Rod Parsley has trouble with one of the Ten Commandments.
Parsley is the fundamentalist pastor of an Ohio megachurch who was belatedly renounced by John McCain, two months after Mother Jonesreported that Parsley, whom McCain had praised and campaigned with, had declared in a book that Islam was a "false religion" that ought to be "destroyed." (For a video, produced by Mother Jones and Brave New Films, showing Parsley in full anti-Islam throttle, click here.)
Sometime after McCain on May 22 rejected Parsley's endorsement, Parsley put out a video in which he responded to the McCain controversy and sought to explain his "Biblical worldview" on Islam. In this statement, he violated the thou-shall-not-fib rule.
First, he accused "political hit squads" (meaning, yours truly) of describing his views in "the most ominous and extreme terms." You can review the MotherJones/Brave New Films video and decide for yourself how "ominous and extreme" Parsley has been. Then, more telling, he betrayed himself, by running away from his own views. In the video, he says his take on Islam is "in the mainstream" and that "I have always, and I will continue, to make a clear distinction between Muslim terrorists and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims."
Not true. In his own book, Silent No More, Parsley declares,
There are some, of course, who will say that the [Islamist] violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.
In other words, Islamic terrorists are not bad apples; the faith itself is evil. In his book and in a video sermon on Islam, Parsley does not differentiate between Islam and radical Islam. In fact, he says the two are the same. He also claims that the entire Islam religion is a Satanic deception. And he notes that Islam "is an anti-Christ religion that intends, through violence, to conquer the world." All this is not the mainstream view of Islam.
So when Parsley maintains on his recent video that he does indeed distinguish between radical Islam and the rest of the faith, he appears to be lying. Sure, it's not nice to accuse a man of the cloth of being a liar, but I don't know how one gets around such an obvious conclusion in this case. Parsley clearly knows what he has said and written in the past. He must realize that he is now engaging in nothing but spin.
In his own video, Parsley says, "I understand that the raw truth of the pulpit cannot survive untempered in the political sphere." Entering the political sphere, he has denied stating what he actually stated. And there ain't much "raw truth" in that.
A lot of the articles I read about the state of our economy include interviews with people like this woman, who in January found her rising costs so terrifying that she began sending her sheets and towels to a laundry service instead of a dry cleaner. They brim with pity for urbanites forced to abandon Starbucks and scale back weekly hair appointments, and suggest that readers consider such monastic choices as cooking for themselves and renting movies rather than going out.
But for our country's rural poor, even video rentals are now a luxury that many cannot afford. Today's New York Times reports that in rural areas across the country, and particularly in the deep South, people are spending over 13% of their income on gasoline—compared to an average of 4% nationwide. "These are people who have to decide between food and transportation," says one fuel price analyst. From the story, which is worth quoting at length:
Anthony Clark, a farm worker from Tchula [Miss.], says he prays every night for lower gasoline prices. [...] A trip from Tchula to the nearest sizable town about 15 minutes away can cost him $25 roundtrip—for the driving and the waiting. That is about 10 percent of what he makes in a week.
Taking a break under some cottonwood trees beside a drainage ditch filled with buzzing mosquitoes, Mr. Clark and members of his work crew spoke of the big and little changes that higher gas prices have brought. The extra dollars spent at the pump mean electric bills are going unpaid and macaroni is replacing meat at supper. Donations to church are being put off, and video rentals are now unaffordable.
Nouns, the new album from the Los Angeles-based No Age (left), is fast becoming one of the most acclaimed albums of the year, with high marks from Pitchfork and NME. The album's sound, as Pitchfork put it, is "cacophonous" and "gorgeously thick," punk rock with a swirling, tone-bending My Bloody Valentine sheen. What might surprise you is that the band is actually a duo: just two guys, Randy Randall and Dean Spunt, playing guitar and drums respectively, their sound filled out by loops and samples. Lately, this seems more and more common: most of the interesting developments in rock music are coming from "non-traditional" band lineups. Is the good old rock four-piece an endangered species?
After the jump: I still haven't found the U2 I'm looking for... but I do have a No Age mp3!
Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals estimates that perhaps 40% of evangelicals will be "up for grabs" in November, largely due to concern for the fate of the earth. Now that the Lieberman-Warner emissions bill has crashed and burned, that could have profound environmental results.
International opinion on our presidential race is one-sided:
A poll in late May of five major countries — Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia — showed Sen. Obama getting 52% support, compared with 15% for Sen. McCain. In France, 65% favor Sen. Obama, compared with 8% for Sen. McCain, according to the poll for the United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph newspaper. Another poll published online Saturday in Belgium's Le Soir newspaper showed Belgians prefer Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain 74% to 12%.
The AP reports on Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's meeting today with Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Who I believe Iran contra fabulist Manucher Ghorbanifar and Washington pals definitively declared dead over a year ago, based on Ghorbanifar's amazing insidery deep, high priced network of Iran intelligence sources. Eventually, they are bound to be right about that. In the meantime, these are the folks that former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and national security advisor Steve Hadley were turning to for Iran intelligence and operational advice? Can someone at the White House press briefing please ask spokeswoman Dana Perino to speak to Hadley's judgment on this?
