A Fossil Not At All Facile

Nathan Cervo, a noted literary critic, poet, man-of-letters and English professor (now retired), is a friend of mine. We are not close friends, I admit, but we are close enough to have a great deal of affection for one another.

I spoke with Mr. Cervo yesterday about his recent letter to the editor published in the local newspaper. As a result of that conversation, he granted me permission to reprint that letter here. So, I do.

Please note that Mr. Cervo is well-known for his diction. Believe it or not, this is Nathan Cervo using simpler words.

C. S. Lewis once described himself as a dinosaur. Mr. Cervo, who is quite old, brings us a senior and scholarly view on the current state of affairs; his critics, no doubt, would like to retire him to the tar pits. Here's his letter:

'As an epitome, or compendium, of the New America, there can be little doubt that Barack Obama will become our next president. He represents a demotic force that has been germinating in the soil of American liberalism from the establishment of the "novus ordo seclorum" (the new order of the ages; see the back of a dollar bill); that is, of secularism. It is triumphant secularism that is more openly manifesting itself in such expressions of freedom as the destruction of the family despotically headed by a male and its gradual supersession by same-sex marriage and a galaxy of one-night stands replete with drugs.

Secularism tolerates any gelded form of religion, mindful that statism is superior to all constructs of piety. The state is sovereign. (Did not Jesus, the first liberal prophet, say, "The truth shall make you free" and "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"?)

Under management as intense as any project by the KGB, Obama echoes Karl Marx in private conferences and, probably believing socialism to be an epiphany of belated Christian romanticism, publicly avows himself a disciple of Jesus Christ. Like a modern Diogenes, holding a lantern before him, Obama searches at noon for an honest man. Unfortunately, he does this in the cesspool of Chicago politics.

Basically, Obama is the mock Sir Galahad of the liberals, whose strength is as the strength of ten because he and his rhetoric are callow; that is, are a perfect mirror of the majority of American voters, who have been liberalized out of their wits down through the ages by the creeping infamy of public education, whose cachet is that the only true religion is sociology.'

In posting Mr. Cervo's comments here, I seek to give voice to an elder statesman of letters, so to speak. I do not in any way intend to promote Mr. Cervo's ideas as identical with my own, nor do I claim to agree with them. I am simply giving an older generation another place to give voice, to be heard. No doubt Mr. Cervo's opinion is at least singularly expressed, though in fact it could be totally unique to him: no one else of his generation may think his way at all. Regardless. I have opened my blog to the thoughts of someone I respect profoundly for his stalwart defense of humanity's mind, soul, and heart. He has long been a true defender of civilization ... and the Cross.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

God, Bootlegged

On Saturday morning, just before Barack Hussein Obama stepped out from behind the temple veil to reveal his plan to make each of us happier people, MSNBC's Chris Matthews ejaculated that Abraham Lincoln, the great statesman who once governed in Obama's home state, would be dancing for joy at the familiar site of Springfield, Illinois' capitol building; and how it now served as the backdrop to an "African American" announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States. Remember, Matthews gushed, this is where Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Moments later, deep into his own emancipation proclamation -- calling for an end to poverty, promising resolution in Iraq, and freeing us of our fearful dependence on foreign oil and its attendant destruction of the atmosphere -- Mr. Obama said (in bold) this in a list of wondrous deeds Americans have performed as ONE:

"In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." [emphasis added]

Of course, the "King" referred to is Martin Luther King, the fallen and iconic civil rights leader.

Perhaps in this age where some do not respect the fences erected around us by the scribes of copyright laws, by the good manners of attribution and the love of one's neighbors' own genius, it is easy to honor the wrong men, the wrong women, even the wrong gods; or to steal for oneself the giftedness of others. Lakes steal from springs and rivers, and rivers abscond with lakes' blue riches, only to find poverty in the sea that robs from the sky as the sky steals back. So great leaders, apparently existing unto themselves where all greatness is apparently shared, are remembered for the great things they have said, even though they did not say them.

Abraham Lincoln may have said, "The house divided against itself cannot stand." And I may have said the same thing in a speech as vice-president of my high school senior class. But I was not quoting Lincoln, and Lincoln was not quoting himself: we were both quoting Jesus Christ the Plagiarized.

And then dear Mr. King, who surely gave the right attribution in his original speech, acknowledging his mentors' gifts to him and their own genius, never did say a thing about "justice rolling down." The Jewish prophet Amos did, a fact Mr. King learned as a Christian in Sunday School.

Clearly Mr. Obama and Chris Matthews have both missed out on these apparent trivialities. Who cares if religious language is stolen for political purposes; who cares if the fullness of genius was found in the prophets who uttered what the world most likely had never before heard? What matters is that it takes a certain amount of genius to plagiarize for political gain; to forget that true justice is rooted in the heart and language of God, and to take His honor for oneself.

(It matters not the source, but the outcome, if you but believe in "destiny.")

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

¶ Of The Day

A new Contratimes feature? Maybe. But today I submit the first ever Paragraph, or ¶, of the Day.

Check this out from today's Washington Post editorial, "Congress's Iraq Quagmire":

ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy. Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq: A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it. [Emphasis added solely to incite incredulity everywhere]

Such fun!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

More Awards; The Empty Keg Award For Story Of The Year, 2006

In keeping with my promise that I shall list my awards for best and worst of 2006 (categories determined on a whim), I would like to announce the winner of the monumental -- and very first -- 2006 Empty Keg Award for Story of the Year. It is a simple award, and it is thoroughly a disappointing one. After all, what could be more disappointing than an empty keg?

Sadly, I have no idea to whom I should give this fine honor. For it has two distinct winners, and yet both stand at opposite ends of the story. On the one end is the main stream media in America (and its European counterpart), while on the other is the Bush Administration. The former deserves accolades for wresting away and gaining control of the most important story of our time; and the latter deserves the award for letting the media get away with it. The story? Well, that is simple: The story is the genesis of the Iraq Conflict. And the Empty Keg goes to all those who repackaged history, who accepted that history, and permitted that history to become normative. Just read this clip from a recent CBS News/60 Minutes interview with President George W. Bush (the president was interviewed by reporter Scott Pelley at Camp David):

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?

PELLEY: Well, sir . . .

BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?

PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.

BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

The sentence in bold is highlighted as a perfect exemplar of the Great Revision. To which, incredibly, the president says, "Yeah."

For sheer fun, for the jolly folly of it all, let me remind readers that A) there was not one minute from 1991 to March 2003 that the United States was not in military conflict with Iraq; B) that President Bill Clinton received during his term in office news of a fatwa - drafted by Osama bin Laden in 1998 - which called for death to Americans everywhere; C) that the fatwa placed America's continued oppression -- directed by President Clinton -- of Iraq and the Iraqi people as the primary reason Americans should be killed; D) that in 1998 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act calling for "regime change" in that tired country; E) and that the United States was attacked by Osama bin Laden in 2001 as a direct result of its bellicose posture towards Iraq (throughout the 1990's, the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq nearly every other day).

Thus, two things: The Iraq/September 11 connection is a causal one; and is so utterly credible it is incredible that anyone could be ignorant of this fact; and secondly, it is despicable that these historic facts have been permitted to drift into oblivion by the press and the president. And these are not the only facts in the case!

Nevertheless, because we at Contratimes have been wide-eyed and unblinking as we watched propaganda attain the status of absolute truth, we can with clarity of mind and soul pronounce that the 2006 Empty Keg Award for Story of the Year is well-deserved by many who walk this planet. I think the Empty Keg Award should be passed around like the Stanley Cup: first, it should go to the editorial offices of the New York Times, then to Keith Olbermann, and then to the White House. And I am sure Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean will want to share it with their many fellow revisionists.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

For some further commentary regarding Iraq, 9/11, and the 9/11 Commission Report, go here. Then there is my incomparable "Adam and Eve Must Have Been Neo-Cons."

A Newbie Attitude

It is a very messianic thing to be. One might wonder whether any deliverer would dare to be anything but; for to be something other than a bridge-builder -- a uniter -- is to be something less than a messiah. Messiahs bring people together; they are conciliatory, appeasing; they understand compromise and concession.

But this is not the least a messiah can do. A messiah can also reveal his or her salvific message once every four years or so, at least in America. He (or she) can remind us all -- once again -- what life can truly become -- if we but believe, if we but thrill in the audacity of hope.

Barack Hussein Obama has lifted his head from his pillow and in the silence of the night, he has heard a call, a voice, the voice of the people; and he has responded. His message? He wishes to bring together that which has been torn asunder; to mend the torn veil; to build on those things which unite rather than divide. In other words, he wants to deliver a message of hope, of optimism in the power of the human will when it works in collective concert. Mr. Obama believes that it is not the enormity of the issues before us, but the smallness of our politics in addressing those issues that has failed us all. Such issues can be rendered small, no doubt, by a politics that is larger than anyone has heretofore dreamed possible. It is all about a brighter vision in a darkness deceptively dark: things are not as black as they seem. Nor are they as white. For such simple distinctions betray us when confronting dire challenges: our tried yet failed policies based on categories of good and evil, light and dark, black and white, north and south, have proven themselves tired, myopic, weak; senescent.

