Operation Infinite November Elections: Coming Soon?

Arthur Silber has a worthwhile post about how BushCo's beating the well-worn war drums at Iran:

As I say, it's all about Iran now. The Bush administration is suffocating under the punishing weight of the catastrophic failures of its policies in every area, and it can only be saved by another major crisis, even an entirely invented one. They hope that such a crisis will serve to unite the country behind them once again, at least to the extent required to save them from the equivalent of political death.

The Critical Difficulty

Blogger, which graciously provides the means of my producing (extruding? excreting?) this blog, has provided an arrangement whereby I get an automatic e-mail when anyone leaves a comment. Don't let that make you hesitant to comment -- your email address is not revealed thereby, nor are your phone number, Social Security number, major credit card number, name of your firstborn child, etc. But that's a handy thing for me. Once a post recedes very far into history -- like three or four posts ago -- I'm not apt to scroll down far enough to see that a comment's been left.

So, I got an email a couple of days ago indicating that TW left a comment on the Zarqawi / Goldstein post that I put up last Saturday. TW is a fellow-participant of mine on several message boards from a couple of years ago (message boards seem to be in decline these days, which is a pity in several ways). He's left the occasional comment here, although it had been a while ... hey, TW, how's it going with you? Glad you stopped by. Whatcha been up to? Posting anywhere?

I post this because TW's comment is lengthy, and probably no one will see it 'way down there, what with me being the only one who gets a heads-up email from Blogger about comments here and all. As has been typical over the years, his comment is in substantial disagreement with me, and I point it out here in the interest of some kind of rudimentary fairness, at least. I advise you to go and read it, and my advice is well-known to be worth every cent you pay for it. I also want to respond to some of it:

I have a hard time with some aspects of Christianity. If Matthew 5:38-48 in total context means to let your enemies saw your head off and/or the heads of your progeny and then go ahead and love them anyway....well, like I said.

Rather than talk about the meaning and "total context" of the turn-the-other-cheek passage from the Sermon on the Mount, I'd like to go somewhere else in Matthew: to chapter 19, verses 16 to 26.

And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to Him, "All these things have I kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property.

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And when the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "then who can be saved?" And looking upon them Jesus said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

When TW says he has a hard time with some aspects of Christianity, I agree with him completely. Like anything that is both real and complex (I think I'm being redundant there), Christianity contains elements that are, at first, strange and disagreeable and alien. If I really believe that I am weak and sinful and mortal, then it shouldn't surprise me when God's thoughts are not my thoughts, and His ways are not mine, and it shouldn't surprise me when He doesn't affirm my natural inclinations as being good. Christianity is a matter of submission and surrender, and for every person, there's one thing that seems too precious to set aside or give up. For the rich man in the passage above, it was his wealth, and that was what Jesus demanded of him. It's not riches for everyone; for some, it may be revenge. It may be the imperative need to rejoice over the death of our enemy.

Whether I could forgive someone who had slaughtered my child, I cannot say. I've never been in that position, and I earnestly hope I never will be. But even if I'm convinced that I could never say what Michael Berg said, I still rejoice that he has been able to do so. "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." This is often quoted as one of those icky-sweet "promises of God," but I think it can sometimes actually feel threatening. Not only do I think I cannot set aside my thirst for revenge -- truth to tell, I don't really want to, either. God's saying that He can make me able to do that isn't good news, when I don't particularly want to. Matthew 7:14 quotes Jesus as saying, "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Like the rich young man, we all have something that seems too important to surrender, and most of us seemingly never do manage to relax our grip, open our hand, and let it go.

The War On You

Government has a "war on drugs." It has a "war on terror." I put these "wars" in quotes because they aren't, really. You can't make war on tactics, and you can't make war on inanimate materials. These are contradictions in terms. They're mere foolishness. The government does have a real war going, though. It's a war against you and me.

A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.

The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.

President Bush's nominees to the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, notably sided with the government.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said disallowing evidence from every "knock-and-announce violation" by officers would lead to the "grave adverse consequence" of a flood of appeals by accused criminals seeking dismissal of their cases.

