I'm truly curious about some of the new ideas John McCain has embraced now that he's the national party's presumptive nominee for president. I say "truly" because I really want to know how these changes came about. What new information has he become privy to that changed his mind. Perhaps mine will be changed too. It's happened. I've always argued that there's an important distinction between "flip-floppery" and growth. (an argument I often lost when using John Kerry as the example)
I also fully understand that when a politician makes his way from independent local maverick to national party nominee, he's got to take on some of the party's planks even if they conflict with his (or her) long-held or at least -espoused beliefs. So I'm really not being facetious here, but rather, seeking to understand better how someone like Senator McCain, for whom I've professed my love as an independent, non-partisan, roll up the sleeves and get to work, servant of the American public many times before, can do 180s on some issues I would have thought he'd hold onto regardless of party pressures.
Let's start with abortion. McCain's shifted position on this issue is dear to my heart precisely because it's the last thing that should ever come up in a presidential campaign featuring two male candidates. Yep, you've heard me say it before and I'll say it again, abortion is the last issue I'd ever ask about when vetting a presidential candidate. When I run for president, I'll refuse to comment on it. The immediate issues facing the world's most powerful leader render the abortion debate senseless, moot, irrelevant. Stupid to even bring it up. And since it's a non issue, I'd think McCain would just keep to himself about it. Or at least keep to what he used to say he believed about it. After all, these are usually very personal, private, deeply held beliefs, not something subject to change based solely on elect-ablility. So I'm curious as to what the National Republican Party placed before him to change his mind. Perhaps, contrary to what President Bush says about diplomacy, there's an argument I haven't heard. I'm nothing if not curious.
Likewise, his stance on gay marriage seems to be evolving. He voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage and he supported California's Prop 8 to allow gay marriage in that state, yet he's sounding more and more like the party line against it these days adding "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" whenever he talks about it and arguing in favor of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in spite of recognizing the need for more troops as well as being extremely proud, in his own words, of ALL of our troops. I'll buy his "it's an issue best left to the states" argument on the marriage part, but when it comes to everything concerning the rights of gay people, I not only need to know what changed McCain's mind, but where his mind might eventually settle. We'll leave that one out for now.
The last and most important issue now, but one that will be completely irrelevant in just a few more months, was McCain's position on running a positive, clean campaign. Let's argue our own merits and platforms and leave the other guy to argue for his own is what he used to profess and yet, the last two commercials McCain's campaign has aired, at least in my part of the country spend 25 of their 30 seconds talking about Obama. McCain has criticized something Obama has done on the campaign trail in every speech I've seen aired for the last two weeks. In fact, after concluding his own Middle Eastern and European tour, McCain now criticizes Obama for doing the same thing, making many of the same stops. Not only has he changed his mind about running a positive campaign, he seems to have changed his mind about where a candidate is allowed to visit as well. I expect such hypocrisy from the Party in general, but not from the maverick from Arizona! This guy didn't cave after 5 years of torture and enslavement, but he folds to his sometimes party like a well worn laundry?!
I'm suddenly changing my mind about this election being the first in my lifetime that offers something better than just the lesser of two evils. McCain's lack of focus, infamous temper, and sudden willingness to conform to his party's every whim in spite of his successful career based on just the opposite have all but convinced me the man is not fit for the White House. I can't tell you how disappointed I am to actually begin considering this after the hope with which I began watching this race unfold.
What kills me now is, how is McCain even remaining as close to Obama as he is? The conservatives don't like him. No one seems to like the Republican Party anymore. His campaign has suffered key personnel losses and a seeming lack of focus and yet he's trailing Mr. Charisma and the finest tuned campaign since Reagan's by only a few points. Do people still believe Obama's a Muslim contracted to infiltrate us? Or are we really that racist yet? Do folks not understand that he trailed Hillary's political experience by only one year? Does the fact that the most sought after Harvard Law graduate gave up offers from prestigious firms to go back and work to reclaim the neighborhoods where he grew up in Chicago not counter the specious cries of "elitist?" And even if it doesn't, haven't we learned that an elite president might just be a little more effective than "the one you'd rather have a beer with?"
Go Tribe!
(yeah, I've seen their record... this will very shortly be replaced with Go Browns!)
Luth,
Out
*look it up... although this is the original figure of speech, what McCain is doing these days is more closely described by the mistaken "towing the line." Ha, that's pretty funny!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Mailing List
I got this from the Ohio Republican Party in tonight's email:
Outrageous and offensive.
There’s just no other way to describe the gutter campaign tactic the Obama campaign pulled Sunday.
“I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.” That’s what Obama spokesman Gen. Wesley Clark said Sunday on national television.
Sadly, it’s not the first time the Democrats have tried to smear John McCain’s war record, and it won’t be the last.
Will you contribute $100, $250, or $500 today to help us push back?
We’re building an Ohio defense fund to counter these insidious attacks by Sen. Obama and his supporters.
John McCain spent five years being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. His heroic service to our nation stands in stark contrast to Sen. Obama’s thin record (that doesn’t contain a single day of military duty).
Please help us fight back.
Your contribution of $100, $250, or $500 will help us build a defense fund here in Ohio so we can counter these slash and burn tactics by a candidate who promised a “new” kind of politics but delivers more of the same.
Kevin DeWine
Deputy Chairman
I don't know what's funnier... that I'm on their mailing list, or that this is considered outrageous and offensive after what the Bush administration did to Gen. Wesley Clark or what Republican Representative Saxby Chambliss did to Vietnam Vet and triple amputee, Max Cleland, or what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry or what W's DD214 did for him... oh wait, the department of defense's official records don't count for anything. (Cleland, for those of you who have forgotten this real hero already, left three major body parts in Vietnam then came home to serve as the Georgia Representative until Chambliss, who avoided duty in Vietnam with a bad knee, questioned his patriotism - QUESTIONED HIS PATRIOTISM! and got away with it to beat him for the rep seat.) To me, that kinda makes Clark's comments pretty insignificant, pretty "who gives a shit?" even if I'll admit that I may not have said it out loud myself. Seriously... outrageous and offensive? Just stop.