And now, in the juvenescence of the year, in the season of Janus (the two-faced deity that guards against war), Barack Obama is a great light in the deep and lonely solstice of Northern Hemispheric politics. He is the newcomer with the right attitude, speaking new beatitudes. His name means blessed. He brings a message.

Two things, really. First, the message Mr. Obama brings is utterly old and not the least bit spry or sprightly. It is what we have heard in the United States from leaders ad infinitum: we have long been given empty promises that there shall be no more empty promises. We are promised an end to partisan bickering, to gridlock, to more of the same. We are promised the "setting of a new tone in Washington," of "forging a new direction for America," of coming together to "take America back" and building anew a "government for the people by the people." We are promised an end to rancor and discord; we are promised unity in a United States on the threshold of disunion. It is time to cease the fearmongering, the backbiting; the good-old-boy backroom favoritism; the special interest plundering of American goodwill and industriousness.

In short, we have heard all of this before, said the same way, at the same time of year, and even for the same reasons.

But what we have not heard enough is that a real messiah -- perfectly presented in the Christ of the Christian faith -- is the only religious figure in history who built a religion on the self-revelation that He came to divide, not unite; to separate, not combine; to winnow out, and not to blend; to cleave asunder and not to mend. Jesus the Christ is indeed exactly the sort of politician we need to hear from, though not on the airwaves or from the podium, or on the breakfast news shows or a podcast from the Jesus 2008 website. We need to hear from Him in our hearts, if for no other reason than to stop this insanity.

The messiah has already come, and He will come again. But He is not a politician from Illinois, or a president from South Africa, or a megalomaniac from Venezuela. He is not a man with a gun, nor is a he man with a Texas swagger. Nor is he a man with a soft, bipartisan voice.

"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ... The poor you shall always have with you. ... I have come to set brother against sister. ... You have no part in me unless ..." This is what a deliverer says; these are the words of a real leader, a real revolutionary. He does not coddle his base, or stroke the hair of those eager to pronounce him god.

Just a few thoughts in this season of Hosanna Politics.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

2007's Early Nominee: Senator Harry Reid

Since I began this day announcing the inaugural Contratimes annual awards (I shall be naming a few 2006 winners over the following days), I can't resist nominating US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, for the 2007 Soggy Turnip for Obscene Doublespeak. Please carefully read below what Mr. Reid said yesterday from the podium on the US Senate Floor. The context for these fine remarks is President Bush's apparently new plan for the Battle for Iraq; Democratic leaders have nearly unanimously rejected the President's plan for -- among other things -- increased troop levels in Iraq, while a few Republicans have expressed their own doubts. And both Democratic majorities in Congress are discussing whether they should not fund Bush's plan altogether.

Here is Mr. Reid's amazing articulation (the full statement is printed here):

"I will not prejudice the outcome of the vote on the President's plan, but I will say this: Putting more U.S. combat forces in the middle of an Iraqi civil war is a mistake."

There are mindbogglers, and then there are true mindbogglers. Though his entire statement is a criticism of President Bush's plan, Mr. Reid is nevertheless able to convince himself that he is not attempting to prejudice his colleagues: In fantasyland, he would never think of prejudicing anyone within earshot. George Orwell could not have written a more curious few lines. Perhaps I will consider Mr. Reid for the 1984 Soggy Turnip Award in Orwell's honor.

To think, George W. Bush can mangle a word or two and still make sense, and then be derided for his imperfect oratory; while Mr. Reid can speak with perfect eloquence and yet make no sense at all. It will be a cold day in hell before the popular press takes note of Mr. Reid's nonsense.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

The Grand Vacuity

To my American readers:

Have you, fellow citizen, been waiting 200 years for anything? I think not. But what about America? Has it been waiting for some incredible event for over 200 years? Apparently it has been waiting, even chafing at the bit, for one very important thing: the ascendancy of a woman to the position of Speaker of the House.

Of course, I use the word ascendancy with a wink to irony, for to be Speaker of the House may indeed be a descendancy: these allegedly lofty posts supporting the dome of human ambition may actually be dehumanizing idols that mean, ultimately, nothing. To be priest or president, king or queen, may be the least humanizing and wondrous roles on the planet. But I digress.

America yesterday apparently made history. In the United States House of Representatives, a U.S. citizen who also happens to be a woman, was given a gavel, a chair, a title, and the keys to a new house. For 2oo years America has been waiting for Nancy Pelosi to become the first woman to speak in that esteemed house -- with authority and control and dominance.

According to this morning's New York Times, Ms. Pelosi had this to say about her elevation:

“This is an historic moment ... It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited for over 200 years.” [emphasis added]

I wonder if there are any women in America who might disagree with Madame Speaker. I am sure there are not a few. It would be fun to hear from them. But one also wonders where this sudden ebullience over feminism's success comes from. Has there, for instance, been a longstanding movement afoot to have a woman Speaker of the House? And even if there was, is this really that terribly historic? We have women CEOs and women astronauts; we have women university presidents and women surgeons general; we have women attorneys general and women presidential candidates. We have had two women secretraries of state, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. OK. So a woman holds a gavel in a house of Congress. Should I care? Should I care as much as Representative Loretta Sanchez, D-CA, who said she voted for Ms. Pelosi “for the empowerment of all women in the world”? (Wow, Ms. Sanchez.) Even Ms. Pelosi spoke of equality with some hyperbole (as reported by the Victoria Advocate), declaring, "By electing me speaker, you have brought us closer to the ideal of equality that is America's heritage and hope. For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling." (Wasn't that ceiling really broken years ago?)

Specifically, should I care about all this if men and women are equal? Are they? How so? If men and women are indeed equal, then why do I care if a woman is Speaker of the House, for is not a woman speaker equal to a male speaker? Moreover, even if I accept that men have far too long forged laws which affect women -- with nary a sense of what women need or want -- how is it any historic gain whatsoever to have a woman forge laws which affect men with nary a sense of what men need or want?

Of course, I am merely having fun here poking at certain American sacred cows. I am grateful that women have found "higher" stations in life. But there is a problem intrinsic to the language we use about equality that peeves me a bit, with such peevishness described more fully in my essay on equality and the former president of Harvard, Larry Summers, posted in 2005.

Other thoughts on yesterday's historic turnings:

• The New York Times' headline today could not be more apt: Jubilant Democrats Assume Control on Capitol Hill. Emphasis, of course, on the word assume.
• Democrat Harry Reid, the new Senate majority leader, said (according to The New York Times), “Guided by the spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats are ready to take this country in a new direction.” The final roll call for the Pelosi-for-Speaker vote in the House? "233 to 202, the 31-seat margin of the new Democratic majority," or so reports the NYT. So much for bipartisan cooperation.
  
• Since the Democrats "assumed" control of America's destiny, one American soldier has been killed in Iraq. I shall keep count from here on in, since it is clear any death on the Democrats' watch is their fault, no? Don't hold your breath counting on these folks to resolve the Iraq conflict any time soon. They would rather raise minimum wage than lower the death count. Apparently they are concerned our soldiers are not getting paid sufficiently.

Lastly, I am reluctant to ask Mr. Reid if he believes that the "new direction" in which he plans to take America is distinguishable from the old one.

Peace.

PS. What is Ms. Pelosi doing in the photo above? What is she trying to convey, express? Just wondering.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Speaker Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Equality

Keeping Vigil With Progressives And Atheists, I Think

I beg your forgiveness. I know I've not been writing much. But that is not because I am not writing. I am. In fact, I've been writing up a storm. Luke Buckham, my friend and confidante who lovingly disagrees with me on lots of things, wrote the other day to inquire if I was alright. Alas, I cannot answer. I guess I am alright. But so many folks find fault with me -- when I post comments elsewhere -- that I have lost the capacity to judge whether I am alright at all. I feel OK in the psychological sense, though I have been suffering from chronic headaches.

If you are at all interested in what I have been up to on the big, crazy WWW, then you might want to know that I have been engaged in a "monumental" struggle with atheists and agnostics at exChristian.net. Specifically, I posted responses to "Webmaster's (aka Dave)" essay entitled "A Christ-less Grave." Dave seems a decent chap; he writes well and is engaging. But I found his article wanting; lacking. So I let him know. Of course, the flurry of comments that follow mine are, well, flurrious. I admit that many of the comments are penned by me. But the dialogue is fascinating. Scroll about halfway down the comment thread to find where yours truly jumps in, albeit late to the party.

Also, for you politics buffs out there, you might as well know that I have been featured -- what a surprise !! -- at The Vigil. I usually do not promote myself to you this way, but since my buddy Brady (a regular visitor at Contratimes who comes here via his lovely chalet in Switzerland) has already commented about reading the exchanges at The Vigil, then you might as well be given the chance to see just how I comport myself (and how I represent readers like YOU) when I am not at home (at Contratimes). Trust me when I say that the comment thread is also, well, flurrious.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Watch Out, Democrats!