As Dave Wagner and I reported this weekend, a new Senate Intelligence report (.pdf) documents how Hadley himself authorized Ghorbanifar's loyal Washington pal and fellow Iran contra alum to lead two Pentagon officials to Rome to meet supposed Iran agents. Has Hadley learned his lesson about the quality and reliability of information and related schemes his deputized freelance Iran intelligence sources brought to him? And whether the spigot is still open? On such objectively knowable issues as whether Khamenei is dead or alive? All the other nonsense they and Ghorbanifar's more recent Washignton helpers like Curt Weldon have spouted: that Osama bin Laden was in Tehran, as Ghorbanifar and Weldon insisted, or that for just a few million dollars - $10 million, $25 million -- they can provide such invaluable information and launch a coup in Iran, etc. It's still sobering to realize that the people spouting this comical nonsense - and it's not hard to find such people -- had been authorized by no less than the current White House national security advisor to advise them on Iran intelligence operations and coup plans. It's like something out of a John Cleese' Fawlty Towers skit. But this is the White House. Wouldn't a normal sane person even think twice about buying Mid East take out from people with such a track record?
I called Billy Graham's PR shop re: this and they read me this statement from Larry Ross, director of media and public relations for Billy Graham.
"It would be highly unusual and out of character for Mr. Graham to initiate such a meeting, and there has been no contact between the McCain campaign and his office. In fact, Mr. Graham has not met or been in contact with any candidates during the current primary process. If he had, it has been his personal policy through the years to avoid partisanship by meeting with representatives from both parties to address spiritual concerns."
Thus, if Graham meets with any candidate, he will meet with all of them.
"Upon further inquiry I understand that two people unaffiliated with either Billy or Franklin Graham apparently independently, without any knowledge by the [Billy Graham Evangelistic Association], tried to broker a meeting between Mr. McCain and the evangelist. Apparently it was their indirect and unofficial involvement that was declined."
In other words, McCain didn't turn down a meeting with Billy Graham. He turned down a meeting brokered by Doug Wead and Brian Jacobs.
"The piece in Newsmax is false. Our campaign has been working directly with Reverend Franklin Graham's office to facilitate an important meeting between John McCain and Reverend Billy Graham. The report's implication that we have 'declined to meet with Billy Graham' is blatantly false, because our campaign has already been working directly with Franklin Graham's office and politely declined Mr. Jacobs' offer to help facilitate a meeting. John McCain has the highest respect for Reverend Billy Graham and looks forward to meeting with him in the future."
Conservative news outlet Newsmax is reporting that its attempts to facilitate a meeting between John McCain and longtime pastor-to-the-presidents Billy Graham have been rebuffed by the McCain campaign.
Here is Newsmax writer Doug Wead:
In recent weeks I have been involved with Brian Jacobs, a Fort Worth, Texas, minister and consultant to the Billy Graham Association, to broker a meeting between McCain and Graham. In May, we contacted the McCain campaign with an offer to arrange such a meeting, as we had done between candidate George W. Bush and Graham during the 2000 election.
In response to their overtures, McCain's director of scheduling sent Wead and Jacobs an emailing saying, "Senator McCain appreciates your invitation and the valuable opportunity it represents. Unfortunately, I must pass along our regrets and do not foresee an opportunity to add this event to the calendar."
The hesitance on the part of the McCain campaign may be because of McCain's past experiences with pastor's this campaign season: he's had to dump endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley after controversial statements from both men made it politically impossible for McCain to stay associated with them. (Caveat: there may be no hesitance at all; Newsmax may have gotten this story wrong.)
Billy Graham isn't Hagee or Parsley. He has had a relationship with every president since Eisenhower, Republicans and Democrats alike. He has been thoroughly and completely vetted; no one would blame McCain for meeting with him. The campaign's reported decision to avoid Graham may be part of a novel strategy for a modern Republican presidential candidate, one that jettisons the Religious Right in favor of moderates. It's already being manifested in ways that are leaving prominent Christian leaders wary. "For John McCain to be competitive, he has to connect with the base to the point that they're intense enough that they're contagious," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told the New York Times. "Right now they're not even coughing."
Over at the Nation, Ari Melber points out that Clinton's run for the White House, which was increasingly a feminist quest and ended with a strong statement for the rights of women, hasn't changed much in the world of punditry, where white men still dominate.
The most traditional location to reach the political establishment, the Washington Post opinion section, is brazenly male-dominated. Seventeen of the 19 columnists are men; only three of the columnists are racial minorities. Guest op-eds could present more voices, but they rarely do. This year, only 12 percent of the Post's guest pieces came from women, according to a May count by ombudsman Deborah Howell. At the New York Times, eight of the ten weekly columnists are men; one is black.
Last Tuesday, a new U.S. General, David McKiernan, took command of Afghanistan's NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) saying, "Insurgents, foreign fighters, criminals and others who stand in the way... will be dealt with." McKiernan will command around 50,000 troops, up from 36,000 a year ago, in his attempts to quell the increase in violence and stabilize a weakening Karzai government.
Much of this increased violence is occurring in the ISAF's U.S.-led Regional Command East—RC(E). If you aren't familiar with the layout of the ISAF, you might take a read of NYU professor Barnett Rubin. As Rubin explains, the ISAF consists of five different Regional Commands: East (led by the U.S.), West (Italy), South (Canada), North (Germany), and Capital (Italy). Bordering Pakistan, RC(E) is about the size of South Carolina and contains 14 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces and 25% of the country's population.