Before I go on, let me reiterate that I had a lot of respect for Senator McCain as much for his military service as for his bipartisan git r done-ness in the senate. He was one of few congressmen who remembered that he was elected to work for us, not sulk or smirk from one side of the aisle. He put ego and party aside and continued to debate and discuss until compromise was reached and the work got done... but that was before he underwent the transformation to become a national party figure.
NOTE: the following is true of BOTH parties: Apparently rising to the top of national party politics even castrates otherwise hardworking, common sense guys like Sen. McCain. It's sad, really. His purposeful and blatant distancing from Bush made him much more likable a year or two ago than I find him now. I truly felt that for the first time in my voting life I would experience an election that might actually turn out ok for the nation regardless of the winner as opposed to being a matter of desperately pleading on behalf of the lesser of two evils. That all changed as McCain's rhetoric changed to match that of his party. In other words, I was cool with both candidates until McCain opens his mouth lately.
Back to the Ohio Republican Party newsletter: Since Clark's comments were on behalf of the party I'm backing this year, I'll admit that I'm not real proud of what he said. I mean it's something I've always thought - it's not like McCain (or any other detainee or downed fighter pilot) tried to get shot down and become a prisoner (I hope) And how does being shot down qualify one to lead? Right? But even I wouldn't say that out loud in the context of a national campaign. Surviving what McCain did ranks right up close to the ultimate sacrifice. So I wouldn't say what Clark said to the press, from a position of prominence, during a campaign. I'd say it in a bar. In fact, I think I have, seriously... if it were a democrat wouldn't repubs say the same thing? But that don't make it right for a national figure to say publicly during the campaign.
And then there's the whole "smearing a war record" part. Hello, can you say "swift boat veterans?" But what are the Ohio Repubs worried about anyway? War record smearing only hurts Democrats. W's war record didn't even need smearing. The record itself was a smear. The fact that he couldn't even fulfill his National Guard "get of Vietnam free" pass and still got elected twice is a pretty good argument that war records of Republicans will not be considered as detrimental to their careers.
But seriously, Ohio Republican Party... outrageous and offensive? In modern campaign terms? More so than the Swift Boat Veteran ads criticizing a decorated active duty officer while a National Guard deserter gets re-elected? More so than questioning a disabled combat veteran triple amputee congressman's patriotism? Really? No, REALLY?
And how in the hell did I end up on your mailing list? Now that's outrageous! (a guy buys one semi-automatic weapon and suddenly the NRA and the Republican Party assume he'll hand over all his money!)
Luth,
Out
PS I apologize for the previous post - not the content, but the terrible writing. I just couldn't go to bed yet and had to spew something.
Outrageous and offensive.
There’s just no other way to describe the gutter campaign tactic the Obama campaign pulled Sunday.
“I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.” That’s what Obama spokesman Gen. Wesley Clark said Sunday on national television.
Sadly, it’s not the first time the Democrats have tried to smear John McCain’s war record, and it won’t be the last.
Will you contribute $100, $250, or $500 today to help us push back?
We’re building an Ohio defense fund to counter these insidious attacks by Sen. Obama and his supporters.
John McCain spent five years being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. His heroic service to our nation stands in stark contrast to Sen. Obama’s thin record (that doesn’t contain a single day of military duty).
Please help us fight back.
Your contribution of $100, $250, or $500 will help us build a defense fund here in Ohio so we can counter these slash and burn tactics by a candidate who promised a “new” kind of politics but delivers more of the same.
Kevin DeWine
Deputy Chairman
I don't know what's funnier... that I'm on their mailing list, or that this is considered outrageous and offensive after what the Bush administration did to Gen. Wesley Clark or what Republican Representative Saxby Chambliss did to Vietnam Vet and triple amputee, Max Cleland, or what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry or what W's DD214 did for him... oh wait, the department of defense's official records don't count for anything. (Cleland, for those of you who have forgotten this real hero already, left three major body parts in Vietnam then came home to serve as the Georgia Representative until Chambliss, who avoided duty in Vietnam with a bad knee, questioned his patriotism - QUESTIONED HIS PATRIOTISM! and got away with it to beat him for the rep seat.) To me, that kinda makes Clark's comments pretty insignificant, pretty "who gives a shit?" even if I'll admit that I may not have said it out loud myself. Seriously... outrageous and offensive? Just stop.
Before I go on, let me reiterate that I had a lot of respect for Senator McCain as much for his military service as for his bipartisan git r done-ness in the senate. He was one of few congressmen who remembered that he was elected to work for us, not sulk or smirk from one side of the aisle. He put ego and party aside and continued to debate and discuss until compromise was reached and the work got done... but that was before he underwent the transformation to become a national party figure.
NOTE: the following is true of BOTH parties: Apparently rising to the top of national party politics even castrates otherwise hardworking, common sense guys like Sen. McCain. It's sad, really. His purposeful and blatant distancing from Bush made him much more likable a year or two ago than I find him now. I truly felt that for the first time in my voting life I would experience an election that might actually turn out ok for the nation regardless of the winner as opposed to being a matter of desperately pleading on behalf of the lesser of two evils. That all changed as McCain's rhetoric changed to match that of his party. In other words, I was cool with both candidates until McCain opens his mouth lately.
