A Retraction

A commenter to the previous post has suggested that "pudgy little freak" is inappropriate as a description of my Congressweasel, and he is correct. (His comment is well worth reading.)

I am troubled by a more-important problem with that post, though. In it, I called for the torture of that person, and that was wrong of me. I could go back and edit the post, but why compound barbarism with dishonesty? Let's use it, just as it is, as a cautionary illustration of the corrosive tendency of our national practice of torture to corrupt the thinking even of its opponents.

I think that a good case can be made against Mr. Souder as a war criminal, and as such he could be tried by some court of competent jurisdiction and punished according to the trial's outcome. Such punishment might include a lengthy term of confinement, or even execution. But it could not justly involve water torture, nor the pulling-out of fingernails; and I should not have suggested such, even in dark humor -- maybe especially not in dark "humor." Mea culpa. I'll try not to do it again.

What's Worse Than a Juiced-Up Professional Jock?

My Congresscritter, that's what. Lots, lots worse.

I suspected it wouldn't take long for Marky-Mark to make himself heard, and it didn't:

If baseball doesn’t voluntarily tighten its anti-drug procedures, Congress will impose new requirements, Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, warned Thursday after reading parts of the report that chronicles rampant steroid use among professional players.

Souder, a lifelong fan of baseball, was part of the congressional committee in 2005 that investigated accusations of illegal drug use in the professional sport.

At the time, Souder said he was furious that baseball is abusing its public trust and that drug-using players are setting a bad example for high school and junior high school players. He said that anger hasn’t abated.

Souder said the only surprise in former Sen. George Mitchell’s investigation was the risk some well-known players were willing to take.

“The amazing thing about this report is it’s not just marginal people (who are identified as steroid users). They are people who are in our fantasy baseball teams. I must say, I don’t think a single one of these are my players, even from the last three or four years. I was suspect of a lot of people.

“It’s surprising to me that in this era, with all the scrutiny and supposed testing, stars are still using the substances,” he said. “That shows the desire to continue your stardom – for people like (Roger) Clemens and Andy Pettitte – the desire to recover from your injury and the desperation to make a team will even have you take great risks when scrutiny is higher.”

Souder said if baseball doesn’t adopt Olympic standards about drug use, employ outside investigators, use surprise tests and do it year-round, Congress will enact legislation to require it.

He said the names of current players who show up in Mitchell’s report demonstrate that steroid use isn’t a thing of the past.

“Baseball still has current cleaning up to do,” he said. “Yes, people talk about the ‘home-run era’ and how managers and trainers looked the other way and said the laws were vague. But now what’s their excuse?”

In my ideal world, the torturers of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and the various secret CIA shops-of-horror would be ordered to release their current victims and concentrate on waterboarding this pudgy little freak who "represents" me in the U.S. House of Representatives. The objective: make him reveal what text of the imaginary U.S. constitution empowers the FedGov to "enact legislation" -- or do any single other accursed thing -- about professional gladiators and what substances they choose to fuel themselves on. This clown obviously knows or cares nothing about the document that he has taken far too many false oaths to defend. But it might be entertaining, admittedly in a perverse way, to see what he'd shriek out in an attempt to halt his "simulated drowning." I'm guessing it would be something about the regulation of interstate commerce. At that point, let's get out the duct tape and pliers, and give him a George Clooney manicure from "Syriana."

I won't watch, though. There's limits to everything.

"I'm Just Like You"

So, the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt "Double Guantanamo" Romney, delivered a big speech yesterday in which he assured "evangelical Christians and other religious voters that his values matched theirs." Indeed, I am sure that they do -- always assuming that we may define "values" as adopted "positions" and points of pandering.

Gentle reader, perhaps you think I'm skeptical -- dubious, even -- of the Massachusetts Mormon's newfound enthusiasm for the Second Amendment, or his newfound opposition to abortion. You're absolutely correct; I suspect that Mr. Romney's only really deep and unshakable belief is that any available slot at the public trough should be filled by, well, him. All the rest -- all the content of his standard stump speech -- is, I'm reasonably sure, a product of marketing calculations, made carefully by Mr. Romney himself or by his staff. And it seems that Team Romney's calculations are quite similar to those of nearly all the other candidates for the presidential nominations of both Major Brand political machines. The syllables "Is-" and "-lam" can't be separated by more than half a second, at most, from "fas-" and "-cist." "All options" must always be said to be "on the table" with respect to any recalcitrant (i.e., non-Saudi) swarthy regime. Extravagant and eternal pledges of fealty must be made to The Precious (Israel) and repeated, over and over again. The Holy Nine-Eleven must have its ring kissed -- indeed, positively slobbered upon. So what if Romney's a magic-spectacles cultist, and Huckabee's a bloody-minded Baptist socialist, and Fred Thompson's a sketchily-animated corpse with a mother-in-law younger than he is, and Giuliani's a transvestite Klingon, and McCain's a sawed-off psychopath? This crowd is mutually differentiated only by minor style points here and there. They are unanimously careful to touch every base listed above. They are brothers, or at least trailer-park cousins. Without a program, a body just can't hardly tell 'em apart. However, they can be collectively distinguished from the Serious Folk from the other Major Brand by one difference. Democrats all love to talk about Dubya as an inept manager of wars; Republicans prefer to avoid mentioning the Wee Emperor, and are quite good at such avoidance. Otherwise, they're the same. You, O reader, will doubtless have your own estimation of just how cosmically significant that difference might be. Me -- I'm pretty much yawning over it.