Well! If we're afraid of a "flood" of appeals, then I guess knock-and-announce violations must not be very unusual. I guess they're probably pretty much business-as-usual.

"People have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner," Hudson's lawyer David Moran had told the high court. The justices have ruled in the past that police should announce their presence, then normally wait 15 to 20 seconds before bursting into a home.

Well, Mr. Moran, people have all sorts of "rights," in principle, but as the government grows increasingly lawless, those "rights," along with fifty cents (or several dollars at Starbucks), might get you a cup of coffee, but they're not going to keep the black-clad commandos from howling into your house like a militarized tornado, screaming obscenities as they throw you to your floor and shove their H&K muzzles into your face.

Once again, government is about absolutely nothing except force. If you must have government, you'd better find some way to keep it tiny, weak, starved, and fearful; or you'd better get used to hoping you only end up getting roughed up and zip-tied, instead of being shot down like a rabid dog. WWPHS? (What Would Patrick Henry Say?)

Flag Day ... Rii-i-i-i-ight

Well, gee, it's Flag Day. Hmmmmm. Well, in order to properly celebrate, I'm happy to announce a new link: to clarkstooksbury. In particular, check out his post on the "Pledge of Allegiance." It doesn't say a lot that's new, I suppose; in fact, I'm immodestly pleased to refer you to what I've said on the subject. But the picture is just excellent; by all means, go have a look.

Our Sacker-ficial President

I just heard George the Slow's weekly radio address. Needless to say, he's attempting to catch a wave of relative popularity (what would that mean for him these days? Approval ratings soaring clear up into the upper 30s?), using the body of Zarqawi as a grisly surfboard. But, he sternly warns us, although everything's all better, we must still realize that more "sacker-fices" are required.







Does this mean the First Twins are about to don the uniform?




Yeah, well, maybe not. Still, though, I've heard that every time (or is that "ever time") Jenna does Da Butt Dance, she dedicates it to The Troops. So, she's Supporting the Troops. She's already sacker-ficin'. And that's the main thing, isn't it?

Zarqawi / Goldstein

At Reverent and Free, Craig has a post -- well worth your time to read -- which led me to an account of Soledad O'Brien's interview with Michael Berg. Mr. Berg's son, Nicholas, was killed on videotape -- "probably," says CNN by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Given the volume of lies and deceptions about the whole Mesopotamian adventure that the American public has been fed, I tend to think that "probably" means "our interview will certainly have the poignant symmetry" ... but never mind; let's say that Zarqawi in fact did it. It's irrelevant: although Zarqawi's killing is the occasion of what we're looking at here, it isn't really about Zarqawi at all.

Mr. Berg -- a very, very bad boy -- says that Our Wartime President is no better than that personification of evil, Saddam Hussein:

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...

BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss, and that's the history of many countries -- and that's just what a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.

BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror.

I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son.

Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.

Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.

Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

This, of course, is supposed to be the cue for patriotic outrage: imagine this traitorous wretch saying that Dubya's no better than Antichrist Saddam!

Well, I don't exactly and completely agree with Mr. Berg about this. Bush probably is, in fact, a little better than the deposed-and-soon-to-be-executed Iraqi strongman. But to compare them is like arguing about which is more venomous: a hooded cobra or a coral snake. I'm sure they're not exactly equally venomous. One is very likely more dangerous than the other. But the difference is a matter of degree, not a fundamental difference in kind. Was John Wayne Gacy any "better" than Ted Bundy, or vice versa?

Not in any important way. They are varieties of the same creature.

Back to Michael Berg:

O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead.

MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that ...

O'BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I'm surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way.

BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.

I don't know that first thing about Mr. Berg -- what his spiritual ideas or position might be. He certainly talks like someone who is familiar with the words of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 5:38-48:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," but I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

As I say, I know nothing about Mr. Berg's beliefs, or lack thereof. I only wish that some of the evangelical cheerleaders for Bush and his wars, who've cackled so gleefully over another dead raghead, would display some similarity to -- some of the signature of -- my redeemer, as Mr. Berg has with his words. Instead, they sound like junior Outer Party members, screaming at Goldstein's image during the Five Minutes' Hate in 1984.