Back to the Ohio Republican Party newsletter: Since Clark's comments were on behalf of the party I'm backing this year, I'll admit that I'm not real proud of what he said. I mean it's something I've always thought - it's not like McCain (or any other detainee or downed fighter pilot) tried to get shot down and become a prisoner (I hope) And how does being shot down qualify one to lead? Right? But even I wouldn't say that out loud in the context of a national campaign. Surviving what McCain did ranks right up close to the ultimate sacrifice. So I wouldn't say what Clark said to the press, from a position of prominence, during a campaign. I'd say it in a bar. In fact, I think I have, seriously... if it were a democrat wouldn't repubs say the same thing? But that don't make it right for a national figure to say publicly during the campaign.
And then there's the whole "smearing a war record" part. Hello, can you say "swift boat veterans?" But what are the Ohio Repubs worried about anyway? War record smearing only hurts Democrats. W's war record didn't even need smearing. The record itself was a smear. The fact that he couldn't even fulfill his National Guard "get of Vietnam free" pass and still got elected twice is a pretty good argument that war records of Republicans will not be considered as detrimental to their careers.
But seriously, Ohio Republican Party... outrageous and offensive? In modern campaign terms? More so than the Swift Boat Veteran ads criticizing a decorated active duty officer while a National Guard deserter gets re-elected? More so than questioning a disabled combat veteran triple amputee congressman's patriotism? Really? No, REALLY?
And how in the hell did I end up on your mailing list? Now that's outrageous! (a guy buys one semi-automatic weapon and suddenly the NRA and the Republican Party assume he'll hand over all his money!)
Luth,
Out
PS I apologize for the previous post - not the content, but the terrible writing. I just couldn't go to bed yet and had to spew something.
Monday, June 30, 2008
A coupla things...
The conversations at the lunch table at work are the stuff that would have me stop back there even after they recognize me for the fraud that I am and fire me. Part high school locker room put downs, part philosophy of life, wholly entertaining on a variety of levels. In fact, I need to get the lunch crowd's input on this friend of mine who can't vote for Obama because every time he's been laid off, there's been a Democrat in office and in spite of paying more and more in taxes, he's never qualified for any relief during those layoffs. Now this friend is laid off again - he's a rocket scientist, seriously - and he seems to have overlooked the whole party thing... and the higher taxes we're all paying... and the cost of everything going up... and so his argument seems to be that he wants to pay less taxes because he's tired of the government programs they support, but he wants more support from the government when he's not paying any taxes at all? Is that the Republican philosophy? Don't contribute, complain about social programs, then cry cuz you don't qualify for social programs?
But before we get to that, I have to unload a couple of things that I noticed this weekend. The Family Luther was out and about quite a bit to include dinner, ice cream, and a trip to the zoo. During all of this, and even before, come to think of it, I began to notice the increasing number of guys who, as a result of even the initial stages of male pattern baldness, have shaved their heads completely bald. Luth's fashion statement: shaving your head bald in order to hide going bald is an overdone fashion trend that needs to move on.
Doesn't anyone else find that almost as creepy as the comb-over? When Michael Jordan made it cool to be bald again, it wasn't so bad, but that was what, 10, 15 years ago? I was even entertained by some guys I met in the Air Force back then who were questioned about being skinheads because they had followed Jordan's trend. How funny is that? But they were goofy youngsters at the time, with full heads of hair waiting for them when they were done rebelling. They also had to comply with the Air Force's grooming standards, so their options were pretty restricted to begin with. In fact, one of the rules of Air Force grooming is something like "extreme styles should be avoided," and arguably, shaving one's full head of hair completely bald could certainly be considered extreme. I'm sure that's how their first sergeant explained it. I even heard a story, perhaps a military urban legend about a kid who had shaved his head bald before basic training so as not to be picked on, but then was stuck with the "fat boy" flight until his hair grew out before he was allowed to join the actual training flight. Ok, back to the point, which was...???
Now, just to be clear here, when you're almost completely bald anyway, or say, bald with very thin hair to begin with, then shaving your head is a legit option. Why fight it, eh? And this isn't about how someone looks when they're bald. I don't even want to get into the whole, "well some guys look cool bald" fight. We'll get into our society's stupid obsession with appearances later. I'm not talking about that. What I'm talking about is the decision to try to maintain some semblance of youth by shaving one's mid-life balding pattern because it's the cool thing that young guys do nowadays. I'm telling you 30-somethings, it ain't workin' any better than your uncle's comb-over. Give it up.
I'm sure this is connected: does anyone remember how long it's been that military hairstyles were cool? When I was in college, it was pretty easy to spot the guys in ROTC. They were the only ones with those haircuts. If you hit a college campus these days, or a high school, or a mall, you'd think everyone had signed up and hit the post barber shop. When did that become fashionable? There are religions that prohibit mustaches to avoid the look of a military man, and hippies used to buy short haired wigs in order to hide their long hair to do their guard or reserve weekend duty in order to avoid being drafted into "the real military." Now everyone wants to look like they're in?? I guess 9/11 at least made service to one's country cool again, but I don't know if that's really enough to influence fashion.
It's funny, Ray suggested I take a look at another 'blog wherein a guy referenced the same article about ties that I wrote about last post. That fella argued that clothes do in fact make the man and while I disagreed, I know what he meant. The impression that I made upon a previous employer proves both sides of that fight. About ten years ago I picked out my standard "interview ensemble" of a navy blazer, khakis, a light blue button down dress shirt, and a gold tie and I set out for two interviews one Saturday morning to be an English teacher.
I don't own a suit and if I did at the time, it probably didn't fit anymore, so that was the best I could do. With my military haircut, smart guy glasses and these clothes, I'm pretty sure the guy who hired me thought he was getting a conservative mid-westerner who had proven himself with a couple years of subbing and one contracted year of teaching in my very own classroom. (Only later did I realize what a good catch that made me... proven, but just barely, and therefore cheap) Anyone reading this right now knows that the conservative part couldn't be further from the reality. It didn't take them long to realize they'd invited a bit of an oddball into their very tight, very conservative, very Catholic community.