Today, and perhaps for the next several days, I am going to pretend to be a prophet, a political prophet. This does not make me a real prophet, but it surely makes me a pretentious one. Nor does this imply augury, divination, seeing into the future through blogfeeds or by looking for patterns in the grindings left by burning brakes along the guardrails of the Jersey Turnpike. I am not plying through the entrails of pigeons; I am not pursuing scatology to inform my eschatology. What my pretense means is simple: I am playing. And playing, as you know, is all about having fun.

What could be more delightful, really, than to take a shot at what will happen to the Iraq War should the Democrats take control of the United States Congress?

A DIRE WARNING TO ALL VOTERS (followed by one to all Democrats):

Trust the mighty prophet: The Democrats have no intention of ending the Iraq War -- or "occupation", or "quagmire", or "regime-change strategy" -- or even bringing US troops home in the next two years. Why? Because they need Iraq to remain unstable, unpopular and chaotic so a Democrat can win the White House in 2008. Does anyone really think that the next Congress, one controlled by Democrats, is going to allow President Bush to do as he hopes, which is to win in Iraq and scale back troop deployments? Come now! Who are you kidding? Democrats NEED Iraq to fail, continually, for the next two years. And we know this because they are exploiting the war NOW in order to win the popularity of the masses: a successful Iraq campaign renders the Democrats superfluous and thoroughly impotent. But a quagmire; a mistake built on lies; a botched campaign; a boondoggle; a civil war fomented by incompetence. These are a Democrat's ticket to power!

So, my dear friends, particularly my anti-war friends, prepare yourselves for the biggest political disappointment of your lives. My sources tell me that the Democrats in Congress are poised to bring Washington to a halt with impeachment hearings, you know, Impeach Bush procedures. And those will be followed by Impeach Cheney hearings, and, well you get the picture: political chaos and quagmire for pure political gain, and pure control of US Treasury disbursements. Oh, and there is one more thing: much of the impeachment motivation comes from those who believe Bush was NEVER duly elected. In other words, it's about payback.

But our troops will be hung out to dry by congressional Democrats intent on maintaining their vision of a better governed world.

AND HERE IS THE CRAZY WARNING TO DEMOCRATS: Look for the offsides trap

In soccer, there is a defensive play called the offsides trap. It occurs when defenders, pretending to maintain a position between the goalkeeper and the nearest attacking forward, suddenly move to a position behind the forward when a ball is sent into the scoring zone. If a referee is paying attention, the forward will be caught offsides, and the whistle will be blown. The defending team regains possession of the ball with a free kick.

Remember the Vietnam War.

Let's look back at that fine time for a moment. Recall that it was Democrats in the White House (presidents Kennedy and Johnson), and Democrats in both the House and Senate (some of the largest Democratic majorities in modern US history), who escalated US involvement in Vietnam. In fact, both the executive and legislative branches under Democratic Party control escalated US involvement to dizzying heights, so high, in fact, that 50,000 troops would die in that distant land.

But remember what happened in 1968. Republican Richard M. Nixon won the White House at a time when popularity for the war was extremely low. And what did the Democrats do? That's right. They turned the Vietnam War into the Nixon War. They made Vietnam a Republican problem. After all, how many school kids today -- in America -- learn that Vietnam was really a Democratic Party failure? How many kids learn that it was the Democrats who drove American soldiers deep into that jungle quagmire?

So, let's talk payback now. Impeach Bush might be a Democrat strategy for doling out vengeance on the allegedly stolen 2000 election (and the alleged theft of Ohio in 2004). But Republicans not really fighting to keep control of the Congress today might in fact be an offsides trap being played -- in a great gamble -- by Republican strategists as payback for, well, everything (including Vietnam). Iraq, perhaps, is about to become the Democrats' War.

If there were just two types of teenagers in 1968, they were these: those who were anti-establishment, counter-cultural and anti-war, and those who were none of those things. Now, today, those two types of teenagers, 40 years older, are sitting in the White House, in Congress, in the offices of the RNC and DNC; they fill academia and the media. What you are witnessing, then, is a gargantuan struggle between those who believed that Vietnam was a lost cause and those who believed it could have been won (had we only FULLY stayed the course and supported US military actions there). In other words, if George Bush -- the establishment man -- wins in Iraq, it will not only mean that the Iraq-is-a-failure folks are wrong today; they were wrong in the golden protest years of yesterday about Vietnam. And if the anti-establishment hippies of the 1960's who are now in their 60s are right about the failure of Iraq, then, well, they will no doubt feel vindicated about Vietnam.

In reality, what you are seeing is a flashback of 1967-72. There might not be as much acid now as there was then, but there is surely more acid speech. But the Democrats need to watch out for the offsides trap.

Trust me. They don't know what they are about to win.

And remember: I am just a pretend prophet.

One final note to all voters: Does anyone really believe that the Iraq War is unnecessary, a war of mere choice, one completely begun at the President's bidding? For if that was the case, would he not have begun to withdraw troops on the eve of the elections, elections his party will lose? And if Bush and Co. control oil prices and oil fields, don't you think that, if they did so control them, we would have seen gas prices fall back to popularly low levels by now in order to secure political victory at all costs? And does anyone really think that President Bush is holding Osama bin Laden as some sort of ace-in-the-hole as we watch Republican popularity wane? Where, oh where, have the conspiracy theories gone? Were they all false prophecies uttered by false prophets? Are not false prophets supposed to be rejected, condemned; stoned to death outside the city walls?

But we all know they've been stoned before.

Peace, from your favorite prophet.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Election 2006, Democrats

John Kerry: A Racy Joke?

I will not whip the John Kerry story to death, but there are several more things to say about Mr. Kerry's allegedly "botched joke." The first thing to say is that, if you get a chance to watch the video of Mr. Kerry's stand-up routine, you will see that he does not, at any time, LOOK (or sound) like he is telling any sort of joke. There is no facial cue, no lilt in the voice. He does not offer a softening of the eyes, or even a twinkle in one eye. There is no wink; no feigned laugh, no silly smirk. There is no affect whatsoever that he is trying to be funny. He does not prompt his audience after a long set-up to the punchline. Nay. He gives us nothing other than a very dour face; he looks like he is waiting for the audience to immolate themselves, to burn themselves to death. He does not look like he is expecting a laugh: His face, without doubt, looks like he is saying that none of this is a laughing matter.

That is point 1.

Point 2 is that even if we rewrite Mr. Kerry's joke, adding the "us" that he says he carelessly omitted, it isn't one whit funny. "You know, if you don't do well in school, well, you get us stuck in Iraq." AHHAHHHAHAHAHA! What a howler!

Point 3 is that, irrespective of Mr. Kerry's apology -- in which he apologizes, not for the joke but its misinterpretation (it's the listeners' fault) -- the joke, no matter how accurately or inaccurately delivered, cannot, in any way, be interpreted as NOT a slam of the military. For if Mr. Kerry is telling the truth, that he was merely damning the dumbness of the Bush Administration, he is nonetheless damning the Commander-in-Chief and his underlings. In other words, he is slamming the military. Moreover, he is also slamming the generals and colonels who submit to the alleged idiots in the White House; and he is also suggesting that many of the generals and other military officials who believe the invasion of Iraq was indeed a good thing are also "dumb". In other words, it is a joke belittling the military. Lastly, the joke suggests that all those soldiers who are UNDER the great dolts comprising the leadership of the war are themselves duped into submission, serving under leaders who are foolish, deceitful, empty -- men and women who did not do their homework. In other words, the joke damned every level of the military, no matter how you look at it.

The fourth point is one I brought up here yesterday. I am going to be so bold to suggest that I am one of the first bloggers (if not the first and only) to make the observation, and the observation is this: John Kerry might have been playing the race and class card. For we all know that certain Democrats, like Charlie Rangel and John Conyers, have complained that too many minorities -- inner-city minorities -- and the least privileged members of society, are most vulnerable to military recruitment. We also know that Messrs. Rangel and Conyers supported the reinstitution of the military draft during the 2004 election cycle: they played on the fears of their base under the guise that they were trying to build balance or parity in the recruitment of soldiers.

It appears to me that any sane observer could conclude that Mr. Kerry was playing this very cynical, racially-charged card. Context is everything, no? So it stands to reason that we might want to understand who it was Mr. Kerry may have been aiming his comments at; it is reasonable to ask to whom was Mr. Kerry speaking. You see, his joke was to a college crowd at Pasadena City College. As I stated yesterday, that inner-city college has a student body of over 25,000; 70.3 percent of that student body is made up of minorities. The school's largest minority group is Hispanic; the second is Asian; with the black student population making up just about 6.5%. Was John Kerry playing to this crowd? Was he saying -- since these listeners were minorities -- that they were most vulnerable to recruitment, to death on the war front? Was he playing to two stereotypes; one being that minorities make great cannon fodder for Republican wars; and two, that minorities are only able to save themselves if they rise above their apparent dumbness by doing well in school (I do not think there is ANY apparent dumbness, by the way)? Was Mr. Kerry propping himself up as a defender of minorities from alleged Republican indifference to their plight?

