Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Jay Bee
Published Letters: 55 Editor's Choice: 5
We supposedly "enlightened" members of the progressive wing of America (whatever that even means) all too often dismiss any sort of organized religion and then wonder why our children become raging fundamentalists (sometimes).
In all fairness, progressive churches tend to offer such a milquetoast melange of pseudo-spiritual pablum (I say this as a Unitarian Universalist - we are terribly guilty of this) that many humanists tend to avoid church altogether, since church might as well not be.
But how humanity craves that sense of being part of something bigger, something not completely explained! If you leave out some sort of faith community in a child's life, you can rest assured they'll find one later.
So for a start, take an eight-year old to a Pentecostal tent revival, complete with writhing and speaking in tongues. Keep them there until they are crying and want to go home. my father did this with me - called it "inoculation." It worked beautifully.
And then find a progressive church with some semblance of religion beyond regurgitating all other churches' "faith traditions" (read: shamelessly aping other faiths) and make it work for your family. That's worked pretty well for me.
Does anyone under the age of 40 watch the evening news? I mean, seriously? My point is that cranky old white men (I am thinking of my grandfather prior to Alzheimer's here) are the most inclined to dislike a woman anchor, especially one as ebullient as Couric.
Her assignment was a last-ditch and ill-fated attempt to stop the slide of what was once a respected part of the media landscape into three-minute paranoia fests (Are your kids on drugs? Are terrorists using the interwebs to take over the Social Security Administration?) interspersed by liberal doses of Metamucil and Enzyte ads.
Who in their right mind decides that the first debate on a major broadcast network in ages should consist of the kind of tripe we witnessed? I really don't care which (if either) candidate someone viewing this supports - this two-hour affront to the real issues was insulting to Obama and Clinton. I wanted to take both of them home and give them a beer by the end of this.
And what morons had the former press secretary for a president interviewing that president's wife? This, to me, is just additional proof of the incestuous nature of politics and the press. I'd feel better if a high school AV club and debate club co-hosted it.
The GOP believes that it may have a cakewalk to the White House if Democratic partisans continue sniping at each other. And perhaps they are right, and perhaps not.
Here's the thing: We have one candidate who speaks clearly and plainly about policy issues, how it's not fair for lunchbucket Dems who voted for Reagan, and she does a hell of a job of it.
The other candidate is all about change and hope and the future, and it all sounds exciting but to many, somewhat nebulous.
I suspect, however, that anyone winning the nomination will have to buckle down and get to brass tacks. But the issue is this: when I talk to Clinton supporters, I very often hear sentences beginning with "back in the 90's..." In fact, I heard this today.
Why is this an issue? Historically (OK, since FDR, at least), the Democrats have been about change, while the Republicans are about finding some glorious past which may or may not have ever been. If Democrats elevate someone who instills any sense of "going back", something a Clinton by association will inevitably do, branding becomes a problem. And as Clinton works more and more of her toughness, her experience, her credentialing into her speeches and interviews, her brand blurs more and more.
At what point do we have a problem sealing the deal? I don't know, but this concerns me greatly.
Clinton has certainly learned a lot from eight years of the Bush Administration's "Our View versus Reality" policy. I am in transportation consulting for a profession, and the idea that a candidate for President would consistently pander to the inane concept that a small reduction in the gas tax would somehow address the real issues that plague our economy is deeply troubling.
Our infrastructure is falling apart, pure and simple. It was less than a year ago that the I35 West bridge in Minneapolis collapsed. Are people forgetting this? Everyone in our business agrees that this is only the beginning. I see bridges posted, closed to trucks and buses. I see roadways with potholes and outdated designs.
But let's just get rid of the gas tax. Let's hope that roadways magically fix themselves. Or we can get real about our transportation issues.
...this raises an interesting point. I wouldn't mind seeing psychiatric evaluations for any party's candidate for President. We propose to put someone in charge of the nation's (still) over sized nuclear arsenal, much less our massive conventional military structure, and we aren't the least bit curious about that candidate's mental state?
"it is time to end the primacy of these two minor states in the beginning of primary season."
NH and Iowa are poor poster children for the nation as a whole. But what state would be a perfect representation? A national primary is the way to go.
...as if millions of pantsuits cried out in anger and were suddenly silenced...
Thanks - I've been wanting to drop that gem since February. Today seems like as good a day as any.
But seriously, I hope we can get down to the business of trashing Grampa McCrankyPants in earnest. I've waiting to go to town on that guy!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
