31 October 2004

blessed be samhain

Samhain marks one of the two great doorways of the Celtic year, for the Celts divided the year into two seasons: the light and the dark ...

http://www.celticspirit.org/samhain.htm

halloween magic

i'm not a sports fan. but there's a football game being played today that has forecast the winner of the presidential election -- correctly -- for the past seventeen years.

so if the pattern holds, then it goes like this. today there is a football game between the washington redskins and the green bay packers.

if the redskins win the game, bush wins the presidency.

if the packers win the game, kerry wins the presidency.

we will see if it makes it to year eighteen for correct predictions. the packers are picked to win by two points.

26 October 2004

proof: m&m's are invertebrate



Eminem never really ever struck my fancy as a performer. i never really thought about the reason, suppose i just assumed it's because i'm not now, nor ever have been attracted to rap or hip-hop. i never even knew how to spell his name until a few minutes ago when i read this boston globe article.

besides learning how to spell his name, i also learned why i didn't care for him.

he's a spineless corporate slave. he recorded a political song (anti-bush) but then wasn't allowed by his corporate baby-sitters to release it as the first single from his new album.

he has enough money and power to go against them. this poor eminem is not only candy-coated, he's yellow through and through.

nothing personal, but get a backbone dude.

23 October 2004

150 belated wishes

Rimbaud birthday poem

wednesday, 20 october 2004 was Arthur Rimbaud's 150th birthday.

here's a Rimbaud poem and Patti Smith's Book review from the VV on Rimbaud to celebrate...

VOWELLS by Arthur Rimbaud

A Black,
E white,
I red,
O blue,
U green:
vowels, I shall tell, one day, of your mysterious origins:

A, black velvety jacket of brilliant flies Which buzz around cruel smells, gulfs of shadow

E, whiteness of vapors and of tents,
Lances of proud glaciers, white kings, shivers of cow-parsley;

I, purples, spat blood, smile of beautiful lips In anger or in the raptures of penitence;

U, waves, divine shudderings of viridian seas, The peace of pastures dotted with animals, the peace of the furrows
Which alchemy prints on broad studious foreheads;

O, sublime Trumpet full of strange piercing sounds, Silences crossed by Worlds and by Angels:

- O the Omega, the violet ray of Her Eyes.
-- arthur rimbaud

______________

PATTI SMITH ON THE LEGEND OF ARTHUR

From THE VILLAGE VOICE Literary Supplement October 2000

RIMBAUD
By Graham Robb
W.W. Norton & Company, 530 pp., $35
By PATTI SMITH

My introduction to Rimbaud, at the age of 16, was a brief mention in a monograph on the painter Amedeo Modigliani. I was so taken with the painter that I wanted to read the poets he admired. This sent me in search of Dante, Baudelaire, and Arthur Rimbaud. I found Arthur in a paperback stall across from a bus terminal in Philadelphia. I was drawn to his face, intelligent and contemptuous.

Illuminations became my constant companion. The places we traveled physically and metaphysically may be addressed elsewhere. Suffice to say, I recognized a brother, one of my imagined kind. His work was indecipherable yet familiar. It presented another language that part of me grasped immediately. The part that didn't sneered patiently.

My next stop on the trail of Rimbaud was Enid Starkie's Arthur Rimbaud, published in 1947. Parting the leaves to reveal a farmhouse in the distance, I was drawn into the landscape of his life. I entered wholeheartedly, accepting the astute Starkie as my trusted guide. I stayed the course, then abandoned it. The better to consider my own point of view. So it was with trepidation that I opened Graham Robb's Rimbaud. A new study suggests the possible unearthing of illuminating material, but I was hesitant to plunge into a world that had consumed much of my late-blooming adolescence.

Tracing Rimbaud with Robb was, in turn, invigorating and agitating. Robb insinuates himself in all walks of Arthur's life, scrutinizing and sensationalizing his every move. Robb is best when he cinematically describes the geographic settings of the poet's well-traveled life, from the Ardennes to Abyssinia, and the shifting political and social structures of the 19th century. He is adept at scraping some of the dreary lacquer from thrice-told tales, as we see the poet, his family, and acquaintances moving about in fresh light. It would be more gratifying, however, without the continuous presence of Robb bathing in it himself.