So did the clothes make the man? There's no arguing they helped get me the job, but were they "me." We know the answer to that and it's just one small part of my point about appearances. I wore a tie to that school almost every day that I taught there. I did this for the administrators and a handful of parents, not for the students, who will read through sham quicker than they're ever given credit for. So did the clothes make me? Did they help my students meet the state's educational objectives? Dumb question isn't it?
Let's get back to the headwear. The topic of religion often comes up at work and today was no exception. A few of us were discussing the appropriateness of having an email signature with a religious message. I am often tempted to create my own version of these. One that I receive quite often is a cute little cloud with the sentence, "May God smile upon you today." I have a few in mind I'd like to send back like: "May Hera protect you from Zeus's wrath" or "May Hades reunite you with your passed loved ones" (not that I wish anyone dead, but you know...)or "May the breast of Isis nourish and fulfill you" or, my favorite, "May Thor's thunder cloak you from the missionaries and protect your culture from the Christians." I'd include a cute little picture of the appropriate deity so they'd know I was just wishing them well.
Anyway, today's lunch table discussion actually grew out of a chain email somebody received about Pepsi listing the Pledge of Allegiance on cans without the "under God" congressional addendum... which turned out to be a completely misguided rumor possibly originating from a Dr. Pepper can on which appeared a line or two similar to lines from the pledge, but not the entire pledge, and thus, not "missing" the God part, as clarified by Snopes. But that alone wasn't enough to sustain religious conversation in a government workplace among people who like to keep their jobs. What really did it was a reminder, during these summer months and on casual Fridays, of the dress and appearance standards that our boss passed along from HR just in case anyone was thinking of wearing beach attire to work. The line that struck me, and that I injected into the conversation, fell under the category: Clothing, subcategory: Accessories and it went something like this: "Headwear is not permitted in our medical center unless part of a uniform, for religious reasons, or as part of required safety gear."
So I'm thinking that once the Tribe gets their poop back in a group after the all-star break, I'll wear my Tribe hat to work because I'll start "worshipping" them again. I mean, c'mon - is headwear permitted or isn't it? If there's a logical reason for not having it on at work, then why would religious headwear be the exception?
I know times have changed. After all, when I was a kid, men didn't wear hats indoors at all unless they were cops or military guards on duty and carrying a weapon... apparently it wasn't safe to take your hat off when you went inside if your job required you to also carry a weapon?? But now people wear hats inside all the time... especially bald guys who think they're fooling someone by covering their heads!
Ohhh. Now I get it.
Sorry to have bothered you.
A swiftly balding Luth
But before we get to that, I have to unload a couple of things that I noticed this weekend. The Family Luther was out and about quite a bit to include dinner, ice cream, and a trip to the zoo. During all of this, and even before, come to think of it, I began to notice the increasing number of guys who, as a result of even the initial stages of male pattern baldness, have shaved their heads completely bald. Luth's fashion statement: shaving your head bald in order to hide going bald is an overdone fashion trend that needs to move on.
Doesn't anyone else find that almost as creepy as the comb-over? When Michael Jordan made it cool to be bald again, it wasn't so bad, but that was what, 10, 15 years ago? I was even entertained by some guys I met in the Air Force back then who were questioned about being skinheads because they had followed Jordan's trend. How funny is that? But they were goofy youngsters at the time, with full heads of hair waiting for them when they were done rebelling. They also had to comply with the Air Force's grooming standards, so their options were pretty restricted to begin with. In fact, one of the rules of Air Force grooming is something like "extreme styles should be avoided," and arguably, shaving one's full head of hair completely bald could certainly be considered extreme. I'm sure that's how their first sergeant explained it. I even heard a story, perhaps a military urban legend about a kid who had shaved his head bald before basic training so as not to be picked on, but then was stuck with the "fat boy" flight until his hair grew out before he was allowed to join the actual training flight. Ok, back to the point, which was...???
Now, just to be clear here, when you're almost completely bald anyway, or say, bald with very thin hair to begin with, then shaving your head is a legit option. Why fight it, eh? And this isn't about how someone looks when they're bald. I don't even want to get into the whole, "well some guys look cool bald" fight. We'll get into our society's stupid obsession with appearances later. I'm not talking about that. What I'm talking about is the decision to try to maintain some semblance of youth by shaving one's mid-life balding pattern because it's the cool thing that young guys do nowadays. I'm telling you 30-somethings, it ain't workin' any better than your uncle's comb-over. Give it up.
I'm sure this is connected: does anyone remember how long it's been that military hairstyles were cool? When I was in college, it was pretty easy to spot the guys in ROTC. They were the only ones with those haircuts. If you hit a college campus these days, or a high school, or a mall, you'd think everyone had signed up and hit the post barber shop. When did that become fashionable? There are religions that prohibit mustaches to avoid the look of a military man, and hippies used to buy short haired wigs in order to hide their long hair to do their guard or reserve weekend duty in order to avoid being drafted into "the real military." Now everyone wants to look like they're in?? I guess 9/11 at least made service to one's country cool again, but I don't know if that's really enough to influence fashion.
It's funny, Ray suggested I take a look at another 'blog wherein a guy referenced the same article about ties that I wrote about last post. That fella argued that clothes do in fact make the man and while I disagreed, I know what he meant. The impression that I made upon a previous employer proves both sides of that fight. About ten years ago I picked out my standard "interview ensemble" of a navy blazer, khakis, a light blue button down dress shirt, and a gold tie and I set out for two interviews one Saturday morning to be an English teacher.
I don't own a suit and if I did at the time, it probably didn't fit anymore, so that was the best I could do. With my military haircut, smart guy glasses and these clothes, I'm pretty sure the guy who hired me thought he was getting a conservative mid-westerner who had proven himself with a couple years of subbing and one contracted year of teaching in my very own classroom. (Only later did I realize what a good catch that made me... proven, but just barely, and therefore cheap) Anyone reading this right now knows that the conservative part couldn't be further from the reality. It didn't take them long to realize they'd invited a bit of an oddball into their very tight, very conservative, very Catholic community.
