I've switched!
Hey everyone, I got a little tired of Blogger and switched to a different platform. Which means that my blog address has changed:
The United States of Jamerica at a new home
Friday, October 19, 2007
Sexual assault at Mr. Jefferson's University
Via U.Va's most recent journalistic endeavor, the Virginia Sentinel:
The number of sexual assaults is much lower than the top two crimes on UVa’s campus, only 12 in 2006, but police and assault counselors said such assaults are underreported.
Police reports show that sexual assaults decreased from 34 in 2005.
“One [sexual assault] is too many to have happen, but that’s not the reality,” UVa Lt. Melissa Fielding said.
Claire Kaplan, director of Sexual and Domestic Violence Services at the UVa Women’s Center, noted the decrease in last year’s number was random and that it varies each year.
Her office records of assaults totaled 58 in 2005. The number differs from police records because the Women’s Center includes emotional abuse and stalking.
“I wish there was a pattern,” she said, “but there isn’t one.”
The number of reports depends on whether sexual assault is the “issue du jour,” Kaplan added.
...............
UVa’s number of sexual assaults in 2006 was higher than VCU, JMU and the University of Richmond. VCU had five reported assaults last year and JMU and the University of Richmond had six each, as reported on the universities’ Web sites. ODU had 16 assaults in 2006. Since 2004, ODU reported more than 19 assaults each year.
Even with greater public awareness and support of the victims of sexual assault and rape, it remains one of the most unreported crimes in the United States. I'm certain that the statistics on sexual assault are far from complete on college campuses; shame, confusion, social pressure and feelings of personal blame all serve to press women into not reporting sexual assaults.
It also doesn't help that there are still plenty of people who are more than willing to blame the victim. The Cavalier Daily's own exercised her woman-blaming muscles earlier this spring:
And yet, women, at least in part, go to parties and wear revealing clothing for male attention. Whether they'll admit it or not, partying with male friends, having a man buy you a drink, and even occasionally going home with a cute pursuer sums up the after-hour goals of many collegiate females. Even the creepy guys add some flavor to the evening and make for a good laugh in the morning. Granted, girls will not go out without their girlfriends, but if partying consisted of "girls' night" every single night, there would be far less incentive for it. By the same token, when men party they are in search of female attention, and, probably to a greater extent, in search of sex. An all-male party is derided in colloquial language as a "sausage fest," referring to the overabundance of male genitalia. This is basically the dating scene and it is not always so innocent.
If women plan to do something about sexual violence, it cannot solely be through an emotionally healing confession hour. There must be collective, concerted action to tone down our sexualized culture by behaving more moderately and dressing more modestly.
As Amanda Marcotte notes though, women are targeted because they are women; no more, no less:
The myth I struggle against is that women can do something definitive to protect themselves, that there’s some sort of “good girl” ideal—feminist or patriarchal—that can prevent rape or domestic violence or other assaults upon your dignity. The abuse aimed at women comes because they are women and it is womanhood that’s hated, not specific manifestations of it, whether they are the good girl manifestation or the good feminist one.
The only real way to reduce sexual assault and rape on Grounds is through awareness, education and empowerment. U.Va's Office of Residence Life has done a fair job of making students - particularly first-years - aware of sexual assault and what constitutes sexual assault. Every member of Residence Staff at the University receives limited training in dealing with sexual assault and has the option of taking a seminar on working with victims of sexual assault.
Feminist organizations (and their allies) on Grounds have also done a good job of educating and spreading awareness. FIFE or "Feminism is For Everyone" co-sponsors Take Back the Night, a vigil dedicated to the victims of sexual assault. While 1 in 4 - a fraternity-based group - gives anti-sexual assault presentations to first-year students, as well as fraternities and other organizations*.
Regardless, the recent statistics ought to further motivate students to make the University a place where sexual assault is rare, and victims of sexual assault are accepted and affirmed.
*I arrange a 1 in 4 presentation for my residents and especially encourage them to attend TBTN, it's an event that more people should experience.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Song (and video) of the Day
Joe Cocker - "With a Little Help From My Friends" performed at Woodstock '69
Incredible.