I think a good case could be made that he was so propping himself. This is not to suggest that Mr. Kerry is at all a racist himself. It is merely to posit some reason why Mr. Kerry said what he said. Here is a good question: Would Mr. Kerry have told this joke to an Ivy League college crowd? Had he ever told that joke to a group of affluent white folks? If he has told this joke before, or if he would have told this joke to a bunch of rich kids at Harvard, then my observations here are irrelevant and misplaced.

One final little note: Amy Kane of Atlantic Avenue passed this very informative link along to me. It is a very detailed study of the actual, rather than perceived, demographics regarding military recruitment.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: John Kerry, Botched Joke, Race

Talking Their Language: John Kerry Tells A Joke With "Nuance"

I had not heard the story until today. I read about it in the recent column of Chicago Tribune essayist John Kass, and it sheds light on John Kerry and his Ohio loss in 2004. Kass reflects on that exciting time, just before Americans rushed the polls to cast their vote for President; Kass muses about sundry Kerryisms that may have not played well in the American heartland:

My absolute favorite Kerryism was the time he tried to sound like Jethro Bodine from the old "Beverly Hillbillies" TV show.

That's the one that cost him the presidential election in 2004, by losing him Ohio.

He dressed up in hunting gear so new there must have been tags hanging from the ankles. He had a shotgun, since the symbolism was about manliness, as he moseyed into a general store with several TV news cameras.

Kerry would purchase a hunting license and go hide in a field and let a guide shoot some geese, which another aide would carry so the senator could have the benefit of the symbolism without the responsibility of goose blood.

But first he needed the license. Yet instead of asking for one in a normal voice, Kerry inexplicably decided to use country dialect.

"Kin ah git me a hunting license here?" said Kerry, the country man.

The folks in the general store were frightened to hear an odd twang emanating from Kerry's Boston adenoids. Perhaps he thought that they weren't highly educated, and so he had to talk "their language."

One wonders whose language John Kerry was speaking on Monday when he said the following to a college crowd at Pasadena City College in California:

"You know education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Oops. Ouch. Bing, bang, bomb.

I recall John Kerry supporters in the last election cycle describing the Massachusetts senator as being more "nuanced" than his opponent, George W. Bush. And the quote above shows that they were absolutely right. The only real question, though, is how much nuance is good for the Democratic Party. For a prima facie viewing of Kerry's remarks, uttered, as they were, to college kids in the inner city (Pasadena City College enrollment data shows that minorities comprise 70.3 percent of the 25,000 students enrolled there; I found the data here; hispanics and Asian minority groups are ably represented), it is evident that most reasonable listeners would conclude that Mr. Kerry is saying that the dumb student ends up stuck as a soldier in Iraq. His juxtaposition of you (one would assume he means "you who are listening and are in school") with "smart" and "stuck" would indeed led credibility to the wild theory that Mr. Kerry is warning students that those who do not fare well in school end up as cannon fodder.

But we KNOW Mr. Kerry is too nuanced for such a misleading and unfortunate suggestion. What nuanced listeners realize, of course, is that Mr. Kerry is suggesting that if you are a poor student, like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, then you WILL become stuck in Iraq. Of course, one wonders what Mr. Kerry might mean comparing his scholarly achievements with Mr. Bush's, since I showed last year that Mr. Kerry is a certain victim of his own rather average gossip.

It is all, in Mr. Kerry's own words, the result of a "botched joke." OK. That's fine. But it is also about an administration ripping Mr. Kerry's words out of context -- a city college full of minority kids most "vulnerable" to military recruitment (or so it goes) -- and distorting them for political ends, or so Mr. Kerry asserts. Odd that he should not have taken the high road here, bolstering his broad mythology, arguing that he is that man of the people who speaks their language with nuance and subtlety.

HERE'S SOME SUBTLETY

During Mr. Kerry's appearance on the Imus in the Morning program a few minutes ago, Mr. Kerry said two things that all of us have heard too often. In fact, we have heard them often enough to know that there is nothing in them.

In defending himself from charges that he insulted American troops, he said that the real insult is Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, you see, should apologize for getting America stuck in Iraq, Mr. Kerry said; for it was Rumsfeld who "did not send enough troops [to Iraq]."

Later in the interview, Don Imus remarked that it was not just the White House that was damning Mr. Kerry's remarks. Even Sen. John McCain jumped into the fray with these not-so-subtle words:

“The suggestion that only the least-educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat today.”

In reply to Imus' little bomb, Mr. Kerry said that though he considered Mr. McCain a friend, he found McCain's comments unfortunate. "But the fact is," Mr. Kerry went on (I paraphrase), "John McCain has been a cheerleader for a failed policy, and McCain wants to put more troops in Iraq, as many as 100,000 more, and I do not believe we should do that because we do not even have that many troops, and more troops would attract more jihadists and terrorist attacks, resulting in more American military deaths."†

Now, I know you think I am making this all up, but I am not. Mr. Kerry is so nuanced that he believes Donald Rumsfeld should apologize for NOT sending more troops into Iraq, and Mr. McCain should apologize for wanting to send more. This paradox is a typical Democratic message; it says two contradictory things and pretends that people do not notice the absurdity.

Of course, this is all nuanced language, HIGHLY nuanced, the parlance of parlors in Beacon Hill. It is misunderstood, you see, by all us dolts who did not do well in school.

Peace.

†(UPDATE ADDED at 11:24 EST: If you would like to read what one decent guy thinks about the whole thing involving Kerry, and if you would like to hear Mr. Kerry's Imus comments for yourself, go to this blog for both.)

(PS. Thanks to blogger Amy Kane at Atlantic Avenue for finding the photo at the top of this post.)

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: John Kerry, Imus In The Morning, Kerry, Botched Joke, Iraq, Pasadena City College, minorities

Racist Ads? Where Racism Lies

It is a controversial time. It is a pathetic time. Rarely is it ever a fun time, or even a funny time. It is nearly always a petty time, a mean one, full of vitriol and sarcasm and lies. I am talking about election time, particularly that time when political commercials bombard us.

But once in a while, there is a great, lighthearted, even silly political ad. This new Rick Santorum ad comes to mind; it sets a new standard for good-hearted fun.

Of course, there is a fully satirical, even self-mocking ad that has caused predictable controversy. It is this one by the Republican National Committee regarding Harold Ford Jr.'s bid for a Tennessee US Senate seat. I hope you have seen it; I hope you watch it. It is really quite good-natured. (Please watch it before proceeding.)

WELL?

Did you watch it? Did you think it offensive? racist?

Let's look at who this ad pokes fun at (besides Mr. Ford). Surely it pokes fun at gun-wielding hunters, white guys with weapons selling their souls to the NRA. Surely it pokes fun at Canada, and alleged middle-American values regarding that allegedly lazy socialist neighbor to the north. Surely it pokes fun at sex appeal, the face value, so to speak, of a candidate. Surely it pokes fun at retired white men, retired white conservative men. Surely, if nothing else, it pokes fun at blondes, Playboy blondes.

But do you think it pokes fun at black men? Hmm.

Here's a news story about the whole affair, and it is steeped in claims that the commercial is racist. That bastion of racial clarity, that race-free zone known as the NAACP, is quite up in arms about a certain insinuation:

"It is a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women," Hilary Shelton, head of the Washington NAACP office, told the Los Angeles Times.

Really? What innuendo is that? That whites can be involved sexually with blacks? Is that an innuendo? What about the black woman at the beginning of the ad, does she feed some sort of gross racial innuendo too?

(For more eye-opening video, watch as MSNBC's Chris Matthews sets us all straight about moral and racial decency. Just note that it is Matthews who believes that white males have a hard time with Harold Ford. Talk about racial innuendo. And take a moment to read some of the comments at the Huffington Post.)

What I am really curious about has everything to do with miscegenation, you know, that grotesque thing known as INTERMARRIAGE and INTERRACIAL dating, which are so often damned by racists. You know, the stuff liberals accused (for example) the Republican bastion Bob Jones University of restricting, where people of differing races cannot date. You know, that gross stereotype about mixing races. Yeah, you know, that racist stuff that meant that dumb blondes, or even smart ones, must never date black men.

Sadly, in our duly enlightened times, it is unseemly, for sure, for a black man to flirt with a white woman, or vice versa, at least to the NAACP. Egads, let us stop our ears at the thought that a white woman might find a black man SEXY, even cute (or vice versa)!

Chalk this all up to the new puritanism I've written about before, where Democrats and progressives wag their fingers at fun and very real -- and totally OK -- things. Chalk this also up to Democrats -- who just love the parodies performed by their most comedic representatives throughout the media -- having lost their sense of humor and perspective when conservatives try (!) to be funny.

There is nothing racist about the ad at all. What IS racist is the suggestion that it is.