Nonetheless, we can be grateful for new research and the liberal use of obscure material. I was moved by the description of a school notebook, "a few inkspotted sheets held together by a pin," containing notes penned by the 11-year-old boy destined to become the greatest poet in French literature. I could see the small bundle of papers and was delighted that it was quoted in such detail. "Why learn Latin? No one speaks that language. Sometimes I see some Latin in the newspapers but I'm not going to be a journalist, thank God."

One unexpected pleasure is a more realized portrait of Captain Rimbaud. Very little has been known of the father who deserted his family when Arthur was six. We're offered a sense of the source of Arthur's gifts. Captain Rimbaud distinguished himself as a chasseura French infantryman trained for rapid movement. He was a fine chess man, an avid compiler and annotator, an orientalist, and a philologistimmersing himself in the study of historical and comparative linguistics. He is credited with executing the first parallel-text translation of the Koran. Envisioning his father at his writing desk, laboring over the sacred text, with young Arthur at his feet, gave me my first inkling of their connection.

Images emerging from even the smallest details gave me reason to stay attentive to Rimbaud according to Robb. We see Rimbaud with his back to the Rembrandts, gazing through the window frames of the Louvre, longing for the time when "painters will no longer replicate objects. Emotions will be created with line, colours and patterns"for the coming of cubism, Picasso, Pollock, and modern art.

Arthur and his companion, the poet Paul Verlaine, exiting Charing Cross Station arm in arm into the polluted light of industrial Britain. Impressions of 19th-century London as described by Robb"subways, viaducts, raised canals, steam engines passing over streets, mastheads suddenly appearing behind chimney pots"permeated both poets' work.
We picture him through the diary of his sister Vitalie in a boarding house at 12 Argyle Square. "When the trunk arrived, Arthur helped to bring it up. After placing it in our room, he sat on top of it, laughing."

Rimbaud weeping. At 21 with his shaved head bowed, standing over the grave of that same sister, who was said to resemble and adore him.

Rimbaud walking. How swiftly he moved from the primitive to the promise of science and back again. With long strides, head erect, swinging his long arms punctuated with great hands, red with sores. What a cruel step he seems to have had, devouring territory thousands of miles on legs that would fail him by the age of 36. The speed with which he moved was like the tigers around the Musa tree and he buttered his hair with their turning.

Rimbaud still. In Harar at his worktable drinking tea beneath the great banana trees; stitching together his humble garments of white American cotton, "doing away with the tedious use of buttons."
Images such as these touched and inspired me and helped balance my impatience with Robb's presumptive commentary. He has chosen to retell Rimbaud's journey from visionary schoolboy to embittered exile. He has chosen to interpret the expansion and discarding of his rapidly changing universes as charted in poetry, letters, and insults. He has done so with consistent energy. And one is never bored, save by him. For he is ever commenting, as Bob Dylan would say, "from the corners of his mouth." He has a journalistic penchant for nailing his subject with one hand and crowning him with another. He would have us believe he has the unique facility of mind to decipher and apply symbolism to every aspect of the poet's behavior, whether at six, 16, or 36. Rimbaud cannot be reasoned or ciphered, for his end was poetryhis own alchemical formula. Those who are not poets, who are not filthy, who have not happily camped on horsehair mattresses, who are not innocently heartless, can never understand the nomadic truth of a poet.

Why did I accept this assignment? Perhaps I could not resist an uncorrected proof entitled Rimbaud. Biography cannot be looked upon as the Rosetta stone of a subject. Only Rimbaud could encode the atmosphere of his being. Arthur Rimbaud has written himself in A Season in Hell and Illuminations. There you will find him, with all contradictions intact. Only Rimbaud could wrestle, refine, and reinvent the civil war of his personality. And only fools would attach themselves to any singular notion of the poet; for all things are irrevocably entwined within the infernal stump of his existence.

-- patti smith


19 October 2004

morality is a disease


From: GoRimbaud@aol.com
Date: Wed, Oct 20, 2004
To: babel-list@postmodern.com
Subject: Morality is a Disease of the Brain

Today is Arthur Rimbaud's 150th birthday!

Tonight at the Bowery Poetry Club, from 5pm to 6:30pm, a reading celebrating this special day, titled "'Morality is a Disease of the Brain':
Celebrating the 150th Anniversary of Rimbaud's Birth."

Readers include:
Susan Osterman, Bob Holman, Anna Mockler, Susan Mesmer, Raquel Shapira, Guy Kettelhack, Slava Mogutin, Edgar Oliver, Phillip Ward, and many others.
Come celebrate the master of color in words!