So did the clothes make the man? There's no arguing they helped get me the job, but were they "me." We know the answer to that and it's just one small part of my point about appearances. I wore a tie to that school almost every day that I taught there. I did this for the administrators and a handful of parents, not for the students, who will read through sham quicker than they're ever given credit for. So did the clothes make me? Did they help my students meet the state's educational objectives? Dumb question isn't it?
Let's get back to the headwear. The topic of religion often comes up at work and today was no exception. A few of us were discussing the appropriateness of having an email signature with a religious message. I am often tempted to create my own version of these. One that I receive quite often is a cute little cloud with the sentence, "May God smile upon you today." I have a few in mind I'd like to send back like: "May Hera protect you from Zeus's wrath" or "May Hades reunite you with your passed loved ones" (not that I wish anyone dead, but you know...)or "May the breast of Isis nourish and fulfill you" or, my favorite, "May Thor's thunder cloak you from the missionaries and protect your culture from the Christians." I'd include a cute little picture of the appropriate deity so they'd know I was just wishing them well.
Anyway, today's lunch table discussion actually grew out of a chain email somebody received about Pepsi listing the Pledge of Allegiance on cans without the "under God" congressional addendum... which turned out to be a completely misguided rumor possibly originating from a Dr. Pepper can on which appeared a line or two similar to lines from the pledge, but not the entire pledge, and thus, not "missing" the God part, as clarified by Snopes. But that alone wasn't enough to sustain religious conversation in a government workplace among people who like to keep their jobs. What really did it was a reminder, during these summer months and on casual Fridays, of the dress and appearance standards that our boss passed along from HR just in case anyone was thinking of wearing beach attire to work. The line that struck me, and that I injected into the conversation, fell under the category: Clothing, subcategory: Accessories and it went something like this: "Headwear is not permitted in our medical center unless part of a uniform, for religious reasons, or as part of required safety gear."
So I'm thinking that once the Tribe gets their poop back in a group after the all-star break, I'll wear my Tribe hat to work because I'll start "worshipping" them again. I mean, c'mon - is headwear permitted or isn't it? If there's a logical reason for not having it on at work, then why would religious headwear be the exception?
I know times have changed. After all, when I was a kid, men didn't wear hats indoors at all unless they were cops or military guards on duty and carrying a weapon... apparently it wasn't safe to take your hat off when you went inside if your job required you to also carry a weapon?? But now people wear hats inside all the time... especially bald guys who think they're fooling someone by covering their heads!
Ohhh. Now I get it.
Sorry to have bothered you.
A swiftly balding Luth
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Tie's demise?
When Ray Smith wrote his Wall Street Journal article on the dissolution of the "Men's Dress Furnishings Association" it sounded more like an obituary for the tie.
I did not not weep.
Gerald Anderson, former head of the trade organization that dissolved when membership dropped from 120 in the 80's down to just 25 this year, says changes in the industry led to the organization's end, not the end of the tie, but less than 6% of men in a Gallup survey said they wear a tie to work everyday, down from only 10% in 2002.
So is the tie dead? I doubt it. Anderson pointed out in an NPR interview that the next generation will probably wear them more than the boomers just to be different from them. After all, no one wants to dress like their dad. Boomer dads dress more like Jimmy Buffet than Warren Buffet and since Warren has achieved rock star popularity, who knows?
What I know is that my sense of fashion, or lack thereof, comes from comfort and utility, and other than occasionally using my tie to clean my glasses, that particular piece of accessory serves NO frigging purpose. Andt hey sure and hell aren't comfortable.
I used to playfully criticize women in general for putting up with ridiculous, sexist, and antiquated dress codes that required hose, yet men have put up with spoken or unspoken tie requirements right along with them. When I taught in the classroom, I always said my students wouldn't fall for a tie in place of my sincerity or dedication. I still believe that, though I wore a tie almost every day that I taught... it wasn't for the students... it was for the folks who, by and large, didn't matter now that I think about it.
If the downfall of this organization correlates at all with the demise of the tie itself, it will be a better world for it. We can keep them in our closets for old time sake, and break them out when we feel like being goofy... or when we're too lazy to act in ways that ties are supposed to represent, but let's hope the days of HAVING to wear them are gone. Who's with me?!
I don't suppose ritually burning ties would pick up the same momentum or interest as buring bras, eh?
Luth
I did not not weep.
Gerald Anderson, former head of the trade organization that dissolved when membership dropped from 120 in the 80's down to just 25 this year, says changes in the industry led to the organization's end, not the end of the tie, but less than 6% of men in a Gallup survey said they wear a tie to work everyday, down from only 10% in 2002.
So is the tie dead? I doubt it. Anderson pointed out in an NPR interview that the next generation will probably wear them more than the boomers just to be different from them. After all, no one wants to dress like their dad. Boomer dads dress more like Jimmy Buffet than Warren Buffet and since Warren has achieved rock star popularity, who knows?
What I know is that my sense of fashion, or lack thereof, comes from comfort and utility, and other than occasionally using my tie to clean my glasses, that particular piece of accessory serves NO frigging purpose. Andt hey sure and hell aren't comfortable.
I used to playfully criticize women in general for putting up with ridiculous, sexist, and antiquated dress codes that required hose, yet men have put up with spoken or unspoken tie requirements right along with them. When I taught in the classroom, I always said my students wouldn't fall for a tie in place of my sincerity or dedication. I still believe that, though I wore a tie almost every day that I taught... it wasn't for the students... it was for the folks who, by and large, didn't matter now that I think about it.
If the downfall of this organization correlates at all with the demise of the tie itself, it will be a better world for it. We can keep them in our closets for old time sake, and break them out when we feel like being goofy... or when we're too lazy to act in ways that ties are supposed to represent, but let's hope the days of HAVING to wear them are gone. Who's with me?!