The only thing that we should be asking is whether the ad is fair, and whether it is at all stating anything true. I am not sure it is UN-fair, though I am not sure about its truth. It seems to be an effective parody of reality: it is based on true things, but it is not direct expressions of anything actual. In some ways the piece is rather brilliant. But it is not in itself true: these are not the real thoughts of real people (at least I don't think they are). It is a satire, a spoof, of Mr. Ford's political decisions and opinions. It is, again, about making impressions, not least of which is that Republicans can lampoon with the best of them.

Lastly, it is worth noting that Democrats are crying foul about their dear Mr. Ford's sacred racial standing. That's fine with me: his race should be honored and protected. But I wonder if they would be as defensive of him if they were aware of this statement on his own website:

"I will continue to be pro-family, including supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, without taking away the civil rights of gays and lesbians."

Or this from the same essay:

"I believe that my faith mirrors the principles on which our nation was founded: equality, dignity, tolerance and freedom. These ideas formed the bedrock on which the founding fathers based their claim to independence, and these are the same lessons that Jesus preaches in the Gospel. The separation of church and state is not an order for lawmakers to ignore their faith or to banish their values. Instead, it is a command for tolerance, to recognize that not all of us share the same beliefs or worship the same god and to respect those differences.

"And so, I will continue to be guided by my faith in the Senate. …"

Is he not really a guy who wants to impose his religious beliefs on public policy? Is he NOT a homophobe?

It's all just so interesting!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Harold Ford Jr., Playboy, Political Advertising, Political Commercials, Chris Matthews, Racism

The Blind, Pulling The Wool

There's a headline in today's New York Times, and I want to tell you why it is disturbing. The headline reads:

G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage

The headline comes in the wake of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal rights under New Jersey law. In reporting on that decision, The New York Times headline read "New Jersey Court Backs Full Rights for Gay Couples."

Please, note the difference in headlines. Pay particular attention to the first headline. For it argues that Republicans have reignited something that had long since burned out. To the editors at the NYT, Republicans have reignited a flame long ago extinguished by cool-headed thinkers like those directing The Times (and they do try to direct the times, don't they?). The issue was, apparently, a done-deal, a non-issue. No one was thinking about it, burning about it; no one cared. And then, on cue, Republicans seized a simple court decision and instantly set it ablaze for political gain. Republicans are rallying the "conservative base" once again in a self-serving effort to maintain political control over basic human rights.

Of course, only a person trying to propagandize the masses would imply that the issue of gay marriage had somehow been snuffed out. The fact is, it's been burning for years, and rather quite brightly.

Note what the headline to either news item does not insinuate, namely, that a New Jersey court decision may have been handed down to mobilize Democratic operatives intent on redefining marriage. Note that neither story focuses on the fact that certain Democrats and their pet interest groups have been politically reinforced by the New Jersey court; nothing is said about how the New Jersey decision reignites anybody (though it clearly does). Also, please note, that neither headline suggests that gay-marriage-friendly Democrats will be motivated to go to the polls to support candidates and measures that will enshrine gay marriage in language that makes it equal to heterosexual marriage. The G.O.P. is trying to reignite a fire that should not be lit; it is trying to motivate its base. Of course, the Democrats are NOT trying to ignite the issue; nor are they trying to ignite a flame beneath their party's feet.

You might recall the sheer idiocy of comments surrounding gay marriage amendment initiatives in several states during the 2004 elections. You may have heard that Karl Rove, ranked as a demigod by Democrats, positioned these amendments on state ballots, using them as a clarion call to homophobes everywhere to vote Republican. But surely the idiocy, and fallaciousness, are instantly obvious: if gay marriage is a desirable thing, then amendments on ANY state ballot would motivate voters WHO ARE PRO-GAY TO TURN OUT IN DROVES. In other words, had Karl Rove in fact drummed up such a scheme, he would have known that such initiatives would have been inspiration for the apparently tens of millions of voters who love the idea of gay marriage and who would, invariably, vote as Democrats. But the fact is this, and even the headline above intimates it: voters repeatedly reject the argument that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage. Including, believe it or not, Democrat voters.

And that is why the New Jersey court decision is so important. To hell with the will of the people. Only a few folks really have the direct line to God and legal clarity on this; they sit on courts, in academia, and the high places in American journalism. The rest of us are just plain bigots, for we do not believe that two gay men in bed are equal to a man and woman in bed or even sitting on a bus. Nor do we believe, as most African-Americans do not believe, that the issue of gay marriage is on the same plane, or even on the same bus, as civil rights issues for blacks were in the 1950s and 1960s: anti-black bigotry is not remotely the same as alleged anti-gay bigotry. Nor does anyone notice that it is a sort of reverse bigotry that assails traditional marriage proponents; that such proponents are "homophobic" and "zealous religious nuts", that they are "hyprocrites" for not berating other perversions of so-called "sacred marriage", like divorce, spousal abuse, and sundry other infidelities; that traditional marriage is "merely about love and commitment between two people". Such name-calling is indeed a type of bigotry, a type of rendering people as less than whole, or even less than human; and such reductionism gives the lie that pro-gay proponents adore the lofty ideal of marriage, for it is quite clear that the only way they can equate traditional marriage -- which has stood as a sacrament for centuries -- to gay marriage, is to reduce the beauty, import, and value of the sacrament: it is just about love, commitment, companionship. Traditional marriage proponents are not entitled, either in the opinion of the courts or The New York Times, to define themselves or marriage the way they see fit; they must define marriage (and, by extension, their own selves) some OTHER way (sort of the way blacks were not allowed to define themselves as fully human and fully American).

In the end, if any reader of The New York Times believes that the Republican Party is reigniting anything about gay marriage, such a reader deserves The New York Times. The rest of us, without reading that great grey sage, are more than duly informed.


Anyhow, just some thoughts on a slow Friday. (Friday, as some of you may know, appears to be a blogger's low day, as blog traffic seems to really take a dive. At least it does here, even rather precipitously. It is the slowest day of the week by far.)

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Black And Red? Hah! He Cannot Shine

I spoke two days ago about one of the great rising stars of the Democrat party, Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. I did so because he is in fact a rising star, and he is being very much courted by the media: some have already suggested that he is the man who will deliver the country in 2008, procuring the White House and leading America forward in an audacious pursuit of hope.

But I must ask how many Contratimes readers have ever heard of the first African-American man to be elected to state-wide office in Maryland. Perhaps only a few of you know the name of that man; I know that I forgot about him until yesterday. The man is Michael Steele (pictured above); a handsome, bright, and articulate man who has served Maryland as Lt. Governor and is currently campaigning for a US Senate seat against Democratic congressman Ben Cardin. Apparently it is a very spirited battle.

I am going to make a wild proclamation. I am going to suggest that Michael Steele, every bit as bright and interesting and handsome and capable as Barack Obama, is not a rising star for one simple reason: He's a Republican.

But I will refrain from speaking further on this for the time being. There is one man, an African-American man, who has written a blistering commentary on the treatment of Mr. Steele by the Democrats around him. It is a worthy read. But I warn you. It is fiery and fierce. I am under the distinct impression that beneath all that fire, the author is probably quite right. Which means that this is all very, very sad.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Michael Steele, Barack Obama

Speaking Before Thinking: Rush To Judgment

It is not the sort of thing I'd brag about. It is the sort of thing that happens solely by chance. I am talking about listening to conservative political pundit Rush Limbaugh on the radio, or watching him on TV. This is not the kind of activity I've ever planned; it is not something I've ever looked forward to. But I must say that I can remember two times, and two times only, that I've listened to Rush Limbaugh, and the reason I remember these times is that Limbaugh made me cringe. I am not saying I haven't listened to him more than twice; I have, perhaps ten times in total. It's just that I remember two times in particular.

The first time I was home with a cast on my ankle; it was a Sunday, and ESPN was airing its NFL Sunday pregame TV show. There, Mr. Limbaugh, the "color" commentator sitting all by himself, away from the other analysts (so far away, in fact, that he seemed to be quarantined), made the rather unfortunate claim that the Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback, Donovan McNabb, was not an outstanding player, but was merely propped up by the media who wanted to see a black quarterback succeed, or something to that effect. I was alarmed by the commentary, though I was surprised that in a country enamored of free speech, Mr. Limbaugh would be fired the next day from his brief stint as a football analyst. Limbaugh was no doubt wrong: Donovan McNabb continues to shine as one of the great quarterbacks in the NFL. But I can tolerate a dopey opinion every now and then, and I did not think Mr. Limbaugh's remarks were overtly racist. They were just plain dumb. Commentators are not usually fired for being dumb, are they? (For the comments of a sports columnist, and Eagles' fan, who agreed with Mr. Limbaugh, check out this essay at Slate.)

And then, this past Monday afternoon, as I was pulling into the bank to make a quick deposit, I landed on Limbaugh's radio talkshow. And there, as I sat in bank parking lot, he made another startling statement which I could not believe I was hearing. The topic, as you no doubt know by now, was Michael J. Fox's political commercial regarding stem-cell research to combat, among other things, Parkinson's disease, a disease from which Mr. Fox suffers. Here is part of what Mr. Limbaugh said:

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease ... He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

OK. I love Michael J. Fox, which is to be expected, since we are the same age and I grew up watching him mature into a great comedic actor. He lives in Vermont, which makes me feel like he's a neighbor. His disease is grotesque and sad, as are all diseases, really; but it struck me hard when I learned of Mr. Fox's struggle, and it continues to strike me hard. No doubt it would not strike me as hard as it would if Mr. Fox was my brother or my son, or if Parkinson's struck me.