It's us against the world
Kevin Drum writes:
Despite the fact that (a) presidential candidates are chosen via primary and (b) opinion polls all show wide rank-and-file GOP support for Giuliani, Land is convinced that it's "the establishment" that's screwing with evangelicals. These guys just can't escape a mindset in which they're a besieged minority constantly battling powerful elites who are determined to shut them down.
Evangelicals can't escape that mindset because it is an integral part of their identity, and more importantly, a crucial method of maintaining cohesiveness among evangelicals. From American Evangelicalism:
Evangelicalism appears, indeed, to construct and maintain its collective identity largely by its members drawing symbolic boundaries that create distinction between themselves and relevant outgroups.
............
Evangelicals, in other words, have fashioned themselves a very effective "sacred umbrella" under which to live. It is apparent that modern pluralism facilitates for evangelicalism conditions that promote the formation of a strong religious subculture, which sustains a self-perceived semi-"deviant" identity. Likewise, tension and conflict between evangelicals and relevant outgroups appear positively to strengthen evangelical identity, solidarity, resources mobilization, and membership retention.
Conservative evangelicals put serious stock in the Biblical message that "Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. (James 4:4)" Which leads to a default stance against the "secular world." A world which - because of the Fall - is in a permanent state of sin and is intrinsically oriented against Christians.
It's really not a very positive theology.
That WSJ piece on the religious left
I've been commenting on Ms. Schmitz's thoughts on the religious left, but haven't actually gotten around to reading the Wall Street Journal piece which prompted them. There's one passage in particular that I want to comment on:
In any event, the religious left’s sympathies do not seem to be those of churchgoers. While the NCC and its member churches pursue a variety of left-wing causes — even partnering with the activist organization MoveOn.org and featuring speakers like Michael Moore at events — a Pew poll found that 54% of white, mainline Protestants and 50% of Catholics voted Republican in the 2004 presidential elections. Those who attended church regularly voted Republican even more heavily — at nearly the same rate as evangelical Christians, in fact.
For four decades, as the leadership of America’s mainline churches has moved steadily leftward, those churches’ memberships declined as a percentage of the U.S. population while the number of Christian evangelicals exploded. Left-wing clerics may be buying greater political influence with their alliance through organized labor, but the price may be further alienating their shrinking flock.
You know, I'm not actually sure if political beliefs have anything to do with the decline in mainline congregations and the increase in conservative ones. Christian Smith writes in American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving:
In a pluralistic society, those religious groups will be relatively stronger which better possess and employ the cultural tools needed to create both clear distinction from and significant engagement and tension with other relevant outgroups, short of becoming genuinely countercultural.
In other words, evangelicalism thrives because it offers its adherents an attractive and compelling worldview that in some measure, sets itself apart from mainstream society. It is possible that people are leaving mainline churches because they lack this engagement with and limited separation from mainstream culture. Evangelicalism - through its emphasis on community and spreading the Gospel - is simply more compelling than mainline Protestantism, and the latter is suffering as a result.
Niebuhr on the Religious Left with some context
Elizabeth quotes a passage from Moral Man and Immoral Society:
Sentimentality is the peculiar vice of liberal Protestantism. By adjusting its faith to the spirit of modern culture it imbibed the evolutionary optimism and the romantic overestimates of human virtue, which characterized the though of the Enlightenment and of the Romantic Movement…
In spite of the disillusionment of the World War, the average liberal Protestant Christian is still convinced that the kingdom of God is gradually approaching, that the League of Nations is its partial fulfillment and the Kellogg Pact its covenant, that the wealthy will be persuaded by the church to dedicate their power and privilege to the common good and that they are doing so in increasing numbers, that the conversion of individuals is the only safe method of solving the social problem, and that such ethical weaknesses as religion still betrays are due to its theological obscurantism which will be sloughed off by the progress of the enlightenment.
The "liberal Protestantism" that Niebuhr is referring to isn't the same as the liberal evangelicalism that animates a large chunk of contemporary progressive Christianity and is only somewhat related to the theology of mainline Protestantism. What Niebuhr is referring to is the Social Gospel of the early 20th century as articulated by Walter Rauschenbusch. And Niebuhr's criticism is quite apt, Rauschenbusch was very much an idealist who believed in the inevitability of the Kingdom of God:
As long as organized sin is in the world, the Kingdom of God is characterized by conflict with evil. But if there were no evil, or after evil has been overcome, the Kingdom of God will still be the end to which God is lifting the race. It is realized not only by redemption, but also by the education of mankind and the revelation of his life within it.
