I'm a United Methodist and have been a liberal since the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter.

The United Methodist church came out against the war since before it began. My preacher personally organized a march against the war.

I don't take the Bible literally much less the "end-times" stuff that is taught in certain evangelical circles. The Methodist church is very big on helping the poor and sick. It is evangelical but not fundamentalist.

And it is the third largest denomination in the U.S., behind Catholic (who are also not fundamentalist) and Baptist.

I feel I represent a rare confluence of a number of seldom seen at Salon contradictions:

a) I am finishing up a master's degree at one of the most prestigious evangelical seminaries in North America,

b) I've been reading Salon faithfully since 2000 or so,

c) Growing up I attended a church *very* similar to the one Taibbi profiles in his book,

d) I teach at a Southern Baptist school, and

e) I read Taibbi's piece in every single issue of "Rolling Stone".

All I wanted to say was that we evangelicals are not the cartoonish imbeciles we have been painted as, or at least have been since the mainstream media began trying to figure us out 'round about 2002 or so. There are great numbers of us who take extraordinary offense at the GOP's co-opting of our faith as just another union endorsement, and plenty of prominent members of our movement have made it clear that this Republican party is not one with which they want to be associated. Bush's Rasputin (Karl Rove) stole our faith and have defiled it to the point of its being synonymous with the most wretched administration in memory.

So, all that said in simple hopes of broadcasting that we are not as simple, crazy, or willfully obscurantist as is most convenient to think of us. We, as a movement, are no more wholly represented by Hagee's syncretistic Zionism than all left-leaning folk are by someone as intentionally inflammatory as Taibbi.

I voted for Bush in 2000 and for the rest of my days will hold that in deep shame. This time, however, Obama's got a sticker on my car, and I can't wait to vote.

EXACTLY.

Jones' article is astounding. And a perfect example of what Taibbi's "reporting" is not.

And to the ad hom commando a couple letters after mine, I've read plenty of Taibbi -- including Rolling Stone excerpts -- and he SAYS he went "undercover" and told the lies described.

He's a a sneering, self-amused, juvenile hack.

"dimstar" wrote:

Like this guys says, most American are chicken shit retards.

Yeppers, and it takes one to know one, doesn't it? This from a kook who thinks aliens are tyring to communicate using a "face" on Mars. Sheesh!

You want to read a work of outstanding journalism by a fairly young writer who really does have the potential to be one of the best journalists of his generation...?

Sit down now and read "The Things That Carried Him" by Chris Jones.

http://www.esquire.com/features/things-that-carried-him

"Taibbi is as bad as any screaming cable pundit." That might be possible but he does offer more to chew on than the cable pundit who is the editor here...

Matt Taibbi writes well, and just as importantly, writes with an interesting and colorful style. I like his work.

However, he creates a false dichotomy when he tries to compare right-wingers with those on the left. They are not the same, despite the temptation to appeared balance, and say so.

The "official" government version of what happened on 9/11 is itself a "conspiracy theory" in addition to being full of more holes than a mountain of swiss chess.

Therefore, if you believe the lies the U.S. government fed you about 9/11, (that 19 Saudi Arabians conspired to attack the Twin Towers) with virtually ZERO EVIDENCE, then you are, by definition, a "conspiracy theorist".

This is a very basic point, so obvious that it is often forgotten.

What happened on 9/11 was a classic case of "false-flag terrorism" committed by our own government in order to place blame elsewhere, and to create a pretext for counter-measures not possible in peace time.

False flag terrorism is centuries-old, and has been committed by governments around the world. One famous American example, though never carried through, was a Joint Chiefs of Staff plan, under John F. Kennedy, to kill Americans in Florida, blame the Cubans, then use the terrorist attacks as a pretext for a Cuban invasion.

JFK put a stop to this insane and murderous plot before it could be committed. Nonetheless, it's proof of concept, and illustrates the fact that false-flag terrorism by the U.S. government is not only unthinkable, but has actually been carefully planned and considered.

Those who believe the spoon-fed version of 9/11 by the compulsive liars in George W. Bush's White House need to wake up and figure out where their democracy went.

Try to build bridges to "these people." You will find out that they love their pastors and leaders and radio-gurus. But they are prickley in a very nasty way about others who try to discuss anything.

Even when they are slavish to their own leaders, and even though they seek out and enjoy that slavishness, they quickly, immediately condemn others. They are hyper-sensitive, and ready at any instant to accuse anybody of elitism and arrogance... Even though they revel in and kowtow to their own editions of elitism and arrogance.

I honestly do not get it, and I am back on my heels about the extreme difficulty even of talking to American christianists. Is this Tribal Authoritarianism? Is it the accent? Is it the cliches? What distinguishes their authorities from other authorities? From other ideas and from rationality?

I think there's something to looking at how recent nutty events (9/11; War in Iraq; loss of citizens' rights, etc.)have affected our psyches.

Even if you see big differences in Truthers and religious fundamentalists, I think he's right—we've all come to trust the govt/media even less and to become more paranoid generally.

He's arguing that this aspect of the Age of (Dis)Information sends people in different directions (generally toward their own specific In Group), but that the underlying cause is very similar.

That a person point out parallels doesn't mean the person is claiming A and B are identical.

Of course, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Some people wondered if FDR let Pearl Harbor happen to convince a reluctant American public join the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

Some people have similar questions about Bush and 911. There's no question at all that the event helped his popularity and presidency, and that he seized upon the opportunity to invade Iraq, consolidate his power, roll back the Bill of Rights, etc.

Wondering if he had advance knowledge but declined to act doesn't seem all that outlandish.

Some people do think the Bush administration conspired with who knows whom else to destroy the towers themselves. There are various theories about how this was done.

And plenty of people aren't pushing any particlar theory, but don't trust the official account. Considering the 935 lies Bush and Co. told the help launch the war, this doesn't seem terribly irrational, either.

In fact, the issue was apparently taken up in the Japanese parliament, of all places:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803