I predicted, and I was right, that Mr. Limbaugh would be excoriated by the press for his over-certain remarks. EVEN though I heard Mr. Limbaugh apologize, repeatedly, for his remarks only moments after he made them, when staffers and callers corrected him; even though I heard Mr. Limbaugh the next day (I did plan to tune in Tuesday) correct himself -- repeatedly -- for his remarks, I knew he would be raked over the coals for his recklessness. And he should be, perhaps, even if he has nearly instantly retracted them. One glaringly sad fact is that Mr. Limbaugh's critics are focusing on the mistake rather than the apology, as if the whole of Mr. Limbaugh's comments don't matter. But they do matter, very much; people say wrong things all the time, and we forgive them when they recognize their fallibility and their foolishness. But not if you're Mr. Limbaugh. But if his mistake makes him a sinner, how do his profuse apologies not make him a saint?

I cannot know Mr. Fox's motives for appearing in campaign commercials in which he asserts that his candidate's opponent wants to "criminalize the science" that MIGHT lead to cures for such things as Parkinson's. My penchant is for asking whether what Mr. Fox has said is true. But, like most political language, it is indeed true: someone may indeed want to criminalize medical procedures that are immoral but MIGHT have a positive effect elsewhere. But they MIGHT NOT have a good effect at all, and Mr. Fox's language leaves us with nothing but political talking points: we have nothing to really trust. He might be telling the truth, and he might not. Winning is what matters, creating an impression is what counts. Moreover, I can sympathize with Mr. Fox's many losses, and I do; but I cannot sympathize when he enters the political arena and is duly challenged. His sickness does not entitle him to be above reproach; his illness does not safeguard him from being challenged, especially if he tosses veiled accusations that some Republicans actually want to keep people like him addled by disease. For that -- is it not? -- is the suggestion: vote for candidate X or else candidate Y will let the sick stay sick. Is that not also offensive? Is that not also a slander? Well, if it isn't, it should be.

But we are talking politics, which is all about speaking certain lines on cue, posing for cameras, creating impressions and, along the way, even a few sensations.

Peace to Michael J. Fox today, and all those who suffer from debilitating diseases.

[Update: MSNBC, right now (at 12:12 EST), is discussing the Limbaugh statements. Oddly, MSNBC reports that Limbaugh did indeed utter a foolish thing; but the network is also reporting that Rush "later apologized." The implication is that "later" was after Limbaugh was confronted publicly. In fact, Limbaugh apologized nearly INSTANTLY, and he retracted his words. If "later" means subsequent, then MSNBC is right. But they want to mislead its listeners. Moreover, Limbaugh even retracted his words: a retraction is an admission that the words are not valid; that, in reality, they do not exist as Limbaugh's words. What this is all about, ultimately, is stirring up the suspicion that Republicans are heartless, cold, cruel, and could care less about suffering. It is not about Parkinson's, suffering, or scientific research. It is about despoiling character, winning votes, and controlling taxpayer money.]

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox

A New Magnificat

In Swahili his name means "one who is blessed." It seems a fitting name. In fact, in American politics his name surely means "charmed."

Of course, I am talking about the freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. He is being presented to us as the next big thing; he is the rising star in American progressivism. He graces the cover of the most recent Time magazine; he streaked across the talkshow skies this past weekend, and we are left with a glowing after-image seared into our minds.

Some of you might recall that the late Pope John Paul II wrote a book called Crossing The Threshold of Hope, which was wildly popular among the faithful. It still ranks in the top 20,000 of Amazon. Now comes The Audacity of Hope, written by Mr. Obama, which ranks atop both today's Amazon and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists. It has not yet this morning shown up on the New York Times bestseller list, but we need but wait another thirty seconds and it will be perched on top, I am sure.

I watched Mr. Obama on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, (transcript is here) and I must say he is, indeed, a winner. I have no doubt that he shall be a very serious candidate for president, particularly in 2012. However, my sense is that he is, perhaps, still too young to make it to the White House two years from now. After all, he has yet to have to fight in even one reelection campaign. And I think he might be bucking history, though I am not sure; for if he does aim for the White House in 2008, he might very well be the first senator to win the presidency before completing one whole term in the Senate.

HOSANNA POLITICS

Remember with me what it was like, at least according to the gospels, when Jesus entered Jerusalem just days before his crucifixion. He was greeted with fanfare, palm branches laid out before him, his supporters shouting "Hosanna!" as he passed (Hosanna! means "save!" or "save us!" It is a cry of worship and praise, but one mixed with a plea for deliverance.) As Jesus entered Jerusalem, people greeted him as deliverer and savior.

I am struck every election cycle (at least since I have been paying attention) how often this sort of imagery and language is employed. Candidates come as deliverers: all will be right if we just elect so-and-so. It is rather alarming, for it would seem Americans (in particular) would be wary of this sort of idolatry. No one can save us, though a man or woman can surely assist us. But we must face the very real fact that we will never be delivered from an imperfect state, nor will we ever reach one that is more just. Justice is an elusive idea, as it is so often shaped by the smallest minority incensed that its particularly unique qualities are not held in higher esteem or respect. Such injustices can be found on nearly every street corner; shouts of "unfair!" do not stop in the wake of better laws or better leaders. This is not to say that there are not injustices that have been made right. It is merely to say that there will never be any rest from the fight for a more just world. In all of this, no man or woman can step in as our deliverer or liberator. They can only help us, but not as clairvoyant or prescient guides. They can help us by being willing to fight for what is hopefully right, and hopefully good.

Unfortunately we cannot remove from our political life images smacking of messianism. Jesus comes as representative of heaven; not only that, he comes as our representative to heaven. He stands in our stead; he dies as our substitute on the cross. In Christianity, it seems, there is no salvation - or damnation - without representation. Christ is the law and our public defender; he is the advocate on our behalf, doing for us what we cannot do or have no time to do. He intercedes for us; he mediates, and he takes our place when the guilty verdict is handed down. He is taken away in shackles, while we are free to go.

Curiously, political representation comprises this same sort of imagery. If there is no expectation in heaven without representation, there is no taxation without representation here in America. Senators and representatives and presidents stand before the ideals of the American state on our behalf. They are our mediators, defenders and advocates. They will do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Before the great courts of men in Washington, our elected officials stand as us incarnate. And they do so before that great Trinity, that great Godhead of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

No wonder it is so tempting to speak of candidates in implicitly religious terms, that they shall "save us" from domestic and foreign enemies. No wonder some leaders might present themselves even in messianic terms. So many of us expect so much from our leaders. I even think that we often expect too much of ourselves, living vicariously through the man or woman for whom we voted, certain that we, along with them, know how to save the world.

THE AUDACITY OF HOPE

It is a catchy title, full of poetry and boldness. There is even a veiled criticism hidden therein, that here is a man daring to hope in the face of naysayers; here is a man willing to rally the despondent masses to reject the pessismism of our current leaders, and our current paradigm. And there is even a religious simplicity to it, begging us to remember St. Paul: "Now these three remain, faith, hope and love." Hope audacious? Only to the liberty deniers among us.

Of course, I have yet to read Mr. Obama's book. I am sure that when I do read it, he will help me answer the question: Hope in what? Or are we merely to hope in hope? I hope not. And I am not quite ready to go as far as Boston radio talk show host Jay Severin went yesterday on air, whispering on in hushed, reverent tones about the left's new saint, "Saint Obama." But sainthood is in the air.

Really, it is.

ONE LAST NOTE ON "BLESSED"

I visited Daily Kos, the world's largest blog, this morning. I was searching for items on Mr. Obama, and I was surprised to find that Mr. Obama has himself posted something at Daily Kos. But I want you to note an advertising banner over Mr. Obama's essay. It is an adlink for MSNBC's news team. But note two things. Note that you find, right in the middle, a picture of the leftists' new favorite pundit, Keith Olbermann. Then, one image over, note that there is a picture of Mr. Obama, facing right, adjacent to a picture of President Bush, who is looking left. This is no accident at all. MSNBC might as well say that it is pitching Mr. Obama for President right now.

The second thing I want you to note is that MSNBC is advertising on the most liberal blog on the planet. It would be foolish to think that FoxNews would be a featured advertiser there; and it would be foolish not to think that, if Fox is indeed a mouthpiece of the Bush White House, MSNBC is aligning itself as a mouthpiece for all things progressive. After all, that is what Mr. Obama is after, since he aims to create a "workable progressive majority in this country."

This all, really, should be quite interesting.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Barack Obama photograph originally found here. Image by Reuters.]

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hosanna politics

Where Hypocrisy Lies?