Niebuhr's chief criticism (found in Children of Light and Children of Darkness) was that this idealism ignores the very concrete reality of original sin and the simple fact that humans are irrevocably flawed.
Considering that evangelicals of all stripes have largely the same position on original sin (it exists and can be forgiven but not overcome), I think it's likely that the liberal evangelicals who are growing in prominence don't believe in an ideal state that can be achieved by human striving. But instead hew closely to the belief that only Jesus can inaugurate the Kingdom of God.
Niebuhr's criticism is well-taken, but in this case, I don't think it applies.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
New blog!
You should check out flying.farther; it's the blog of a student at Union Theological Seminary and it's chock full of goodness.
Let's push things forward
This comment from Megan McArdle's post on Hillary Clinton is a good illustration of the problem I see with this country's current political culture:
Nah, we don't really like Hillary, in the way some other candidates have their groupies. We think, however, that she is the least likely to mess things up--in the campaign, or in the country for four or eight years thereafter. Do a little thought-experiment. Can you imagine Obama or Edwards seriously lousing-up a debate, or failing to deliver an effective counter-punch to the inevitable Republican attack? Yeah, I thought you could, and you don't need a novelist's flair, either. Now imagine Hillary doing any of that, even though she will be attacked more harshly and relentlessly. Can't do it, can you? Me either. This speaks to something creepy about her, of course, but I want a winner and she is it.
Part of me wants payback. The Bush years have been an unmitigated disaster for this country. 9/11 should have united this country. Instead, President Bush used that tragedy to divide the nation, and worst, used it to justify torture and lawlessness.
President Bush sacrificed the values of this nation to the false god of "security." And all Americans will be paying the price for the remainder of our lifetimes.
The desire for payback is understandable, but in these circumstances it's not healthy. The trivial partisanship this country has indulged in for almost thirty years has done little to help us move forward as a nation. Hillary Clinton is just another chapter in this long and tired chapter. This country doesn't need a "winner," it needs someone who takes politics seriously; someone who realizes that though there are substantive political differences, those shouldn't overtake the real problems and challenges this nation faces.
I think that for those who are serious about repudiating the legacy of the Bush-era, Obama is probably the best choice. Jumping on the Hillary bandwagon is only likely to give us Bush-era politics with a happy face.
Just say the magic word
The "Word of God" isn't an incantation that makes everything happy:
In post-game interviews, Rams receiver Isaac Bruce—who claims that uttering the word "Jesus" saved him from injury in a car crash and healed a pulled groin—described catching the winning pass: "That wasn't me. That was all God. … I had to make an adjustment on the ball, and God did the rest."
For Christians like these, God is no better than a magic spell.
Religion will always mix with politics
I completely disagree with Elizabeth in her discussion of religion and politics:
The rise of the religious left should not be a welcome development for those who’d prefer to keep religion out of politics and vice versa. One could argue it challenges the religious right. But can’t we do that from a secular standpoint? I don’t like the idea of politics devolving into a match between the religious right and the religious left over who represents ‘true Christianity’. Additionally, the demographics show people are more and more turning away from liberal/mainline religions to more conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist religion, so there’s questions over the real political pull this movement might have.
Further, even if one is sympathetic to the causes supported by the religious left, this development should be troubling. Surely religion does add fervor to any cause. But it also interjects the cloudiness of idealism into a discussion that should be about the concrete realities of what actually works in helping people in need.
Trying to prevent the intersection of religion and politics is a fools errand. Theological beliefs have concrete and compelling political implications. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the entire history of evangelical religions in general and Christianity in particular.
The larger issue though is whether or not religiously motivated politics are healthy in an ostensibly secular democracy. I think that they are. People are motivated to civic engagement for any number of reasons, including religion. The fact that some individuals and communities have theological beliefs as a foundation for their political beliefs doesn't mean that they are trying to establish a theocratic state or have some other nefarious intention in mind. Religiously-motivated political action and secular democracy isn't incompatible; you can be driven by religious beliefs but still operate within a secular framework.