I don't suppose ritually burning ties would pick up the same momentum or interest as buring bras, eh?
Luth
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Speaking of reading lists - Boots on the Ground Before Dusk
(actually posted Jan. 20, 2009)
The inspiration for this post stemmed from my curiosity over why Mary Tillman is allowed to question the Army over the death of her son but Cindy Sheehan isn't. My curiosity quickly evolved into understanding, although it doesn't always work this way... neither my understanding, nor the right wing media's heeding of the facts.
What I discovered is that because Pat Tillman was famous, and his mother chose to write a book, Ann Coulter couldn't make up a story for them without challenging them. (I'll assume that Coulter called Tillman "a true original" and a hero before she learned that SPC Tillman wasn't a big fan of Bush or the war and by then it was too late to retract it.) She also couldn't retract it since most of America already saw Tillman as a hero for giving up an NFL contract to join his brother in the Army, Coulter et al couldn't really maintain their pseudo-patriot front and do anything but praise him.
The Sheehans on the other hand, in spite of being nearly identical families in the important areas - mothers grieving sons lost in a war that should never have been fought - were unknowns to the American public, so the conservative media were free to make up whatever the hell they wanted to about them. Every statement Cindy Sheehan made was an opportunity to pick it apart and find something wrong with it. Every photo taken, a chance to point out her flaws. After all, her son wasn't a "true original." All he did was die for his country. He didn't turn down an NFL contract to do so and somehow, in Coulter's eyes, that makes his death less patriotic and his mother's grief less worthy of sympathy. His mother's frustration over why this had to happen less worthy of an answer and her attempts to find that answer while grieving that loss by camping out in Crawford, TX while the president vacationed instead of paying her the courtesy of a reply was called a ridiculous, liberal agenda.
So Cindy Sheehan chose to express her grief on behalf of all mothers who feared the same thing. She chose to go macro and argue that this war wasn't worth the loss of another mother's son, that the lies had gone on long enough, and that someone at or near the top should be held accountable for the deaths of these sons. She chose to try to stop other mothers from going through the same thing she'd experienced. That's how her grief played itself out. I don't think anyone, not Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity has the right to question how a mother grieves in that situation.
Mary Tillman's grief took on a slightly different form. She went micro. Instead of asking why the war was worth her son's life, she just wanted the truth about how he died. Instead of questioning the lies that put us in the war, she only questioned the lies about the events on the day of her son's death. What's interesting about her different form of grieving is that the results coming from the White House were so similar... both moms got little more than the latest version of the story, not the truth. Coulter et al may also have been more careful about criticizing the Tillmans because Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother, was in the same platoon and was there the day Pat was killed. It's tough to make up a story condemning their version of it in order to suit your own agenda. Casey Sheehan wasn't as fortunate, so his mom gets criticized for questioning his death.
I've spent enough time on here explaining that troops don't get to pick the wars they fight, and that most of them are good people fulfilling a sense of duty and doing the best job they can, so don't even start on me on that. And don't start on me claiming that I'm favoring one mother's method of grieving over another's. I ain't sayin' anything like that. No one oustide of their shoes has any business judging how they grieve. From us, they should get nothing but sympathy and support. And both of these families have that from me.
What I am saying is that both mothers, regardless of the direction their grief points them, deserve the same from the media. Common courtesy says this should apply to the "liberal media" just as it applies to the actual media.
If Katie Couric gave the same time to Sheehan as she did to Tillman, Fox and AM radio would have been all over it. That's crap. The only thing that matters is these mothers lost their sons. Whether you agree with the war or not, whether you agree with the moms' politics or not, if you're not offering your support then just shut up and leave them alone.
Luth,
Out
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Three Amigos, er candidates, remain
Here's two reasons to pick one of them:
One didn't vote for this war.
One still fosters the illusion of being an unjaded, outsider rookie.
I know that last reason is pure fantasy, but until it's proven otherwise, I'm living in it. The other two don't even joke about the fantasy anymore. I'll take what I can get. I encourage all of you to do the same.
As for the first reason, if past behavior is the best indicator of future performance, then history is proving this potential president to be the only candidate left who got it right. Funny, the current president keeps telling us history will validate him. Instead, it validates his opposition party candidate who opposed his war.
There's nothing more patriotic than erring on the side of caution when it comes to putting troops in harm's way. Especially when time proves it wasn't in err. He may not always put his hand in the right place when pictures are snapped before he says the Pledge of Allegience, but as far as protecting the troops, he's gone well beyond the sitting president and either of his own opponents with that one vote.
It's time to cut the crap. He's not now nor was he ever a Muslim. His so-called inexperience is a crock as well. We're talking about a guy here who managed to graduate at the top of his class at Harvard after being the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. This means he graduated as the most sought after law student in the nation. Yet this so-called elitist rejected the offers that accompany such an accolade to return to his hometown and work civil rights cases for a Chicago firm. Prior to that, as a fresh Columbia University grad, he did community action work there as well - what an elitist! His political experience falls just one year shy of Hillary's, but given that all important vote that started me on this rant, it's the quality, not the quantity anyway.
I don't care if you don't vote for the guy for some ideological reason, or even because you just don't like him, but promise you won't vote against him because of his skin color or his middle name or some other BS reason that simply doesn't stand up to even the most cursory glance beyond the Fox headline.
Luth's Endorsement
Out
Coming Soon:
Tillman vs. Sheehan
Why is the mom of an NFL player allowed to be upset about her son's death but the other mom isn't?
One didn't vote for this war.
One still fosters the illusion of being an unjaded, outsider rookie.
I know that last reason is pure fantasy, but until it's proven otherwise, I'm living in it. The other two don't even joke about the fantasy anymore. I'll take what I can get. I encourage all of you to do the same.