There has not been a word here about the Mark Foley scandal. It's not that I have no thoughts about the matter. It's that I have no idea exactly what the scandal is: is it that a congressman wrote dirty emails to congressional pages? is it that he's gay? is it that he is gay in the Socratic sense, you know, adoring the bodies of young men (who are, I believe, at or above the age of consent)? is it that other Republicans knew of Mr. Foley's fetishes and swept his dark secret under the House rugs? is it that Republicans are the party of "family values", or so we hear (though more often from Democrats who scoff at the GOP's moral stances), and yet the hypocrite Republicans have enabled a man who is clearly not a value to any family? Where, pray tell, is the scandal?

The other night, while punching out a few phrases as a warm up to writing, I (somewhat) randomly banged out these throwaways:

"When a gay man is caught by Republicans, they throw the Bible at him. When a gay man is caught by Democrats, they embrace him, giving him rights to happiness. Unless that gay man is a Republican. Then Democrats throw the book at him. And a shrink.

"Democrats gather at the lectern beneath falling balloons filled with so much heavy gas. They rally around a mission statement hammered out by knocking heads together: 'We are the party of the big tent, the inclusive camp; we exist solely as a bulwark against bigotry and injustice. That explains why we have broken camp in such haste; there is a gay man outside with confused sexual identities: He’s a Republican. We have hauled our asses across the river; it is unjust that anyone might think we are here to help. It is that sort of bigotry we abhor, the kind which expects us to be as big as the falling fabric over our heads.'"

Let us just for fun assume that Mr. Foley is a Democrat. Let us assume that he was caught by Republican snoops, their noses to the ground, sniffing out the pheromones of filth. What would Democrats say to defend Mr. Foley? Perhaps they would say something like this:

'Please. Let us not be too hasty to judge the privacy of a man whose public service has been so stellar. He has not, as far as anyone can tell, broken any law; and if a law has been broken, we must ask ourselves whether this is not the sort of law that should be broken. We like to be compassionate here; we accept that people are in various stages of moral clarity and sexual identity. Not everyone fully knows who he or she is; we are all products of psychological and emotional struggles that lead us through a lot of confused searching. Mr. Foley is no different than many men and women, and he has sought psycho-sexual affirmation with older teenage boys; perhaps his issues are a lot less about sex than they are about emotional support and, perhaps, even anxieties about dying. Moreover, it is clear we need to be careful in pronouncing judgment, for no one of us is fit to throw stones. We did not confront Mr. Foley largely because we expected this sort of judgmentalism to come from the Republicans: had we disciplined Mr. Foley, we would have been accused of gay-bashing. We would have been called "hypocrites" had we censured him. Yes, we admit that we have known about Mr. Foley for a long time now; but there are far more dangerous things in this world than a good congressman who lovingly adores younger men. If our culture were more tolerant of homosexuals in general, if gay men could be more open with their feelings and desires, perhaps Mr. Foley would not have felt that he needed to identify with the younger men in his milieu: his sexuality remains repressed by a pervasive heterosexism that expects a man to grow up, marry a good wife, raise a family, and sit as patriarch over his progeny. Sadly, not all men can meet such prefabricated, oppressive expectations.'

If there is a political point to all the current alarmist language about Republican hypocrisy, and the feigned Democratic shock associated with an avowedly gay Republican fascinated by dirty talk and teenage males, it is this: Democrats want you to know that if there are gays in the party of family values, they are messed up gays. No liberal Democrat can really countenance the fact that 23-25% of homosexuals who voted in 2000 and 2004 voted for George Bush; no Democrat can countenance that any "normal" gay man would vote against gay marriage. But such gays do indeed exist; and the Republican party, contrary to modern mythology, does indeed welcome them.

Regarding the Foley matter, perhaps Mr. Foley himself is a "hypocrite"; but perhaps his alleged hypocrisy resides here: he loathes his homosexuality and yet cannot help himself. Perhaps he believes his sexuality is indeed a choice, one that he can suppress; perhaps he believes he recognizes that his own behaviors do indeed jeopardize the security of the family. I have no problem with, for example, a Sen. Edward Kennedy voting for more restrictive drunk-driving laws, precisely because that esteemed senator, who has been shown great mercy, nonetheless knows that such mercy comes as a result of his killing a woman while he was drunk. His vote matters more, in some ways, than those who have never killed a woman: he knows the costs of drunk-driving. Of course, he has not really suffered much politically, at least in Massachusetts; though Mr. Foley has indeed suffered great loss, precisely, I am afraid to say, because he is not a gay Democrat. But hypocrisy is not a man saying one thing and then doing another. Hypocrisy is a man exempting himself from the rules he expects of others. Hypocrisy is not Smith railing against petty theft and then stealing his neighbor's bamboo rake. We all violate our principles at one time or another; we have all known contrition. But hypocrisy is Smith railing against theft and then denying that his action had anything to do with stealing; hypocrisy is Smith arguing that he is specially privileged to acquire his neighbor's desirable rake. I have no idea of whether Mr. Foley or Mr. Kennedy believe their moral precepts apply to everyone but themselves: for all I know, they are perfectly consistent, like many of us, in theory. They just fall short in practice.

If I was in the Washington press corps, there are two things I would be doggedly pursuing. If the Foley case, shaped as it is by countless appalled Democrats, is about pedophilia, I want to know who, in the Democratic leadership of the House, knew about Mr. Foley's page fetish and how long they knew. I want to know why they delayed one second to report this reprehensible behavior to the proper authorities.

And the second thing I want to know is when members of the press discovered Foley's sinful behavior. How long did the media know? Why were they so slow to act to protect children from a "predator."

Look, I have no problem accepting that Mr. Foley was a threat to young males. I have no problem accepting that his emails are vulgar. What I don't accept is the apparently glaring fact that those who are taking umbrage now with his peccadilloes have been silent for even the briefest amount of time. If there is hypocrisy in this, it is slithering somewhere around this fact.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

The Seinfeld Administration

I wonder if readers can guess where I might be going with this essay merely by its title. My guess is that a good number of you can.

The incredible TV show, Seinfeld, was a cornucopia brimming with pop-culture gifts for the tongue: Soup Nazi, shrinkage, regifting, hand, marble rye, Hennigan's, preemptive breakup, low talker, close talker, "quone", the Bro (or manssier), bubble boy, pigman. These delights fall off the tongue, they spill over merry lips; at least they do for those of us who have watched the show (and there are many of us). We get these terms; they make sense of certain things that ordinary words fail to describe. They give us the giggles; they are part of our laughing lexicon. Even the name "Seinfeld" has been incorporated into pop-speech, e.g. "This is a real Seinfeld" (or "Seinfeld moment"). The show shaped pop-culture, and we let it, with delight.

As I've mentioned several times at Contratimes, language is not static; a dictionary is not a law book, it is but a guide. It tells us merely how words are used; it does not insist that words MUST be used certain ways, nor does it prevent new meanings, even new words, from taking form.

How is it then that so many critics of George Bush's language skills don't see their own linguistic foolishness? When Bush "invents" the word "decider"†, how is it that his critics suddenly act as if A) they don't know what he means; B) there is a law that prevents new words from existing in a fluid or dynamic state; C) the new word makes no sense in context; and D) Bush is stupid? When he says that terrorist leaders have sent "suiciders" to terrorize normal folk -- no doubt a word that conflates suicide and bombers into one neat word -- why is that snickered at as dopish? Is it not a perfectly good word even if it is a gaffe? Is it not perfectly descriptive; is it not a good alternate?

Ironically, Bush's gaffes are finding longevity in the marketplace of ideas and the public square because his critics are breathing life into them. Sarcastic commentators use the words every day; bloggers love to describe his penchant for malapropisms, while others have given Bush himself a new name in light of his linguistic liberty ("Bumbleshrub" is one such name given by blogger Just Ain't Right). The irony is simply lost on these critics; and what is also lost on them is that when Bush invents a word (many educators actually encourage children to use inventive spelling when young) his readers and listeners STILL understand what he is saying.

Hey, I am something of a word guy, so surely you would think his tongue-stumbles would bother me. Perhaps they do. But he has coined some very useful words, like "misunderestimated" (which makes perfect sense), "decider" (not really coined, see note below), "suicider" and so on. Why is he not therefore perceived as a creative genius; why is he not seen as the architect of new ideas and concepts? Why is he at least not loved as an entertainer, or as a half-idiot savant seated in high office (like Being There's Chauncy Gardiner)?

You see, this stuff is to political language what Seinfeld was to breakroom badinage: it is the stuff that entertains (and it is stuff that makes us pay attention in a weirdly earnest way). By comparison, the Clinton Administration was a veritable word wasteland, a linguistic Death Valley. What pop phrase pops into your mind from those eight years, those tarpits of tongue? Merely the lone and meager mindbender, the "definition of IS is" foolishness. Bush, on the other hand, will no doubt impact every English dictionary: his malapropisms have life. We all get them.