I also kind of take issue with Elizabeth's conflation of conservative and evangelical forms of Christianity with fundamentalism. There is overlap between the groups, but they certainly aren't analogous. Conservatives are found in all Christian traditions, Protestant and otherwise; evangelical is a huge umbrella, and there is an astounding amount of variety in terms of belief and practice under it. Jim Wallis' progressive Sojourner's organization is just as evangelical as James Dobson's Focus on the Family; the difference lies in perspective and emphasis. Fundamentalists - though they have become more prominent in recent years - are still a very small minority of Christians and to some degree, are still skeptical of heavy political involvement.
Religion doesn't necessarily "inject the cloudiness of idealism" into the discussion. There are plenty of modern political theologians who urge a constraint and cautiousness towards engagement with politics. Reinhold Niebuhr was an avowed "Christian Realist"; his belief in the necessity of political engagement was tempered with a recognition that utopia was impossible and blind idealism is dangerous.
It's unfortunate that the Christian Right's shadow has overtaken the large and often positive role religion has played in our political consciousness. My hope is that the trend in a less divisive and more constructive Christian politics (conservative evangelical environmentalists for example) continues to grow and eventually overtakes the old and tired paradigm of the Christian Right, which substituted prejudice and militancy for revelation and theological insight.
You do realize
That the reason for expanding S-CHIP to traditionally "middle-class" families is that said families are unable to afford health care at market rates.
And you know, the crazy idea that children should be insured regardless of the income of their parents.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
This is horrible
From Essential Presence:
About 10 p.m. June 18, there was a knock on the door at the victim's home that now has boards over its windows. According to the police report, the "male" at the door told her the tires on her car were flat. When she went outside to check, masked gunmen rushed her and forced their way inside.
She was raped by about 10 men, according to the report. She was forced to have sex with her son. He was beaten and had cleaning liquid poured into his eyes. The suspects fled after about 20 minutes, according to the report.
Thoughts on selling out
The field negro asks "why do black folks sell out" without actually defining "selling out." If I had to offer a definition of "selling out," it would be this:
Those black people who knowingly integrate themselves within racist institutions and - as opposed to challenging said institutions - defend them in order to protect narrow interests.
I think it's a flexible and comprehensive definition. Why?
- It ignores ideology or political beliefs. A black liberal who refuses to acknowledge and confront the "soft" racism of his peers for fear of disapproval is just as bad as a conservative who gleefully advocates against the interests of blacks.
- It explains the motivation of sellouts. It's not necessarily a malevolence, it's just simply a desire to get ahead.
- It's broad enough to include all manners of behavior, but specific enough to exclude those who for example, work within the racist structure but refuse to condone or actively defend/bolster it.
The powerful Christian Right
I don't think that the Christian Right would splinter off if Giuliani won the nomination.
Why?
Because they can still make or break a candidate.
If they stay a part of the Republican coalition, they'll still wield a fairly large amount of power. Leaving the Republicans would be condemning the movement to powerlessness and obscurity.
The times they are-a changin'
Ruminating on the influence of money in politics, 'Fox' writes:
Interests with large amounts of cash have disproportionate political clout. This is usually bad, but the answer is not to try to get the money out of politics; the answer is try to get politics out of our lives. Drastically reduce the scope and power of the federal government to dole out favors (in other words, legitimately apply the Constitution to the current establishment) and I guarantee that a lot less money will be wasted on rent-seeking. By the same argument, leave the current powers in place, and it won’t matter how many hurdles you throw in the way of lobbyists–they will leap over, scramble under, dodge around, or just plain break though every last one. When your life is on the line, people become remarkably resourceful.
"I’m a staunch defender of individual freedom, and I truly believe that a limited government dedicated to the protection and preservation of the rights to life, liberty, and property is both the only morally justifiable government and the one most likely to effectively promote peace and prosperity."
A limited government simply isn't possible in the 21st century. And I don't mean on a practical level, I mean on a conceptual level. If the U.S. were an agrarian or even early industrial society, you could make a legit case for a small and relatively uninvolved government. But we're not. The United States is a large, diverse and complex nation that exists in an even larger, more diverse and more complex world. Individuals and civic associations aren't powerful enough to stand up to the force of market powers and market-based forces. The services and functions the government provides aren't there for their own sake: they exist to provide some degree of protection from market forces and "fill-in" the areas where the market fails. More importantly though, government exists to provide some degree of justice, to ensure that the outcomes of our economic system are - at the very least - fair.