Meanwhile, there's amusement in the details:

But showing the fine line he was treading, he promised not to be beholden to church authorities, and devoted the majority of his address to calling for a robust role for religion in public life, declaring there was a common moral heritage across religious lines in the country that he would champion.

“I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty,” he said, drawing applause from an audience of about 300 invited guests, which included supporters and religious leaders. “Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage.”

So there you have it: the photogenic "Double Guantanamo" is highly enthusiastic about his beliefs, but there's no need to fret: he won't be taking his marching orders from Salt Lake City. Of course, I already knew that; anyone who is actually allowed to get within Taser range of the Oval Office takes his or her orders directly from Tel Aviv (or, sorry, I guess it's Jerusalem these days, isn't it?). As for "the affairs of government," which actually consist very largely of theft, robbery, and mass murder: they are certainly not currently entangled with any religion this side of Satanism, and I'm sure Mr. Romney won't upset that time-honored arrangement in any important way. Again, he offers reassurance that I don't really need.

While Mr. Romney appeared to be directing his message especially to evangelical voters, the reaction among their leaders was mixed.

Steve Carlson, a board member of the Iowa Christian Alliance and a member of a Pentecostal church in Sioux City, said there was little Mr. Romney could have said today to allay his concerns about Mormon theology and his candidacy.

Mr. Carlson said he had been leaning toward Mr. Huckabee or Fred D. Thompson in large part because of problems he has with Mormonism. The speech, he said, did nothing to change that.

“He didn’t sway me one way or the other,” he said. “I don’t know anything he could have said.”

So, Mr. Carlson has "problems" with Mormonism. I sympathize; I, too, have problems with Mormonism -- the same problems I have with any other false and ugly religious system. But come on, Mr. Carlson: Huckabee? Thompson? Don't such men represent anything that gives you problems? Do you have any problems with the idea of perpetual war overseas, and tyranny, blowback, and economic ruin at home?

I really have no idea how many are in the actual Christian Church -- the people that Jesus knows to be His own -- in America. I'd guess that it's a small fraction of the number sitting in pews on Sunday mornings. I don't doubt, though, that some are simply confused: dazzled by the senseless chaos, misinformation, and propaganda that bombards us from our newspapers and teevee and internets and, God help us, from our pulpits. I simply hope that as many as possible are able to distinguish between the voice of the Good Shepherd and the myriad of other voices that demand our attention ... and obedience.

'Tis the Season

It's almost December, tomorrow's El Dio del Pavo (The Day of the Turkey, for my fellow gringos), and you know what that means. That means that for the next four weeks or so, as Christmas approaches, much of the world and much of the nominal church will join hands in a collaborative effort to demonstrate just how little Christianity is running around out there.

In our story today, the world is represented by the Lowe's chain of homeowner hells (let's pause to properly credit Dave Barry for that oh-so-apt name). Before we proceed, I have to stop and give the management of Lowe's some mad props for that little apostrophe between the E and the S in their corporate logo. As one of Lynne Truss's passionate groupies, I am touched by that old-school, properly-formed possessive; would that "Walgreens" had done so well! But enough digression; time instead for procession. Let's proceed. The story:

It's green, cone-shaped, and ready to be decorated and lit. But in the Lowe's holiday catalog it's a "Family Tree" not a Christmas tree.

That's put the Mooresville-based home improvement giant at the center of what has become an annual debate over whether retailers should specifically refer to Christmas in their advertisements.

Lowe's 2007 holiday catalog triggered an outcry from the American Family Association, a conservative advocacy group.

Over the years, the association has led boycotts against Wal-Mart and other retailers for using the catchall "happy holidays" in its advertisements and greetings instead of "Merry Christmas."

This year, the association posted an "action alert" on its Web site, asking readers to e-mail Lowe's about how the "family" trees might be offensive to Christians.

Lowe's spokeswoman Karen Cobb said the catalog page's title was an error during the "creative process" and was inconsistent with the company's practice of referring to the trees as Christmas trees. Cobb said the company is redoubling its efforts to proof its catalogs.

"We've apologized for the confusion we created," Cobb said. "It was not our intention to offend anyone."