"'Morality is a Disease of the Brain':
Celebrating the 150th Anniversary of Rimbaud's Birth." The Bowery Poetry Club 308 Bowery, New York, NY 10012
(Foot of First Street between Houston & Bleecker, across the street from CBGB.
Subway: F/V train to Second Ave. or 6 train to Bleecker)
212-614-0505
http://www.bowerypoetry.com

18 October 2004

suicide baptizers

... another bishop gets taken down -- for going down.

bishops are my favorite religious chess pieces. i'm gaining a new respect for them after all this persecution stuff.

it's just not fair, everyone hates bishops. maybe it has something to do with only moving diagonally, or remaining on only one color for their entire chess board lives. or maybe it's one of those christian/gay things.

oxxo
jezebel

NYTimes quote of the day

"It remains puzzling to me that no one objects to my baptizing the children of gay parents, blessing their home, their car and their dog, yet I cannot bless the loving relationship which makes this family's life possible without upsetting so many of our Anglican brothers and sisters."

- JOHN CHANE, Episcopal bishop of Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/international/europe/19church.html?th

16 October 2004

adios section-8

The War on Affordable Housing

thousands of section-8 vouchers here in hawaii have already been cut. i assume it's the same or worse for states on the mainland u.s.

at the least, the program is lowering it's subsidized amount for many vouchers. landlords are beginning to drop the section-8 program because the government is putting too much pressure on the tenants/landlords, decreasing financial assistance to both.

as a current section-8 resident, as well as a past resident manager for a section-8 project, this greatly concerns me. what will the program look like after the bush administration spends four more years in office? will the program even exist four years from now? will we all be homeless?

maybe we should start a commune for x-welfare dwellers. ;)

--jezebel

The War on Affordable Housing

Ideologues in the Bush administration would like to dismantle Section 8, the most successful public-and-private housing partnership in the history of the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/opinion/16sat1.html?ex=1098945034&ei=1&en=faaa61513baa7650

---------------------------------

the cure

cure me! make me well!! i wanna be a movie star. i wanna be six feet tall. i wanna be normal.

that is such a crock. it's genetic, it is not a disease. it's comparable to being born short-sighted. it's just a slight malfunction in formation (sort of).

what does a cure mean? stronger bones? does it mean the whole nine yards? how does one get cured from being what one simply is? is it like transforming from a werewolf or something? in the movies i suppose.

but you know, after lots of thought when i was young and smart (now i'm old and behind times and getting dumber) but when i was younger, louder, snottier and thought i was intelligent, i came to the conclusion that i was just lucky to be a freak and very happy to be a mutant.

i don't want to be normal. i don't want to be just like the next door neighbors. i sometimes fantasize i'm related somehow to Yoda, that star wars dude. Yoda is cool and sees the human race for what it really is -- mostly stupid.

i'll stay who and what i am, thank you, no curing needed, i'm not a hunk of bacon. i worked a long time on being what i am. why change it now? i'm finally homing in on the real me and believe it or not, it's almost appealing.

any cures for me would be a handicap.

xoxo

gay-baiting NOT

Kerry was not gay-baiting.

my favorite thing about the final debate for prez was when kerry mentioned cheney's daughter's sexual preference. any gay person with any self-awareness would applaud kerry's statement to bush.

this was not an attack on gays, lesbians, or any sexual orientation. it was merely kerry lighting the fuse for the detonation of the implosion of the republican party. and it is working. they are self-destructing.

the republican party is imploding over the fact that cheney's daughter is lesbian. they've denied and hidden the fact over the past four years because they are so ashamed. but now the secret is out and they can't deny it any longer. besides, it was cheney, a few weeks ago, who first mentioned it.

now, kerry has turned the republicans' "biblical shame" into an inner fight amongst each other that is destroying the republican party from the inside out. it was genius on kerry's part, and i'm happy to be one of the sexual deviants who buries them after they completely expire.

i'm proud of cheney's daughter, and every other gay and lesbian in this country who refuses to let the rest of the world beat them down with biblical bs and right wing stupidity.

