Regarding "ptl's" comments: I don't troll. I am genuinely distressed that Kamiya included text that would seem to indicate that he believes the canard that Jews believe in the literal meaning of "an eye for an eye," and that the "Old Testament God" was a capricious killing machine and an evil bastard compared to the kind, gentle Jesus of the New Testament. (Conveniently forgetting the tossing of the money changers from the temple, to name one non-gentle incident.) Jews have been fighting such associations for hundreds of years, and to have such implications in an article talking about Saddam's "revenge execution," the current violence in Iraq, and the "Jacobean tragedy" being enacted by the Bush Administration created a linkage between them that I found distasteful, to say the least. (i.e., "If you stupid Jews hadn't foisted this damn "eye for an eye" business on us, none of this would be happening!")

Yes, it is true that many many people--particularly Evangelical Christians--do still have this reading of the Bible; that's a valid point. But they didn't write the article, and Mr. Kamiya did. And while I am personally not a member of the group who thinks Kamiya is prejudiced against Jews as a group, I do feel that his articles on the Middle East--while clearly, to my eye, attempting to be fair--show a distinct pro-Palestinian slant that personally drives me nuts. And so to have Mosaic Law metophorically dragged through the mud like this ("You people started it!") is irksome. Perhaps it's only a "fleeting mention," as one letter-writer opines, yes; but it is a key one, and could not, in my opinion, be ignored.

But in my view, Mr. Kamiya is writing from ignorance, an ignorance that can be corrected fairly quickly by a couple of conversations with a knowledgable rabbi, or perhaps a few weeks in an "Introduction to Judaism" class. And given that he writes on the Middle East regularly, I think it would do him good. I suggest this not snidely, nor in an attempt to troll a flamewar--I detest them--but to provide a potential course of action for someone who appears to be operating from some mistaken assumptions.

Sigh.

No, Kamiya didn't mention Israel, but we did get the following:

o) "the vengeful ethos of the Old Testament"

o) "the implacable Old Testament Father"

o) "Revenge is a universal impulse, as old as humanity. It is enshrined in the lex talionis, the notion of "an eye for an eye" espoused by the Code of Hammurabi (written circa 1760 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia, a land that is now putting that precept to dreadful uses) and the later Mosaic Law of Judaism."

I am not a rabbi, and so it would be arrogant for me to attempt to educate Mr. Kamiya. But Gary, seriously: I urge you to speak with a rabbi or two, so that you can be disabused of the canards above. (Hint: Jews don't believe that a lost eye means we should poke the other guy's eye out.) I don't know about other readers of that "vengeful Old Testament" (we call it the Torah 'round here), but I personally get tired of this "Old Testament=mean God; New Testament=good God" dichotomy. You're capable of better, sir. And the statements you make above yield implications that are, to a Jew, well, distasteful to say the least.

Andrew, I'm confused: how will you organize your personal life so that it is like Wal-Mart's new "flex-time" system? The only thing I can think of is that you won't write anything--nothing at all--unless Joan Walsh sends you an e-mail or an IM saying, "OK, Andrew; we need one of your patented How the World Works columns. In 15 minutes. Get cracking." Or maybe Joan IMs you and says, "Andrew O'Hehir is sick; I need you to give me a capsule review of these five independent films by 3:30pm, or you're fired." And you have to be in front of the computer all day long, from 6am until 6pm, on the off-chance that Joan IMs or emails you. And you don't get paid for sitting in front of the computer waiting. And if Joan IMs you, and you happen to be on the can, and don't get back to her in 15 minutes because you had too much cheese with your pasta for lunch, you get fired, and she has Rebecca Traister (who is *also* sitting in front of *her* computer from 6am to 6pm, waiting) write the reviews.

Is that what you're suggesting? That kind of environment? Somehow, it doesn't sound like that much fun to me. (Nor do I think Joan would go for it; she doesn't seem the type.) Because otherwise, I'm not seeing how exactly you can organize your personal life to be "a little bit more like Wal-Mart."

I guess I must be missing something obvious.

Yes, of course Speaker Pelosi (take that, Republicans!) should support a Bill of Rights for Congressional minority members. The recent illness of Sen. Tim Johnson should make it clear to even the most knuckle-headed partisan that the line between minority and majority status is extremely thin. It is only enlightened self-interest that Pelosi push such a bill. The Democratic majority could vanish overnight; it behooves Democrats to plan for that, and do their best to rig things so that Republicans are held in check when, as is inevitable, they are back in power again.

Of course, there is no reason to use the Republican's bill. Pelosi should just dust off her old bill and use that, and let 'em fight it out in committee. I mean, why on Earth trust these Republicans at this point? And there's also no hurry; let them twist in the wind for a few weeks or months, and see how they like it. They've only had a few weeks of humble pie; I know they're probably choking on it, but tough darts. After what they've put this country through, they need a lesson they won't soon forget.