Christmas is an important observance in the context of the Christian church. After all, without the incarnation of God, you could hardly have His atoning passion and death, nor could you have the crown and capstone of the faith: His resurrection. So it is proper -- indeed, in my view, obligatory -- for Christians to celebrate the incarnation. And if the traditions of the historical church have incorporated some pagan stylistic elements (placing the time of the celebration near the ancient Saturnalia and the winter solstice, decorating with greens), well, so be it; these things are the "shadow" and not the substance, in Paul's sense and meaning from Romans chapter 14. However, I search the Scriptures without success for any hint at all that Christian believers should compel the unbelievers of this world to simulate enthusiasm for the believers' celebration, or to hector those unbelievers to produce that simulated enthusiasm, or even to expect it. What I find in my New Testament is explicitly contrary to this notion; again and again, the believer is told to expect trouble and abuse, ranging from ridicule to torture and death.

So, is Lowe's, that corporate purveyor of "family trees" for "the holidays," dispensing persecution? Don't make me laugh. Persecution means arrests, beatings, imprisonment, confiscation, torture, and execution. To first century Christians, persecution was violent death. For some abstract corporate entity to fail to render some insincere show of respect for my beliefs is ... well, let's just say that if this is as bad as it ever gets for me, I'm either not much of a believer, or I'm living in a rather tranquil time and place. (I'd prefer to assume the latter, if that's OK with everyone.)

I'll interrupt this post with an admission that I have a little bone to pick with Lowe's, too. Mine involves the difficulty of procuring a decent sheet of 3/4-inch BCX plywood at a decent price. But that's for another day ... and the Home Despot is usually just as bad, if not worse.

At His incarnation, my Lord took the form of near-ultimate powerlessness: an infant born to a couple of nobodies in an occupied backwater of the Roman empire. "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild," indeed. Why does so much of His nominal church behave, at this time every year, like a crew of truculent gangbangers, demanding our due respect  from one and all? Must we insist on our props?  Couldn't we try to emulate our master just a little more closely?

I wonder, too, why so many of us buy into the notion that we're supposed to have an emotional relationship with an animated money machine like Lowe's? The American Family Association, after all, is urging us to have a quarrel of some kind with that corporation. There's probably some footsore person manning the register at your local Lowe's store to whom you can relate, and maybe minister, in some personal way. But the corporation ... well, that's what it is. What do we expect? Of course  it's going to do some silly verbal dance that's been carefully optimized to maximize the amount of "holiday" merchandise moved while minimizing the number of customers offended. Is it a good thing? Probably not; how many small, independently-owned "hardware stores" do you see these days? Are most of the alternatives worse? Under our omnipotent thug government, they probably are worse. But we claim we believe that this is a fallen world, dancing to the tune called by its dark Prince. Should we be surprised when unbelievers conduct themselves as such? To me, the real surprise is that most people behave as well as they do. Maybe God really meant it, when He said that His law is written on everyone's heart.

So, what's the alternative? What am I suggesting that Christians do, if they're not filling their hours in e-mailing and boycotting and trying to bully unbelievers into insincere salutes to belief? Well, loving those who vex you is a biblically-recommended sort of pastime. The cultivation of humility is always becoming and appropriate to sinners, such as we. Making merry is good, in and of itself. As for changing the world, well and good; it very much needs changing. But we should keep in mind what the Lord told Paul, in 2 Corinthians chapter 12: His power is perfected in weakness.

Love is subversive.

Servants are revolutionaries.

Amen and amen.

No Shortage of Enemies -- and More to Come

Some things change, and some are constant. As the Land of the Sheep and the Home of the Tased staggers toward one potential novelty -- an out-of-the-closet transvestite emperor -- Rudy/Julie assures the Las Vegas crowd that at least one thing will be familiar: perpetual war.

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani mocked his Democratic rivals as impractical, billing himself as a realist on foreign policy with experience at the negotiating table.

Giuliani described Democrats as "falling all over themselves" to negotiate quickly and without preconditions with hostile foreign leaders -- a reference to sparring between Democratic candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over how best to deal with Iran.

"It's a spectacle of almost begging your enemy to negotiate with you," Giuliani said late Thursday in a speech to donors at a Las Vegas casino. "Democrats don't get it ... I think the big difference in voting for me is you will have as president of the United States a realist who has experience negotiating."

Hmmmm. "Almost begging ..." I wonder how one "almost" begs for negotiation? In WarWorld, any activity other than mass murder seems to constitute appeasement or begging or some other such unmanly conduct. There's no danger of any of that from any of the major-brand, "legitimate" pretenders to the throne, from either side of the duopoly. I don't know how many Iranian enemies I have now; I do know that every "serious" candidate, meaning all of them this side of Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, is devoted to making sure I have as many enemies as possible. Thanks, guys and girl. Don't know what I'd do without you.

New to the Blogroll

I've called attention to several of William Norman Grigg's posts at Pro Libertate, and I'm well overdue in permanently linking his blog. He doesn't post every day. But then, I don't even post every week, so I can hardly fault him for that. I recommend him to your attention.