Identity crisis, pt. 2!
Answer!
Who I date has no bearing on the validity of my identity. Regardless of who I date, I will always believe that to exist as a black person, is to be the inheritor of a rich and wonderful intellectual, social and cultural tradition. On the most fundamental level, black is beautiful.
My belief in the necessity of black solidarity stems from an honest conviction that black people should be proud of their blackness. And being proud of one's blackness is not incompatible with interracial dating. Interracial dating is only a problem when it is rooted in self-loathing; when the individual in question doesn't value their own identity as a member of a particular group.
I have many white friends, some of them very close to me, but I recognize that I am a black person; my experiences and perceptions will be vastly different then theirs. But I am proud of that, and I wouldn't wish for anything else.
Brown paper bag = tool of oppression
I can't seriously believe that this still fucking happens:
DETROIT -- A local DJ and party promoter retreated Thursday from a plan to sponsor a bash that would let "light-skinned" black women into a downtown club for free.
But the "Light Skin Libra Birthday Bash" at Club APT on Woodward Avenue turned out to be a bashing -- of promoter Ulysses "DJ Lish" Barnes after word of the unusual party spread on the Internet.
................
The issue of skin color is an often painful and emotional among African-Americans. The history of slavery and the resulting legacy of intra-racial segregation have sometimes pitted darker-skinned and lighter-skinned blacks against one another.
Congratulations on reinforcing the pervasive racist belief that the more "African" you look the less human you are.
Asshole.
Identity crisis!
Does being involved with a white girl invalidate my blackness?
Am I a "sell-out?"
Am I an "Uncle Tom?"
I recognize the all-pervasive reality of institutional racism and the racist power structure; does the fact of my relationship "cancel out" that opinion still?
Can I claim a belief in the necessity of black solidarity when I'm dating a white girl?
I've been looking for an answer but I keep on coming short.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Because that would be lame
I hope that Klein isn't aiming to marginalize or ridicule "the Left" in this post. As one commenter pointed out, the hard-left has had preposterously little influence in this country, as opposed to the hard-right, which controls one of the two major parties.
If anything - for all their inanity and occasional wrongness - we should be encouraging and promoting voices from the "far-left." Especially if we're aiming to arrest the rightward drift of this country's discourse, and put it on course towards a more sensible spectrum of opinions, where universal healthcare isn't considered Stalinism with a happy face.
A theology of the religious right?
Sojourners founder Jim Wallis writes about his experience at a recent conference hosted by the National Association of Evangelicals:
The speaker for the evening was none other than Ban-Ki Moon, the new secretary general of the United Nations, which is driving the MDG initiative. Growing up in the evangelical world, I remember the great debate about who was the real "Antichrist" as described in biblical prophecy--it was either the pope or the United Nations.
............
Last night, the supposed Antichrist was listening to gospel music, speaking of his own faith, quoting scripture, celebrating a new alliance with "the evangelical church" on the critical issues of poverty and global warming, and bringing the conservative Christian crowd to its feet in smiling agreement with the secretary's agenda.
Indeed, leader after leader insisted this was a biblical agenda. A prominent leader from the Religious Right came up to sit right next to me, and then engaged me in an amazing conversation about finding common ground. This dramatic shift in the public agenda of the evangelical community is affecting American politics in very significant ways and promises to change them, especially if the political labels of left and right slowly slip away and are replaced by a common commitment to focus on the key moral issues of our time. Those issues are now defined more broadly and deeply than before and include the plight of God's poorest children and the fragile state of God's creation.
I suspect that the thirty years of political activity by the religious right may have had an effect on the actual theological views of politically active conservative evangelicals. I've been tossing this around in my head for awhile, and I still am no where close to an answer, but it's something that I think is worth investigating (and it's a possible thesis idea).
The awesomeness of unlimited executive power
AltHippo writes:
What Pelosi calls “bringing the people together” is a favorable Democratic outcome in 2008, at whatever price that entails. She doesn’t understand that people have a fundamental need to live in a just and equitable society. To betray that need is just the opposite of a “return to an America that honors the vision of our founders.” The effect of her inaction is that the Chief Executive can do whatever he wants without consequence.
That is not what our founding fathers had in mind.
