Well. Some Christian organization has sent a sort of pamphlet to US soldiers in Iraq. It contains, among other things, a prayer for George Bush, which can be torn out and sent to him. This has some people in a snit -- I don't know what else to call a post with the pursed-lipped heading "As usual, it's all about him." Now I'm no Christian (I was raised Methodist/Presbyterian/whatever but among some of today's more fervent practitioners of the faith I feel somewhat like Oscar Wilde felt when asked if he were a Christian: "I don't think so," he replied, "I'm an Irish Protestant"), but excuse me if I refuse to play this game of Shock 'n' Outrage.
For one thing, there is absolutely no -- I repeat, no -- evidence that the president has anything to do with this, or even that he knows anything about this, or if he did, that he wouldn't be embarassed instead of swelling up like a puffer fish with pride. But that seems to be the general tenor of the criticism here: that this organization must necessarily be one of the Dubya's evil, Cthulhu-like tentacle groups through which he (bwahahaahahaa!) intends to control minds and rule Ze Whole Vorld! An acquaintance of Nielsen Hayden's is positively doing backflips of rage at the -- horrors! -- existence of a website called PrayforGeorgeBush.com, even though there is a prominent disclaimer at the bottom of the front page that says: "Webpage Not Authorized by President Bush or any person(s) associated with his administration." But it's a good opportunity to get in a few slams about what a
feebleminded, morally challenged, inbred, penny-ante usurper
Bush is, so hey.
Quite frankly, this hysterical attitudinizing is a major factor in what drove me to switch my party allegiance from Democrat to Republican. After eight years of Clinton -- who I will now say I think is an intelligent man, probably a fun dinner companion, no matter all his other faults* -- and after observing what the Dems must think of as their Wounded Knee (the 2000 Endless Election), it occurred to me that liberals (or what call themselves liberals -- Democrats, progressives, whatever) just can't handle power, either having it or losing it. Either it goes to their heads when they have it and they fuck up somewhere (ibid. Clinton), or they become abso-fuckin-lutely unbearable when they suffer a political setback. When will the anti-Bush faction grow a pair and stop acting like whiny victims? "He stole our election, boohoohoo!" Give me a break. They're like the divorcée who never got over her first marriage.
*I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with him, had I a daughter. Heck, I wouldn't stay in the same room alone with him without a blunt object handy. Nor would I leave the silver unwatched. But I'm sure he's a fine person otherwise.
Posted by Andrea Harris at March 30, 2003 11:23 PMI wish they'd make up their mind whether Bush is:
a) so halfwitted that (to swipe a phrase) a dog could cheat him at cards,
or:
b) a sinister genius of the caliber of Professor Moriarty or Fu Manchu.
I've heard both of these views expressed by the same person. I expect you have too.
Oddly enough, those seem to be the same people who think that "no war" is equivalent to "no one dies", when in fact "no war" means "Saddam continues to murder".
Hell, I didn't even vote for Bush. I do think he's doing the right thing in this case, though.
Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at March 31, 2003 at 12:56 AMIs that how you read it? Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Posted by: Teresa Nielsen Hayden at March 31, 2003 at 08:11 AMI gathered you disapprove of religious organizations -- or at least Christian ones -- handing out pamphlets to soldiers, especially ones that contain prayers for the president. I also gather that you disapprove of openly Christian organizations having websites that ask probing questions about matters of the faith -- questions which neither you nor anyone else not of the faith, or even of the faith, depending upon denomination, are compelled to answer. And I also interpreted your words and the featured quote from your friend to mean that the very idea of anyone praying for Mr. Bush is abhorrent to you. From the fact that you seemed to focus most intensely on this horror: that soldiers on the front were being asked, though under no obligation to do so, to pray for the president, I opined that you seemed to be laying the blame for this rather bumptious effort on the part of this Christian organization at the feet of said president. If that isn't what you meant, your post certainly made it easy for mischevious people like me to get that idea.
I did forget to mention the curious notion that praying at the president, like you said your other friend will do, is okay. Frankly I don't see how one trumps the other -- if one is a ludicrous exercise, so is the other -- but then I'm not looking at the matter through kneejerk Dubya-dislike.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 31, 2003 at 10:18 AMThis is like the comment at one of the other blogs (sorry, Andrea, but I do read others!) that Air Force One's menu had "Freedom Toast", which only goes to show how idiotic Dubya was.
When it was pointed out that Dubya hardly wrote the menus, the point was then shifted to the fact that he hadn't ordered it changed back (to French toast), nor had he decried it, and that his attitude certainly supported it.
The last part may be true, but somehow, I don't think this Prez pays attention to things like how stewards list the breakfast on the plane, or whether a religious group is asking troops to pray for him.
And that, IMO, is a GOOD thing. Jimmeh Carter- or LBJ-style micromanagement is hardly the best thing for a war.
Posted by: Dean at March 31, 2003 at 10:27 AMI just loved this Salon article, mentioned in a comment. It's titled "I will pray for George Bush because he's part of the human family. But he's a dangerous relation, like a Klansman."
I'm not even going to warn you about the photo.
Posted by: Angie Schultz at March 31, 2003 at 10:37 AMI have looked at the picture. If that -- uh -- person thinks of humanity as family, she has to have been adopted.
Posted by: Kevin McGehee at March 31, 2003 at 10:07 PMThanks alot Angie! noe I;m blind. Its a good thing I cna touch type otherwise I;d be unable to warn the rest of you away! DON OT! repeat DO NOT look directly at that face! egads that woman is Nastu!
Posted by: Robert Modean at March 31, 2003 at 10:12 PMWell, no, that's not what I think -- not as interpreted in this round of your comments, and not as interpreted in your previous round, either.
Are you actually interested in having a conversation about this? You're not obliged to. For all I know, you could just be using my post as the focus for your daily quarter-hour bout of aerobic indignation, in which case it would of course be an error for me to see your response as personal, or even meaningful.
Do please let me know.
Posted by: Teresa Nielsen Hayden at March 31, 2003 at 10:50 PMNo, I'm not sure that I do. Here's why: that is the second time that you have said "I didn't meant that" -- without at least hinting what you did mean instead that I am apparently too obtuse to get. I have attempted to have conversations like that, where other person keeps tantalizing me with some special "meaning" and all the while never coming out and saying what it is... I decided that that particular verbal exercise was not to my taste.
And no, this isn't "personal" -- we haven't met, so I haven't anything against you personally, and as for any "meaning" contained in my "aerobics of indignation," this is my personal blog with my personal observances and opinions, so I am sure there is plenty here that is meaningful only to me.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 31, 2003 at 11:28 PMThanks! I wasn't trying to be tantalizing; just trying to figure out what was going on.
Posted by: Teresa Nielsen Hayden at April 1, 2003 at 07:39 AMI'm late getting to this, but it's just more of the Christian Bumpkin BS...a fellow piece to the American Taliban baloney of Oliver Willis. "Let's snicker at the rubes, everybody!" Well, good for the Enlightened Nielsen-Haydens. There are endless snarky blog posts about religion to be made yet. Here's to more, especially the ones that link the President to the hayseeds. I enjoy all the sputtering outrage over positively nothing. It's so enlightening.
Posted by: Scott at April 1, 2003 at 08:46 PM