(Sorry about the title spelling error this morning)
If the weekend rains and flooding weren’t sufficient to induce suicidal depression, a brief glance at Sunday’s Courier-Journal provided much encouragement to begin drinking at a reasonable hour – say, breakfast.
A Michael Kinsley column traced the origins of the Bush regime’s Orwellian “victory” chants in Iraq, while a news story reported findings strongly suggesting that the Iraq invasion has helped to expand terrorist recruitment, which makes thinking people wonder whether the current vogue of advocacy for meting out similar punishment to Iran is going to be accomplished by robots, a return to the draft or the employment of our second-favorite bogeymen (illegal aliens) as Hessians of the moment?
There was the Reverend James Dobson’s DC conference urging America’s tax-exempt churches to “get involved” with politics – presumably not affairs of the agnostic or secular variety, but ways to make those of us resistant to rampant superstition march instead to the beat of the Christian drummer.
By the way, why does the Tribune insist on running this man’s family advice column?
Which brings us to the most disconcerting article of all, a front page piece examining the frantic efforts of not one, not two, but three candidates for Indiana’s Ninth Congressional District seat to take the most stridently “pro-life” (I use the term loosely on purpose, the better to promote thoughts on how one proposes to protect life by slaughtering Iraqis, Iranians or, for that matter, Lebanese) position as a prelude to the November election.
On the surface, Democratic challenger Baron Hill’s espousal of a legislative alternative to abortion, one that would increase educational efforts and make birth control more widely available to those most in need of it, seems fairly sensible, particularly since it has been attacked with characteristic haughtiness by the incumbent, Mike “Big Wheels – Small Mind” Sodrel, whose “GOP as friendly Uncle Torquemada” anti-abortion campaign platform is sufficiently repugnant to make most other competing ideas seem tame.
Sorry, but in Hill’s typically leaden hands, the seemingly sensible is quickly transformed into the usual pandering and anti-abortion demagoguery by another name, all part of an ongoing effort to flail the centrist blue dog until it yelps in agony, sensing its increasing proximity to the general vicinity of Karl Rove and the other Republican haywire theocrats stroking Dick Cheney’s pacemaker as they confuse the Constitution with the Bible, Haliburton contacts, or both.
While the presence of Libertarian academic Eric Schansberg in the congressional race has been refreshing, and he’s shown a fine aptitude for the disruptive planks of the customary third-party playbook, his abortion position reflects an inability to escape the limitations of personal Christian fundamentalism – with predictable future consequences for women. However, with the shared monoploly of our two-party system stacked against him, Dr. Schansberg has no chance of winning.
Independent voters might well find a greater range of choice on outdated Politburo electoral lists than that to be seen among these three candidates for Congress.
Meanwhile, as the Northrup/McConnell machine commences the predictable sliming of John Yarmuth over on the Louisville side of the flood plain, we’re left to ruminate on the fate of political candidates who’ve made the mistake of thinking aloud -- or in Yarmuth's case, ruminating in print over a long period of time.
Politics as a graveyard for ideas? Sounds consummately American to me.
Wonder what the Bubbas are, uh, "thinking"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is not an healthy or effective way to deal with the frequent problems, challenges and issues common in a world like the one we share. Especially someone with a passion for politics. I suggest a book. "Not the Way It's Supposed to Be, A Breviary of Sin" authored by Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., published by Eerdmans.
On a positive note, Dennis Prager, radio talk show host has pointed out during a recent "Happy hour" that there is a distinction between dissatisfaction and unhappiness. You are definitely not satisfied, but you are not necessarily--unhappy. This is positive and hopeful news.
Here's the publisher's description of the book recommended in the previous posting.
Sin. Christians used to hate it, fear it, flee from it, grieve over it . . . but not anymore. In his bestseller, Plantinga gives you a fresh look at the ancient doctrine of sin to help you better recognize and deal with it. Discover how sin corrupts what is good, the relationship to folly and addiction---and the beauty of God's grace.
Just as Sam Malone regretted hiring Diane to be the waitress at Cheers after her jilting, I'm bound to regret asking, "what does the book have to do with anything I've written today?"
Fact: You expressed disappointment in more than "a few" issues.
Fact: We all share the problem of evil.
Fact: Politics is directly influenced by mankind's shared problem of sin--of being one source of evil. This is not a good point for a candidate seeking election, most try to say they have unquestionable intentions.
Fact: God says the problem of sin is real for all. (Romans 3:23)Therefore, I am in good company.
Fact: Some choose to avoid or deny sin, because in Darwinian thought, sin doesn't exist, the problem is some aren't as "evolved" as those who see it all "clearly". (Hmm?)
Fact: You have animosity to any truth that could be associated with "religious truth claims".
You are a well read person with quite a vocabulary. Plantinga would earn your respect and gain your ear before someone whose comments remind you of Diane on cheers.
These are a few of the comments on the jacket of the book.
"A lively engaging work on a mordant topic. Plantinga is at once a historian of our follies, a satirist of our mores, and a documentarist of our miseries and regrets. Dare one call a book on sin a delight?"--Jean Bethke Elshtain, University of Chicago.
"This breviary (meaning summary) of the cardinal sins recasts traditional wisdom in lively engagement with the follies and fads of a culture that, with a dreary lack of imagination, fancies itself beyond sin. Bracing stuff, highly recommended for the deeper things that ail us."--First Things
"Plantinga's book is marvelous, on a number of different levels. Even non-Christians who are troubled by undefined evil would read his wors with profit. If you have a conscience, get this book."--Christianity Today
"Plantinga has accomplished the feat of writing a delightful book that probes deeply into a grim subject--human sin, in all of its multifarious disguises and stubborn ingenuity. In the present moral climate, with the very reality of sin systematically obscured and denied, this is in every sense of the word, a healthy book."--Glenn Tinder, University of Massachusetts-Boston.
It is a good read.
The book is about 200 pages long.
ISBN 0-8028-4218-6
Fact: You expressed disappointment in more than "a few" issues.
Fact: We all share the problem of evil.
My point was this: Three candidates for the job, and a veritable sprint toward an ultra-conservative position on abortion that appalls me and fails to represent a good number of the electorate.
I'm eternally supportive of your right to believe in anything you please, subject to Biblical passages, seances, truth claims, numerology or virtually anything that gets you through the night.
It's all fine with me, but I have just as inalienable a right to opt out of it ... and I live in a country that in theory supports me in this path, although it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the differenc ebetween the world's theocratic wannabes.
The NewAlbanian says,
"It's all fine with me, but I have just as inalienable a right to opt out of it ... and I live in a country that in theory supports me in this path."
I agree, alot of good men died so that we can talk openly about issues.
Yet, there is a lot of issues that are influenced by, whether or not sin and evil do or do not--in fact--exist. Where do they come from--how are they explained? Is there survival benefits to evil?
Cannonfarms says,
"Those still thinking "pro-life" is about saving babies lives have lots of reading to do. Those people are twenty five years behind the times."
I agree, personhood is the real issue. Is the unborn a person? I think the unborn are persons. I think murder is sin and/or an undesireable option.
Cannonfarms, good to hear from you.
I've had all day to think about it, and in the final analysis, Hill gets my vote come November. He's certainly the least fundamentalist of the three, and that's enough.
It would be pleasant if just once in my life there'd be a chance to vote for, rather than against, but although I rail against it, I've accepted my fate. The two-party system does not provide an option for people like me. So be it. No whining.
Annoyance ... but no whining.
Time for a nightcap ...
Post a Comment