Timothy Noah writes in "Chatterbox" for Slate. he further explains:

"I won't dispute that Kerry was using Mary Cheney to score a political point. But the political point was an entirely legitimate one, aimed, I believe, not at fundamentalists but at swing voters with libertarian leanings. Listen, Kerry was saying. This guy [Bush] knows gay people, just like you and I do. So he must know that homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle choice." He must know that, and yet he pretends not to know it to score points with the religious right. How cynical can you get? And then he lends his support to a cockamamie Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that even his right-wing-nut of a vice president can't stomach because his own daughter is gay. But even Cheney won't really speak out against this administration's exploitation of the gay-marriage issue to score cheap political points. Some father he is."

Noah continues, "We can argue about whether Kerry's posture of moral superiority on this issue is entirely earned.

After all, he, too, claims to oppose gay marriage (because "marriage is between a man and a woman," an argument whose essence is "because I say so"). But Kerry's record is more tolerant than his campaign rhetoric suggests, and even his campaign rhetoric is more tolerant than Bush's. Kerry wants to make that a reason for swing voters who deplore bigotry to vote for him. I think that's what made Lynne Cheney spitting mad--she resents the implication that the Bush-Cheney campaign sold out her own gay daughter. But you know what? It did. And you know what else? The evidence that Kerry would treat gays with greater tolerance than Bush is a pretty good reason to vote for Kerry."

Timothy Noah writes in "Chatterbox" for Slate.

11 October 2004

another notch

a super man?

now that's a trophy. i bet grandmama barbara would have the S-suit and cape stuffed and mounted for her big bushie game hunter number-one son, boy george the serial K -- not just another frosted flake's -- oval office wall. if she could.

he has plenty of trophies already, plenty of notches in his golf club. and the trophies continue to pile up daily. the bushie body-count should be hefty, "at the end of the day," as they say. if he gets re-elected then he can continue to add krypto-juice to the killing machine for an extra four years.

shrubby had no choice really.

those stem cells were beginning to take root with superman's super-help. every evangelistic anything knows the bushies can't have super-stems with roots clogging the garden of dna. that just wouldn't work.

it's too big of a chance those possibly helpful stems might escape from the garden of evil. no more goodness needed thank you.

especially when he just got the first garden -- the first paradise over in iraq -- back to it's volcanic, boiling, useful-only-for-cooking, condition.

now there's some balance, more chaos on both sides of the world. keep it goin' bushie boy. no more superman to push us around.

i'm bored. let's go chop down a rain forest.

RIP
Christopher Reeve
.

04 October 2004

excuses ...

one excuse for war put forth by the bush administration continues to befuddle me. this twisted logic is "normal" coming from this administration. still, i find it incredible that the average human american actually believes it as anything approaching factual or logical.

the excuse for war, usually uttered by g.w. bush himself, says something like, "we're fighting the war in iraq so we don't have to fight it here in the u.s."

whaaa??? how does attacking another nation (iraq in this case) prevent that nation from coming here and striking back in anger? wouldn't it actually promote a retalliation by almost any nation attacked by us? it's a simple and understandable act of revenge or at least self-defense.

why do people believe this ridiculous statement of "we're fighting them there to keep from fighting them here?"

so i must say, even now after all the lies human people have believed up to this point, i never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of the masses who continue to swallow that one.

however, considering the religious majority that exists in the usa these days, it's not really a giant leap for me to understand how they all can be duped. they get some of these messages delivered via their churches, their preachers, other members of their congregations. why shouldn't they believe it?

they all suffer from the same mental delusion -- religion. people who believe in things like god and satan (aka santa) will believe anything i suppose.

--jezebel

pea-pod evolution

today i was dredging through old, unread messages in my email inbox and low and behold here is yet another message i failed to respond to.

belated apologies for being so slow in responding. but this message got deleted from the oitribe messages and then lost and now here it is in my inbox, another copy--living and readable.

so anyway, this voting thread/topic was so long ago that i've pretty much forgotten about this particular discussion of voting or voting-not. but i'll try to revive it here because i'm the boob who unknowingly but rather rudely killed it. sorry.

i've decided (if anyone cares) that i'm probably not going to vote for prez this election. my reasons are many, but they are at least well thought out by me this year at least. no one can say i didn 't put any thought into it this time.

unless i change my mind, the biggest reason i probably won't vote is because of my time zone. at two o'clock in the afternoon here on oahu, the polls will be closing on the mainland. hence, i will have a pretty good idea if the election is gonna be close, or if anyone is winning or losing by a landslide.

my vote will be about six hours too late, and unless the tv flashes "one more vote needed from hawaii for kerry to win." i probably won't care. hah. how's that for a rationale?

