Calling Bull

It's far from a new complaint or concept - but it's very refreshing to have this stated in such blunt terms by a near-mainstream media rep. That would be Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, who I have featured here before and acknowledge as one of my top-five strongly-recommended daily resources for anyone interested in keeping up. In this case the article is at his alternate outlet at Nieman Watchdog.

"Calling Bullshit." Very nice. Succinct. I strongly encourage you to also check out comments to the article (at link).

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do.

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. The relentless spinning is enough to make anyone dizzy, and some of our most important political battles are about competing views of reality more than they are about policy choices. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy.

It also resonates with readers and viewers a lot more than passionless stenography. I’m convinced that my enthusiasm for calling bullshit is the main reason for the considerable success of my White House Briefing column, which has turned into a significant traffic-driver for The Washington Post’s Web site.

-clip-

One familiar yet very interesting item you'll encounter when you delve into comments to article above is the George Will WaPo article dissing Rep-elect James Webb for his role in faceoff with your strutting-codpiece white house resident (I cannot bring myself to say the "p" word).

But you already knew about that, as you do not rely solely on television and newspaper for your "news," instead aggressively exploiting the Net, right? No confessions needed, that's why I'm here.

Old George (Will in this case) got caught cheating embarrassingly obviously on the story line here. Pretty pathetic, actually. (Aside: poor old Goog may have to put a block on "George, cheat, embarrassing, lying".)

Dino Will ought to be put out to pasture as far as I can tell. On the rare occasions he actually pulls together a meaningful sentence these days it seems to be begging for institutionalization. At best he is a pathetic spectacle.

Digby has some wonderfully pointed comments on the demented ravings of G. Will. Comments here again worth a read (you may even stumble over Sir Gumbo there).

Jesus H Christ. I'm watching some "Democratic strategist" named Rich Masters agree with Joe Scarborough that Jim Webb had made a rookie mistake by failing to kiss George W. Bush's ass when the jerk got snippy with him. Scarborough and whichever GOPbot they have on there agrees that it really reflects badly on the democratic party as a whole and Webb should apologise.

When these Democrats go on TV and fail to correct the record they turn these ridiculous manufactured flaps into news stories for the benefit of of the kewl kidz and the Republicans alike. I don't know what it will take to get them to stop doing it. They are making Jim Webb into one of the "crazy" guys like they made Gore and they made Dean. Don't they get that whenever a Democrats stands up to a republicans the establishment turns around and says they are nuts. Why are they helping them?

But there is more to this story than meets the eye. George Will got the vapors and called for the smelling salts this morning over Webb's allegedly boorish behavior, which is what's fueling the story today. But Will completely misrepresented what was said. George W. Bush acted like a prick, not Webb.

Here's Greg Sargent:

Will writes:

Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy.

"Will says the episode demonstrates Webb's "calculated rudeness toward another human being" -- i.e., the President -- who "asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another."

But do you notice something missing from Will's recounting of the episode?

Here's how the Washingon Post actually reported on the episode the day before Will's column:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him."

How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

See what happened? Will omitted the pissy retort from the President that provoked Webb. Will cut out the line from the President where he said: "That's not what I asked you." In Will's recounting, that instead became a sign of Bush's parental solicitiousness: "The president again asked `How's your boy?'"

Will's change completely alters the tenor of the conversation from one in which Bush was rude first to Webb, which is what the Post's original account suggested, to one in which Webb was inexplicably rude to the President, which is how Will wanted to represent what happened.

It's virtually impossible to see how that could have been the result of mere incompetence on Will's part. Rather, it's very clear that Will cut the line because it was an inconvenient impediment to his journalistic goal, which was to portray Webb as a "boor" who was rude to the Commander in Chief, and to show that this new upstart is a threat to Washington's alleged code of "civility and clear speaking" (his words). On that score, also note that in the original version, Webb said "Mr. President" twice -- and neither appeared in Will's version.

George Will is a liar, pure and simple. But, for some reason (I have my suspicions) certain Democrats are also blaming Webb. The flap really got started with some unnamed Democratic staffer idiot who said yesterday "I think Webb is going to be a total pain. He's going to do things his own way." (I wonder if his initials are Marshall Wittman?) That was what got the storyline rolling.

-clip-

When Christians Go Bad

With no apologies, I'm going a little "churchy" here tonight. I don't spend much time in those hallowed places these days, personally. I did when I was younger, not entirely from a standpoint of free will. There was even a period when I took organ lessons and as a result had the whole Presbyterian piece of real estate to myself. A belief in a higher power and the importance of what I think of as the basic humble Jesus program of ministry and caring remain with me as a result of that indoctrination. I struggle with being even a decent neophyte disciple of course.

While I want to personally behave in a way consistent with what I think of as Christian principles, increasingly I have found my world poisoned by aggressive self-proclaimed hyper-Christians. These folks seem to want to invoke what I would have thought were my basic tenets as a justification for all sorts of venal behavior, greed, power-mongering, and bigotry just a few of their favorite sports. No way it works for me. At the very least they need to find another name for it.