This is becoming a common refrain, but it's a mistake to assume that the Democratic leadership is actually opposed to unlimited executive power.
Comment Response - Global Warming and the Rapture
Commenter scott writes:
The liberal canard that Chritians want global warming so they get to the rapture soner is garbage. I'm not a church goer but I know enough about the bible and Christians to know that's a scam conceived by libs. Global warming is occurring, we all agree on that. The question that's not been answered is how much does man play into it? I own an environmental consulting firm and know the topic well, Al Gore played way loose and way fast with the facts. I can make environmental studies say anything you want. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for crying out loud, he won while a woman who rescued 2,500 kids during the Holocaust didn't. Ahh whatever, libs will never get it.
Let's start from the top.
First, I didn't make the broad and unreasonable generalization that Christians want global warming so the Rapture will occur sooner. Here is what I did say:
War and disaster are - for pre-millennial dispensationalists - also signs of the Rapture and the Great Tribulation. PMDs (a fair number of conservative evangelicals and almost all fundamentalists) believe that humanity has been on a downward spiral* since the glory days of the Garden, and that once the nadir of human existence comes, Christ will return and his enemies will be crushed by the force of divine retribution!
Granted it was a little glib, but I think the point is a sound one. It's not that pre-millennial dispensationalists (a subset of Christians) believe that they can hasten the Rapture by encouraging global warming and such, it's that such calamities and conflicts are signs of the Rapture.
Second. This theology was not created by liberals. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you want proof, go by a bookstore and pick up a couple copies of the Left Behind series of novels. They are an excellent primer on the belief system of PMDs and (even better) they come from within the tradition.
And I'm going to ignore the rest, because it's rambling and superfluous.
Thanks for commenting though.
Which Constitution are you reading?
Someone should take a class in reading comprehension:
Let’s step back and ask a simple question: Did the Founding Fathers envision letting the Legislative Branch attach strings that hindered the Executive Branch’s ability to protect us from attacks? I’m not a constitutional scholar but, after reading the Constitution, it’s apparent that they intended for the Executive Branch to be in charge of national security and that the Legislative Branch only had oversight responsibilities.
Really, because when I glanced over at the Constitution, this is what I read:
Section 8: The Congress shall have power
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
........
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Now let's look at the executive's powers:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Did you get the two mixed up? Since it looks like the executive only has an oversight rule, while the legislature pretty much controls the operation of the armed forces.
This was another edition of "Actually reading the texts you cite."
Sunday, October 14, 2007
More death & destruction = more Jesus!
Speculating on conservative dislike of global warming advocates (read: Al Gore), Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon writes:
What if part of the conservative hostility towards the reality of global warming comes from a whisper of a hope for that worldwide trauma? War and disaster is good for business, after all. Just a thought.
War and disaster are - for pre-millennial dispensationalists - also signs of the Rapture and the Great Tribulation. PMDs (a fair number of conservative evangelicals and almost all fundamentalists) believe that humanity has been on a downward spiral* since the glory days of the Garden, and that once the nadir of human existence comes, Christ will return and his enemies will be crushed by the force of divine retribution!
For our borderline heretical fellow citizens, catastrophic disasters, wars and "rumors of wars" are a good thing. So good in fact, that as opposed to trying to prevent them, we should be actively encouraging them. Hence the opposition to diplomacy, disarmament and attempts to stem global warming. Because to do otherwise would be a direct violation of God's will.
To be honest, I'd really like to meet the God that those guys worship, since he sounds like a huge jerk who hasn't even bothered to read the holy book that he inspired.
*Not so subtle Nine Inch Nails reference.
Damn the masses that got me elected
Nancy Pelosi says: to hell with "the people!" Why should I have to listen to the petulant filth who support me? Do they think this is a democracy:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs.
But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq.
"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."
Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."
Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething.
"We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."
I oscillate between hoping that our system isn't permanently broken and despairing that it is; Nancy Pelosi's disdain for the process of democracy is enough to push me into the latter state. What's worse is that I'm pretty certain that the majority of Democratic "leaders" hold similar if not exact attitudes towards "the base," or those Americans who actually want this country to change.
It's fairly clear that the majority of Beltway Democrats aren't actually concerned with repudiating the values of the Bush administration and restoring some semblance of democracy: they just want some space at the trough.
(h/t to Pandagon)
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