besides, i've never voted for prez before, for much these same reasons, and if i started voting now, then i would be a flip-flopper. so as horrible as this sounds, i'm staying the course.

about fifty percent of the people in usa don't vote. so i'm not even in the minority. that 50% non-vote pretty much says it all. if votes really did mean that we people really do have the power, then more of us would be voting.

many non-voters are not stupid people, as much as our government propagand would have us believe. as a matter of fact, there's a new book out proving the wisdom of crowds. our non-voting crowd is half the nation. so according to this book, (the wisdom of crowds) it's not an unwise decision with a fifty percent share. crowds usually make the better educated guess (basically, the larger the crowd, the more the guesses become a process of averaging, and the better choice becomes more obvious as the crowd grows larger). it's a proven fact. but this is fifty percent, so i suppose things could go either way.

another big reason: our choice is between a demo. and a repo. what kind of choice is that? where is the independent? the green? the socialist? they aren't even on the ballot in many states, and even if they are, they generally get less than one percent of the vote because the demos and repos crowd them out with mountainous volumes of cash.

demos. and repos. are like two peas in a pod. in this election, these two peas even both graduated from the same pod -- errr university.

but, there is one big difference this time.

one pea is definitely less evil. kerry is the lesser evil pea. if i were forced to vote (like poor Bron) then i would choose kerry. bush is a fake. bush has no power, he is an avatar of the neocons.

bush truly is a pawn. kerry is at least a knight. so if you gotta vote, vote for the knight.

that's one more big reason i'm not voting. because i am not a pawn, and i refuse to be used as one. i refuse to be coaxed, petted, and manipulated by my government or my neighborhood church into believing my votes or my prayers actually make anything in the real world any different at all.

so i won't be a pawn and vote for someone else's choice, or pray for someone else's god or religion just to make myself feel better, or a little less powerless. because that's nothing more than mental masturbation.

i could go on and on but i can tell everyone is asleep by now. just believe me, there are many fatal flaws and failures in our electoral process.

if the governmental system worked correctly, and we could all be positive that all our votes would be honestly and correctly tabulated, and all our votes would make a difference and not go through some strange process like the electral college, and if we had a decent choice for a leader -- one who didn't put his faith in lies, fantasy and religion, then i would vote.

but until those things happen, i choose to live in the real world and not exist in some strange anti-deluvian dream of immortality and equality for all, just because i checked a box and someone else told me they would make sure it all worked out ok if i did.

this is a dog-eat-dog world. that is the true way of nature and evolution. yes, there is such a thing as evolution. it's a killer--evolution. it makes things extinct and god can't do anything about it.

the tragic yet funny thing is, not even a god can prevent our stupid human race from being helped along into its own extinction by some idiot reborn x-tian cowboy wanna'-be who interprets the bible as nonfiction and helps to self-fulfill it's prophecies of revelation by believing it and fanning the flames sparked by some crazy story written by a madman high on maryandjesus. hah..

i very much appreciate your input D. thanks and i hope i didn't upset you too much because of how and what i said earlier to your response. i just gotta say what i feel at the time or else i feel like i'm not telling the complete story.

at least i o u that much for the time you you spent replying to me and i did appreciate and enjoy it.

biting the hand that feeds me is my right as a human. if i want to bitch at my employer for low wages i usually do if it's deserved. it's the human thing to do they might fire me, but it's still my right to bite.

and i bitch about my government. it's my right. they can arrest me if they want, but i still have the right to complain. so i do. and -- believe it or not -- i don't feel or act doomy and gloomy in real life. it's my writing that sounds that way and i can't help it. it's been that way since i was a kid. and but thanks for the compliments.

when we meet face-to-face you'll be happily surprised at my "optimistically pessimistic" view of everyday life, steeped though it may be, in a cloudy haze of misanthropic cynicism.

again, nothing personal, and thanks for keeping this conversation going when all along i thought it was long dead.


xoxo

02 October 2004

savoir breath

Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush

October 3, 2004

You can run but you can't hide: Oct. 5 will bring the perfect storm in this year's culture wars. It's on that strategically chosen date, four Tuesdays before the election, that the DVD of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be released along with not one but two new Michael Moore books. It's also the release date of the equally self-effacing Ann Coulter's latest rant, of a new DVD documentary, "Horns and Halos," that revisits the Bush mystery year of 1972, and of an R.E.M. album, "Around the Sun," that gets in its own political licks at the state of the nation.