Bush is either right down there with the dirtiest and most spitefully non-Christian of them or he is doing his best to play-act ever-so-cynically in an effort to con them. I have to suspect the latter, given this guy's Curriculum Vitae of never being responsible/accountable for anything but knowing some saviour appointed by Barb would bail him out.

It's enough to make it a bitter admission that I still have my old grade-school red-letter King James edition. My copy is just across the way, rarely consulted I admit, under that stack of CDs to-be-refiled: Nat King Cole, Byrds, Kansas, Roxy Music, Eagles, Aretha, Tom Jones (!), Cars, and Dr. John.

Here is some writing, more eloquent than I can manage, on the same topic. It makes a distinction that I find very important between religious traditions and belief (and the critical issue of tolerance for same) and their exploitation in the pursuit of political ends. Reading this has helped me begin to think a bit more constructively. I hope it might be of value to you, whether spiritually/religiously inclined or not. If you're reading this you must know that there's no "I'm out - don't wanna play" on this potentially world-shattering issue right now.

Recently, the term "christianism" seems finally to have caught on to describe the political movement that exploits Christian symbols for secular gain. And with its acceptance has come the usual denials and attacks from the right.

Glenn Greenwald, for example, takes on Ann Althouse who claims to find the term offensive as well as Glenn Reynolds who calls it "a variety of bigotry." In an update, Glenn notes that Hugh Hewitt characterizes "christianism" as "hate speech."

I can't improve on Glenn's summary of the issue and his rebuttals but I would like to add this:

Now you know why I wrote "Voices of Light."

My respect, even admiration, for many religious traditions is deep and genuine. I find much that is beautiful and even true in these traditions. "Voices of Light" is, among many other things, an expression of that admiration. And it's not limited merely to Catholicism, the specific religion within which the events of "Voices of Light" take place. I've used texts from many different traditions in other works.

Naturally, when you take the time and effort to write a large piece of music, you have many reasons to do so. One reason that was very important to me was that I felt that I had something to contribute to the American discussion of religion and spirituality, namely that there is a huge difference between the desire to understand what is meant by God and political acts undertaken in the name of God. Failure to discern the two can be, and events have shown, is, very dangerous for American democracy.

However, I well knew that the public discourse on religion was overrun with hateful ideologues who would rather beat you to death with a Bible (metaphorically speaking) than practice the mercy of Christ (literally speaking). I wanted to make sure that before anyone presumed to speak up for what I stood for, I had made it crystal clear that my respect for religious tradition is deep and sincere. I think that even if you don't like "Voices of Light," it is hard to argue that the person who wrote it didn't take Joan seriously and with great respect, as well as respect the religious traditions she practiced.

Regarding my possible personal beliefs, or possible lack of same, I felt then, and still feel, they are irrelevant to a serious discussion of religion in a public space. What is important, the only thing that is important as far as I'm concerned, is that it is clear that I have no interest in undermining religious beliefs (or unbelief) but totally respect them and try to learn what I can of many different traditions. By the same token, I have zero interest in promoting any religious system (or lack of same).

I have a very different attitude towards the political exploitation of religious symbolism and belief. To be blunt, I find it immoral that anyone would dare to corrupt the religious impulse - which, for so many, is crucial to their understanding of their lives - for cheap, secular, partisan gain. I'm talking Pat Robertson here, Jerry Falwell,followers of Rousas Rushdoony, Joseph Morehead, Randall Terry and the whole sick crew of sleazy political operatives eagerly working to wreck the American system of government and establish a theocracy.

They deserve no respect, no quarter, whatsoever. It is very important to understand that whatever their personal beliefs - which are all but unknowable - they have made it clear through their public statements that they are dangerous political extremists who have celebrated the virtue of their intolerance on numerous occasions. Some have gone out of their way to excuse, advocate or even perpetrate murderous violence in the name of their utterly sick beliefs. They have generously funded elaborate efforts to undermine science with sophisticated marketing campaigns to teach cruddy lies to science students.

And they have blasphemously used the cross and other religious symbols as if they were trying to ward off vampires in a cheesy horror film. They degrade the cross, a symbol beloved and honored by millions who have nothing in common with these people. And they do so not to affirm their religious beliefs, whatever they may be, but in the most cynical fashion, merely to counter legitimate expressions of outrage at their hateful behavior or ideas.

For all these reasons, I think it is crucial that a distinction be made between the expression of religion and its political exploitation. Therefore, a few years ago, I proposed the term "christianism" to distinguish the political movement from Christianity. I urged others to adopt it. Other terms have been proposed such as Michelle Goldberg's "Christian Nationalism" but I like the parallels between "christianism" and "islamism."

One word about the provenance of the term, which I would like to be clear about. I'll post the links tonight, when I have more time. When I wrote the 2003 post, I was completely unaware, because I have, with rare exceptions, never read him, that Andrew Sullivan had used the exact same term with a similar definition a few days before I did. The first I learned about the Sullivan post was when William Safire discussed the term "christianism" about a year or so ago in the New York Times Magazine. Actually, the word has been used for centuries, I believe.

-clip-