As for the first reason, if past behavior is the best indicator of future performance, then history is proving this potential president to be the only candidate left who got it right. Funny, the current president keeps telling us history will validate him. Instead, it validates his opposition party candidate who opposed his war.
There's nothing more patriotic than erring on the side of caution when it comes to putting troops in harm's way. Especially when time proves it wasn't in err. He may not always put his hand in the right place when pictures are snapped before he says the Pledge of Allegience, but as far as protecting the troops, he's gone well beyond the sitting president and either of his own opponents with that one vote.
It's time to cut the crap. He's not now nor was he ever a Muslim. His so-called inexperience is a crock as well. We're talking about a guy here who managed to graduate at the top of his class at Harvard after being the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. This means he graduated as the most sought after law student in the nation. Yet this so-called elitist rejected the offers that accompany such an accolade to return to his hometown and work civil rights cases for a Chicago firm. Prior to that, as a fresh Columbia University grad, he did community action work there as well - what an elitist! His political experience falls just one year shy of Hillary's, but given that all important vote that started me on this rant, it's the quality, not the quantity anyway.
I don't care if you don't vote for the guy for some ideological reason, or even because you just don't like him, but promise you won't vote against him because of his skin color or his middle name or some other BS reason that simply doesn't stand up to even the most cursory glance beyond the Fox headline.
Luth's Endorsement
Out
Coming Soon:
Tillman vs. Sheehan
Why is the mom of an NFL player allowed to be upset about her son's death but the other mom isn't?
We ARE Marshall
...or at least reactionary boneheads who cry foul just because it's cool to cry foul.
So Marshall University accepted a million bucks in order to establish its BB&T Center for the Advancement of American Capitalism. They accepted the money from Branch Banking & Trust under the condition that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged be "required reading" in a course on "the fundamentals of capitalism" (according to a Bloomberg.com article by Matthew Keenan available here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=as6BR0QV4KE8&refer=home)
The CEO of BB&T says the book is the best defense of American Capitalism he's ever read and he just wants to make sure it remains part of academic discussion.
Funny, though I love Rand's books, when I first read them, I never knew there was any controversy about them. I didn't see them as philosophical or economical or political or about any "isms". They were just cool stories about cool heroes with both admirable and not so admirable qualities. As far as I was concerned back in high school, all this crap about her morals or her politics didn't exist. She was a writer of fun books to read.
I still believe that.
And while I think it's pretty trashy of Coca-Cola or other corporate sponsors to all but own public schools in exchange for a pittance of a return of the the tiniest percentage of their profits on products that are as addicting as most illegal narcotics, asking that a book be one part of a larger curriculum doesn't sound like like much of a concession to me.
For one thing, BB&T doesn't stipulate what anyone says about the book, only that it be read. Basically all they're asking is that one additional perspective be added to a much larger discussion. Students and professors can take from and contribute to that discussion as they wish. I really don't understand the controversy. Well, OK, I do get the notion that a donation with strings is more like a bribe, but so what. Have you seen tuition increases lately? The schools who joined Marshall in taking advantage of the BB&T offer could say no, but given the relative innocuity of the condition, it seems amazingly illogical for them to do so simply on the grounds of some artificially derived moral.
Ironically (to me anyway) logic (as a moral) is one of the evil philosophies Rand takes fire for espousing. How bat-shit illogical is it that capitalists would criticize taking cash simply because it is given on the condition of having to read a book? I can see insanely stereotypical academic types complaining. That's their job, but why would anyone else? If you're a student, go to some other school without a big new business department. If you're a local employer looking for new MBAs, hire from some other school where the discussions in B school prohibit inclusion of certain ideas. That always leads to more well rounded graduates. And hey, if you want some viewpoint that you feel contradicts Rand's to be included as well, offer up your own million.
BB&T didn't ask that other books NOT be taught, just that one book be included. The English teacher in me tells me that's more like a good suggestion than a condition or attached string. It's a freaking BOOK, not some plug and play port into a student's (or anyone else's) hypothalamus. I think the best comment I heard about it is that you can't propagandize students. Granted, the guy who said that is likely to become the head of the new department at Marshall, but it's true. The country may buy propaganda for several years, but the microcosm of the nation that is a student body is a lot quicker to realize they've been duped and a lot more vocal about it once it's discovered. They tend to be a lot more skeptical of crap fed to them from authority figures as well. That same department head went on to say that they only accepted the money and the condition because the condition didn't stipulate what they discussed about the book, only that it be read. Had there been some hidden agenda, the project would have been doomed from the start by both the officials to whom it had been proposed as well as by the students on whom such a hidden agenda would have been perpetrated.
What really gets me though, is the whole notion that Rand or anyone else's ideas, written on a page, represent any kind of threat to anyone. If the concerns about this kind of threat were ever accompanied by a balanced thought from the other perspective, they'd almost certainly result in real intelligence. Unfortunately, they always stop well short of that.
Luthy
So Marshall University accepted a million bucks in order to establish its BB&T Center for the Advancement of American Capitalism. They accepted the money from Branch Banking & Trust under the condition that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged be "required reading" in a course on "the fundamentals of capitalism" (according to a Bloomberg.com article by Matthew Keenan available here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=as6BR0QV4KE8&refer=home)
The CEO of BB&T says the book is the best defense of American Capitalism he's ever read and he just wants to make sure it remains part of academic discussion.
Funny, though I love Rand's books, when I first read them, I never knew there was any controversy about them. I didn't see them as philosophical or economical or political or about any "isms". They were just cool stories about cool heroes with both admirable and not so admirable qualities. As far as I was concerned back in high school, all this crap about her morals or her politics didn't exist. She was a writer of fun books to read.
I still believe that.
And while I think it's pretty trashy of Coca-Cola or other corporate sponsors to all but own public schools in exchange for a pittance of a return of the the tiniest percentage of their profits on products that are as addicting as most illegal narcotics, asking that a book be one part of a larger curriculum doesn't sound like like much of a concession to me.