Speaking of Mr. Clinton, I recall listening to him answer a question posed by NPR's Terry Gross in 2004. His answer was so prolix that even Deep Blue could not have deciphered it. And his reply was without a single mispronounced word. I scratch my head wondering how a man who speaks smoothly yet makes no sense is preferred over a man who brandishes an unruly tongue and yet is understood at every turn. Are Americans really too stupid to get the beauty of "misunderestimated"? Do they have no capacity for the truly incisive "suiciders"?

Only the bushleagured dolts who mock him would tire of his malappropriateness or his diseloquence. Unlike them, I am enlivened knowing that language is not stuck in the leaden lexicons of Bush's critics who abhor linguistic dynamism. They are so many malcontentious verbaphobes. To give them heed would be misattention on our part. But I truly delight in the fact that Bush's critics are the ones who will be responsible for ensuring his blunders last in lexicons in perpetuity.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

†Please note that this word is a legitimate English word, by the way; a fact which should have been mentioned when I first penned this. In haste, I failed to make note that this word appears in literary usage as early as 1593 (according the Oxford English Dictionary). [This addendum added January 12, 2007. See comment at the end of this 2007 post.]

For a related essay, go here.

Technorati tags: Seinfeld, Bush, Language, Malapropisms, Decider, Suiciders

Thawing The Big Chill: More From The Religious Left

If I were pressed as to what defines this website, I would suggest that Contratimes is devoted to pointing out the hypocrisies and contradictions of the Religious Left. This is not this site's exclusive target, but if the entirety of my essays was boiled down, the remaining precipitate would consist mostly of a confrontation with my brothers and sisters on the Left who dwell in the halls of religion.

Somewhere it was said that "As the Church goes, so goes the culture." It is a debatable claim, of course, but it smacks of truth. My conflict with the Religious Left deals almost exclusively with a point which they make constantly: that the Religious Right is intent on creating a theocracy in America. For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that the Left is right, the Religious Right is filled with theocrats. But that is only part of the story, even a small part. For the essence of the story is this: The Religious Left are the real theocrats, expending far more energy shaping America into the image they think most pleases God, and they are blind to their own zeal. THAT is the essence of the story, and it is no doubt the essential goal of this website to make that fact clear. Indeed it is clear that as the Left wing of the Church goes, so goes the culture.

In one of the first Contratimes posts, "The God Of Love," I asked readers' permission to "announce my rejection of Christ. For if Christianity is as the United Church of Christ (UCC) suggests in its recent TV commercial, then I have no interest in being a Christian..." What follows continues in that vein, for I have read the "alternative State of the Union address" given by the National Council of Church's affiliate "Faithful America," and I'll be damned if I do not loathe it. I would ask that you read it. It is an amazing piece of rhetoric. And it pushes me even farther away from the Christ the Left adores.

Please realize that I am not suggesting that I approve of President Bush's speech or that his vision of the Christ is mine. It would be remiss of me to suggest that I even know what Mr. Bush believes about Jesus (the Christ). I know nothing. But I do know that Christ is not a socialist or a capitalist; He is non-partisan, I hope, through and through. If Jesus is indeed God Incarnate, which the Church has asserted for nearly 2,000 years, then it seems reasonable to conclude that He loves both the poor and the rich, equally. He is no "respecter of persons," to quote the King James Version of the Christian Bible. Christ loves all (and confronts all, too).

With that said, please note the grotesque irony of Mr. Vince Isner's citing of the Jewish prophet Micah at the outset of Mr. Isner's alternative State of the Union address: "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" For Mr. Isner offers little mercy to those with whom he disagrees, particularly the President of the United States. And talk about "walking humbly." Read this by Mr. Isner and ask yourself if this is not the most gratuitous self-congratulation you've ever seen:

"As persons of faith and conscience we hold ourselves to a standard that measures more than our economic wealth and military might. We recognize that we are more than consumers, voters in red or blue states, taxpayers, polling numbers, demographics, target markets and all the rest. As human beings living together on this planet we know that we are, as the Judeo-Christian tradition reminds us – our brother's and our sister's keepers."

You see, Mr. Isner is not like them, not like those greed-freaks who only see GDP and net profits. Isner is MORE than a consumer; he is more than a militarist, a taxpayer, a polling number. He is deep, humane, genuine; a caregiver. Of course, a President of the United States ostensibly involved in running a country on secular principles is not really supposed to be interested in the ontological and moral dimensions of Mr. Isner's personality; that's the Church's job. But more importantly, Mr. Isner is convinced, or so his mercy suggests, that President Bush is less than human. Mr Isner is "more."

And then note this:

"We are also the living agents of Micah's prophetic call. So let us examine just how we are doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly."

It seems Mr. Isner believes we should assess the United States of America, its entire government, according to the strictures of a Jewish prophet (whose audience, by the way, was not American at all). Clearly, Americans should submit to the Left's most beloved sacred texts and toss to the wind the separation of Church and State. That, to the Left, is what they mean by "doing justice," I presume.

As for Mr. Isner's explicit statements about American justice, he enlightens us with this:

"Few of us would dare approach the Supreme Court and openly declare, 'My views are better, truer, and more important, than theirs and therefore you should interpret the law in light of me.'

"That is why special interests choose the BACK door when trying to influence the courts. Recently some well-funded and organized fundamentalist groups have used massive media events to help load the open seats on the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative judges sympathetic to their fundamentalist agenda. They even said that those who disagree with them are “against people of faith.”

This speech, I realize, is offered in the name of faith, even in the name of Christ. So let us take seriously what Mr. Isner says about the "back door" and "fundamentalist groups" in his, well, reductionistic and unmerciful look at his fellow citizens. One wonders what planet he is on, for there are all sorts of groups using the back door of the judiciary, leftists and rightists and yes, even "people of faith." Does anyone really believe that the "right to privacy" found in the Constitution justifying the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision walked through the judiciary's front door? Does anyone really think that "special interests" during the Alito hearings were not pounding on the back door of Senators Schumer, Leahy, Kerry and Kennedy's chambers to resist the electorate's will, which elected, through the front door, a President who would appoint justices sympathetic to his convictions? Come, Mr. Isner. Surely you think your ideas are better than others.' How else to explain your "alternative" speech. You don't take us for fools, do you?

And there's this true conundrum:

"People of faith in the United States of America do not march lock step [sic] to the drums of fundamentalism, and we must resist the claims of those who claim to speak for people of faith and conscience everywhere."

Hmm. Does Mr. Isner realize that he has just spoken for people of faith everywhere : "People of faith ... do not march lock step [sic] ..."? Oh, yes, they do, Mr. Isner. They march in lockstep to the drumbeats of the National Council of Churches.

I can't stop myself:

"It is an arrogant dinner guest who seizes the conversation and shouts his proclamation so loudly that nobody else can speak. That is why all who love their faith and their country must work to insure [sic] that everyone has a voice around the national table. It is only through dialogue, the free expression of ideas, and respect for all points of view can justice reach its full height."

So much for respecting the points of view of those with whom you disagree, Mr. Isner. And I guess it's not an act of arrogance for a man of "faith" to presume to draft and deliver an alternative State of the Union address. God forbid that Mr. Bush's views are part of the free expression of ideas.

Alas! I'm snowballing! Read on:

"The world has been shocked and outraged by the revelation that the U.S. has engaged ... in torture of its detainees. ... Yet using 9/11, the White House has tragically adopted a policy that bears little resemblance to the example of Christ."

So Christ is indeed the model for American governance. Unite theocrats everywhere! And now I know why I am not a theocrat, nor am I fit to be in the liberal Christian halls: I am too dumb! I mean, I don't understand this at all:

"Looking at the earth from space, only a degree or two separates shadow from light."

I am glad to know that not only is Mr. Isner humble, merciful and just, he is an astronaut.

And so much for kindness and not sowing seeds of fear:

"Congress' cruel and reckless decision to cut billions from aid programs may seem like a small shift in a massive budget, but that tiny shift is critical to those already on life's margins. The consequences will be real – in the form of more children frozen into lives of poverty, young people succumbing to the fever of despair, unable to afford an education. ... On February 1, the House will have one final chance to vote on what has been called one of the most immoral budgets in American History [sic]. If it passes, millions will suffer needlessly."

Congressmen are "cruel" and "reckless," poised to pass the most "immoral budget" in "American History," (which is a course offered at Mr. Isner's alma mater, I believe).

Lastly, let it be noted that in not one single paragraph of Mr. Isner's lengthy speech is there anything resembling an argument. Not one paragraph! Accusations abound, as do insinuations. But not one conclusion backed by evidence. For shame!

I think my point has been made, and it is not a fun one. The Religious Left is really nothing other than the Democratic Party platform in religious vestments. There is nothing distinctly new here, nor is there anything uniquely Christian. What there is is the use of religion to inform the State, and to silence criticism of the Left's religiously held agenda. It is the citation of Scripture in order to make subjective what should be objective: If God has spoken through Mr. Isner, who can disagree? You see, Mr. Isner claims to want to keep open a national dialogue, but it is mere lip-service. If "God has spoken through the prophets," what else, then, can be said?

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Photo: Ice melting from tree branch. Dublin Lake, Dublin, NH.]