When Dick Cheney and John Edwards debate in Cleveland that night, Bruce Springsteen will be barnstorming in another swing state, as the Vote for Change tour hits St. Paul. All that's needed to make the day complete is a smackdown between Kinky Friedman and Teresa Heinz Kerry on "Imus in the Morning."

Of the many cultural grenades being tossed that day, though, the one must-see is "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House," a DVD that is being specifically marketed in "head to head" partisan opposition to "Fahrenheit 9/11." This documentary first surfaced at the Republican convention in New York, where it was previewed in tandem with an invitation-only, no-press-allowed "Family, Faith and Freedom Rally," a Ralph Reed-Sam Brownback jamboree thrown by the Bush campaign for Christian conservatives. Though you can buy the DVD for $14.95, its makers told the right-wing news service WorldNetDaily.com that they plan to distribute 300,000 copies to America's churches. And no wonder. This movie aspires to be "The Passion of the Bush," and it succeeds.

More than any other campaign artifact, it clarifies the hard-knuckles rationale of the president's vote-for-me-or-face-Armageddon re-election message. It transforms the president that the Democrats deride as a "fortunate son" of privilege into a prodigal son with the "moral clarity of an old-fashioned biblical prophet." Its Bush is not merely a sincere man of faith but God's essential and irreplaceable warrior on Earth. The stations of his cross are burnished into cinematic fable: the misspent youth, the hard drinking (a thirst that came from "a throat full of Texas dust"), the fateful 40th-birthday hangover in Colorado Springs, the walk on the beach with Billy Graham. A towheaded child actor bathed in the golden light of an off-camera halo re-enacts the young George comforting his mom after the death of his sister; it's a parable anticipating the future president's miraculous ability to comfort us all after 9/11. An older Bush impersonator is seen rebuffing a sexual come-on from a fellow Bush-Quayle campaign worker hovering by a Xerox machine in 1988; it's an effort to imbue our born-again savior with retroactive chastity. As for the actual president, he is shown with a flag for a backdrop in a split-screen tableau with Jesus. The message isn't subtle: they were separated at birth.

"Faith in the White House" purports to be the product of "independent research," uncoordinated with the Bush-Cheney campaign. But many of its talking heads are official or unofficial administration associates or sycophants. They include the evangelical leader and presidential confidant Ted Haggard (who is also one of Mel Gibson's most fervent P.R. men) and Deal Hudson, an adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign until August, when he resigned following The National Catholic Reporter's investigation of accusations that he sexually harassed an 18-year-old Fordham student in the 1990's. As for the documentary's "research," a film positioning itself as a scrupulously factual "alternative" to "Fahrenheit 9/11" should not inflate Mr. Bush's early business "success" with Arbusto Energy (an outright bust for most of its investors) or the number of children he's had vaccinated in Iraq ("more than 22 million," the movie claims, in a country whose total population is 25 million).

"Will George W. Bush be allowed to finish the battle against the forces of evil that threaten our very existence?"
Such is the portentous question posed at the film's conclusion by its narrator, the religious broadcaster Janet Parshall, beloved by some for her ecumenical generosity in inviting Jews for Jesus onto her radio show during the High Holidays. Anyone who stands in the way of Mr. Bush completing his godly battle, of course, is a heretic. Facts on the ground in Iraq don't matter. Rational arguments mustered in presidential debates don't matter. Logic of any kind is a nonstarter. The president - who after 9/11 called the war on terrorism a "crusade," until protests forced the White House to backpedal - is divine. He may not hear "voices" instructing him on policy, testifies Stephen Mansfield, the author of one of the movie's source texts, "The Faith of George W. Bush," but he does act on "promptings" from God. "I think we went into Iraq not so much because there were weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Mansfield has explained elsewhere, "but because Bush had concluded that Saddam Hussein was an evildoer" in the battle "between good and evil." So why didn't we go into those other countries in the axis of evil, North Korea or Iran? Never mind. To ask such questions is to be against God and "with the terrorists."

