I doubt this was the effect that guys like Marshall Wittman and Jonathan Chait had in mind when they placed bloggers at the center of the Lamont campaign, but I guess that's how it worked out.

All this will obscure the truth about this race, but I still think that people who care will be able to find it. And when they look, I think they'll discover that it was Joe Lieberman's strategy of aligning himself with right-wing figures over the course of his career--Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, and (though Lieberman has at times disputed it) George W. Bush--that ultimately led to his downfall. Now I know that Lieberman's remaining supporters will protest "But that's not the real Joe Lieberman!" But, in these matters, as Joe Lieberman forgot when it counted, perception is reality. It looks like that mistake will cost him his career.

Someone (I suspect Lanny Davis but I could be wrong) said of Joe Lieberman that he doesn't think politically. I'm sure he meant that as a compliment, but watching Lieberman flail through this primary against a rookie I can't help but think that a politician not thinking politically is a bit like a scientist not thinking scientifically or an athlete who doesn't think athletically. It's a good idea for a politician to appear apolitical, but underneath it there must lurk a shrewd political mind that monitors both enemies and friends and keeps close track of where the best political ground is located. Both Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell avoided serious primary challenges because they kept watch on local party officials during their tenures, stopping potential rivals before they could start, and because they knew when to throw the base a bone or two. If only Joe Lieberman had their sense. Too bad. So sad. Fuck him.

Joementum Defined

Joementum. n. A state or condition in which the identity of the loser is known to all observers of a contest except the loser, who believes he's winning. [ORIG: A speech by Joe Lieberman in which he claimed to be surpassing his rivals in the 2004 New Hampshire Primary. He ended up finishing fifth.]