There is some buzz over Governor Christie possibly entering the race. I'm thinking if someone new (Christie or otherwise) officially announces candidacy, I'll open the books so folks can adjust their bets. You can make any change you want. A new candidate potentially changes the whole dynamic, so it only seems fair. The books will stay open for 7 days, so take your time.
Also, if all things stay equal, John and I will tie if Romney wins nomination. How about a tiebreaker? Maybe on running mate? Or number of states carried in the general election? I'm open to suggestions, whaddayathink?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Against the GOP
I've attempted many times to write something about the state of the Republican party, and the current conservative movement. Something in the nature of the nuts taking over the nuthouse, religious fringe hijacking the party, or angry dumb mobs (read: Tea Party) shouting down what little is left of reasonable discourse in politics.
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Absence Of Evidence...
...Is not the evidence of absence!
In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:
I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian, and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.
But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?
It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).
The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.
This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.
The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.
Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.
In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).At first I glanced at this, later I really read through and pondered it. Looking at this passage critically, as a student of history, I can't accept this at face value.
I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian, and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.
But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?
It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).
The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.
This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.
The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.
Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.
Monday, September 12, 2011
On 9/11
This is going to be short. The question is, does 9/11 matter anymore?
I'm not trying to be taboo for the sake of shock value, but the thought suddenly occurs. The #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was Contagion, a movie about a massive worldwide epidemic that reaches an apocalyptic level. So, Americans coped with the 10 year anniversary of what might have been the worst tragedy on American soil by seeing a movie about the worst tragedy on American soil? More importantly, studio bigwigs apparently calculated that no one would make the connection, or care enough to let that stop them from seeing the movie, with surety enough not to change the release date. And they were right.
I'm not saying that 9/11 isn't considered significant anymore. We're still feeling the affects in the way we conduct politics and in the two wars that are still ongoing. I'm just saying that I believe most people have moved on, emotionally, and this date has become just another anniversary to be acknowledged every year. Aside from a touching story I heard on NPR last week about Mychal Judge, a Franciscan friar who died at ground zero, this date has had no emotional impact for me. Besides the NPR thing, the only emotion I've felt is a slight irritation over the past weeks that I would soon be forced to recognize an arbitrary date and round number, and that current affairs will be suspended for this forced memorial. It's not that I don't care anymore, I do think of that day reflectively and with sobriety now and then, but the national remembrance has begun to feel forced and out of proportion.
Maybe I can only care so much for so long. It was a horrible thing, but it's been over for a while. The scale of this event was huge, but not unlimited. Even events as monumental as this cannot mean everything to everyone forever. Eventually we move on. It may take quite a long time, but all tragedies can eventually be sorted out and tucked away.
I'm not trying to be taboo for the sake of shock value, but the thought suddenly occurs. The #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was Contagion, a movie about a massive worldwide epidemic that reaches an apocalyptic level. So, Americans coped with the 10 year anniversary of what might have been the worst tragedy on American soil by seeing a movie about the worst tragedy on American soil? More importantly, studio bigwigs apparently calculated that no one would make the connection, or care enough to let that stop them from seeing the movie, with surety enough not to change the release date. And they were right.
I'm not saying that 9/11 isn't considered significant anymore. We're still feeling the affects in the way we conduct politics and in the two wars that are still ongoing. I'm just saying that I believe most people have moved on, emotionally, and this date has become just another anniversary to be acknowledged every year. Aside from a touching story I heard on NPR last week about Mychal Judge, a Franciscan friar who died at ground zero, this date has had no emotional impact for me. Besides the NPR thing, the only emotion I've felt is a slight irritation over the past weeks that I would soon be forced to recognize an arbitrary date and round number, and that current affairs will be suspended for this forced memorial. It's not that I don't care anymore, I do think of that day reflectively and with sobriety now and then, but the national remembrance has begun to feel forced and out of proportion.
Maybe I can only care so much for so long. It was a horrible thing, but it's been over for a while. The scale of this event was huge, but not unlimited. Even events as monumental as this cannot mean everything to everyone forever. Eventually we move on. It may take quite a long time, but all tragedies can eventually be sorted out and tucked away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)