The propagandists of "Faith in the White House" argue, as others have, that the president's invocation of religion in the public sphere, from his citation of Jesus as his favorite "political philosopher" to his incessant invocation of the Almighty in talking about how everything is coming up roses in Iraq, is consistent with the civic spirituality practiced by his antecedents, from the founding fathers to Bill Clinton. It's not. Past presidents have rarely, if ever, claimed such godlike infallibility. Mr. Bush never admits to making a mistake; even his premature "Mission Accomplished" victory lap wasn't in error, as he recently told Bill O'Reilly. After all, if you believe "God wants me to be president" - a quote attributed to Mr. Bush by the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention - it's a given that you are incapable of making mistakes. Those who say you have are by definition committing blasphemy. A God-appointed leader even has the power to rewrite His texts. Jim Wallis, the liberal evangelical author, has pointed out Mr. Bush's habit of rejiggering specific scriptural citations so that, say, the light shining into the darkness is no longer God's light but America's and, by inference, the president's own.

It's not just Mr. Bush's self-deification that separates him from the likes of Lincoln, however; it's his chosen fashion of Christianity. The president didn't revive the word "crusade" idly in the fall of 2001. His view of faith as a Manichaean scheme of blacks and whites to be acted out in a perpetual war against evil is synergistic with the violent poetics of the best-selling "Left Behind" novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins and Mel Gibson's cinematic bloodfest. The majority of Christian Americans may not agree with this apocalyptic worldview, but there's a big market for it. A Newsweek poll shows that 17 percent of Americans expect the world to end in their lifetime. To Karl Rove and company, that 17 percent is otherwise known as "the base."

The pandering to that base has become familiar in countless administration policies, starting with its antipathy to stem-cell research, abortion, condoms for H.I.V. prevention and gay civil rights. But ever since Mr. Bush's genuflection to Bob Jones University threatened to shoo away moderates in 2000, the Rove ruse is to try to keep the most militant and sectarian tactics of the Bush religious program under the radar. (Mr. Rove even tried to deny that the wooden lectern at the Republican convention was a pulpit embedded with a cross, as if a nation of eyewitnesses could all be mistaken.)
The re-election juggernaut has not only rounded up the membership rosters of churches en masse but quietly mounted official Web sites like kerrywrongforcatholics.com as well. (Evangelicals and Mormons have their own Web variants on this same theme, but not the Jews, who are apparently getting in Kerry just what they deserve.) Even the contraband C-word is being revived out of sight of most of the press: Marc Racicot, the Bush-Cheney campaign chairman, lobbed a direct-mail fund-raising letter in March describing Mr. Bush as "leading a global crusade against terrorism."
In this spring's classic "South Park" parody, "The Passion of the Jew," in which Mr. Gibson's movie tosses the community into a religious war, one of the kids concludes: "If you want to be Christian, that's cool, but you should focus on what Jesus taught instead of how he got killed. Focusing on how he got killed is what people did in the Dark Ages, and it ends up with really bad results." He has a point. It's far from clear that Mr. Bush's eschatology and his religious vanity are leading to good results now. The all-seeing president who could pronounce Vladimir Putin saintly by looking into his "soul" is now refusing to acknowledge that the reverse may be true. The general in charge of tracking down Osama bin Laden, William G. Boykin, has earned cheers in some quarters for giving speeches at churches proclaiming that Mr. Bush is "in the White House because God put him there" to lead the "army of God" against "a guy named Satan." But all that preaching didn't get his day job done; he hasn't snared the guy named Osama he was supposed to bring back "dead or alive."

"George W. Bush: Faith in the White House" must be seen because it shows how someone like General Boykin can stay in his job even in failure and why Mr. Bush feels divinely entitled to keep his job even as we stand on the cusp of an abyss in Iraq. In this pious but not humble worldview, faith, or at least a certain brand of it, counts more than competence, and a biblical mission, or at least a simplistic, blunderbuss facsimile of one, counts more than the secular goal of waging an effective, focused battle against an enemy as elusive and cunning as terrorists. That no one in this documentary, including its hero, acknowledges any constitutional boundaries between church and state is hardly a surprise. To them, America is a "Christian nation," period, with no need even for the fig-leaf prefix of "Judeo-."

Far more startling is the inability of a president or his acolytes to acknowledge any boundary that might separate Mr. Bush's flawed actions battling "against the forces of evil" from the righteous dictates of God.

What that level of hubris might bring in a second term is left to the imagination, and "Faith in the White House" gives the imagination room to run riot about what a 21st-century crusade might look like in the flesh. A documentary conceived as a rebuke to "Fahrenheit 9/11" is nothing if not its unintentional and considerably more nightmarish sequel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/arts/03rich.html?ex=1097551435&ei=1&en=97a004c6dacf1b1b

---------------------------------