For one thing, BB&T doesn't stipulate what anyone says about the book, only that it be read. Basically all they're asking is that one additional perspective be added to a much larger discussion. Students and professors can take from and contribute to that discussion as they wish. I really don't understand the controversy. Well, OK, I do get the notion that a donation with strings is more like a bribe, but so what. Have you seen tuition increases lately? The schools who joined Marshall in taking advantage of the BB&T offer could say no, but given the relative innocuity of the condition, it seems amazingly illogical for them to do so simply on the grounds of some artificially derived moral.
Ironically (to me anyway) logic (as a moral) is one of the evil philosophies Rand takes fire for espousing. How bat-shit illogical is it that capitalists would criticize taking cash simply because it is given on the condition of having to read a book? I can see insanely stereotypical academic types complaining. That's their job, but why would anyone else? If you're a student, go to some other school without a big new business department. If you're a local employer looking for new MBAs, hire from some other school where the discussions in B school prohibit inclusion of certain ideas. That always leads to more well rounded graduates. And hey, if you want some viewpoint that you feel contradicts Rand's to be included as well, offer up your own million.
BB&T didn't ask that other books NOT be taught, just that one book be included. The English teacher in me tells me that's more like a good suggestion than a condition or attached string. It's a freaking BOOK, not some plug and play port into a student's (or anyone else's) hypothalamus. I think the best comment I heard about it is that you can't propagandize students. Granted, the guy who said that is likely to become the head of the new department at Marshall, but it's true. The country may buy propaganda for several years, but the microcosm of the nation that is a student body is a lot quicker to realize they've been duped and a lot more vocal about it once it's discovered. They tend to be a lot more skeptical of crap fed to them from authority figures as well. That same department head went on to say that they only accepted the money and the condition because the condition didn't stipulate what they discussed about the book, only that it be read. Had there been some hidden agenda, the project would have been doomed from the start by both the officials to whom it had been proposed as well as by the students on whom such a hidden agenda would have been perpetrated.
What really gets me though, is the whole notion that Rand or anyone else's ideas, written on a page, represent any kind of threat to anyone. If the concerns about this kind of threat were ever accompanied by a balanced thought from the other perspective, they'd almost certainly result in real intelligence. Unfortunately, they always stop well short of that.
Luthy
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Religious fanatics in Texas?! WHAT?!
This is pretty easy pickins, I know, and it almost NEVER happens... more than annually anyway. But it's a tough call for me to reach any kind of conclusion on it. I wasn't there. I don't know the facts. The case hasn't been tried on Fox or C-Span yet, so I really can't say for sure what might be going on down there.
After all, I'm as much for government staying out of my life as the next guy. On the other hand, government should provide some basic services and protecting children is one of them. In my humble opinion.
So for now, I'm going to assume the folks who filed the complaint alleging child abuse did so because they truly believed it was happening. (I know, I know, just like people who bomb abortion clinics) BUT, I'll assume that because they didn't just rush in with guns blazing, but rather, followed the law, filled out the paperwork, and allowed the wheels of justice to turn, ever so slowly, that the folks who filed the complaint were semi-reasonable. (or is it unreasonable to wait on the system when you believe kids are in danger?) BUT I'll assume that as part of due process, others with less personal interest in the case including judges, law enforcement officers and elected officials signed off on the complaints and pursued them with the diligence of a reasonable human, and that brings us to where we are today.
167 kids were removed from a fort - a literal fort - where they'd been shut off from just about every aspect of modern American society. Say what you want about modern American society, if you live here, you should have access to it. Now for the hard part. One of the LDS women described the raid in which the kids were removed as similar to what "Russians" or "Nazis" did. (Sounds like she could use a little more exposure to current events) There's some truth to that. Armed men raided a homestead (fort), pushing women to the side and taking children. That does sound a lot like terrorism.
But the really tricky part is that in their minds, these self-described fundamentalist LDS Churchgoers (I won't call them Christians just yet) were only doing what their faith told them was right. Or at least within their rights. According to their interpretation of the Bible, the way they lived was cool. And they do believe the Bible offers the guidance for their way of life. (Ok, NOW I'll call them Christians) Granted, they've dropped the violence of the Old Testament, and the lessons to be learned, but their beliefs, though slightly appended by more modern "prophets," are based in the New Testament. Fundamentalist LDS folk are LDS folk and LDS folk are New Testament Christians.
So, how does faith help solve this matter? And if it doesn't, then it's part of the problem. In the case of the 167 kids in Texas - abused or not? Drop the religious protection, and the choice is clear. Raid the place. It's a cult fortress. But put it back in the context of a religious organization, and it's no longer as easy to decide. There are religious freedom rights to consider, and those rights require absolutely no logical justification other than being called a religion.
So there you go. Our nation, founded on protecting religious freedom, is now damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we interfere on behalf of a 15 year old girl who may or may not want to be married to and bear the children of a 50 year old man with several other wives, we're fascists. If we don't interfere, we may be violating that 15 year old's basic human rights... so we're... fascists.
Sounds like a pretty easy decision to make like that... err on the side of caution, eh? But toss the religous argument into the mix and it's no longer easy. So by my moral standard (that which causes human suffering is bad/immoral) interfering is the way to go. While we may violate someone's religious beliefs, that alone doesn't directly cause suffering, and they'll have their day in court. If we're wrong, their lifestyle/religion will be restored. But if the girl really is being abused, held against her will, raped, then not interfering is condoning the abuse and furthering the suffering. That's wrong. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, eh?
I've read that one of the pre-cursors to the fall of an empire is that the empire becomes more "liberal" and its citizenry grows lazy, taking the fruits of the empire for granted. It's true, except for the liberal part. Because liberal means willing to consider other perspectives, making an effort to understand other points of view as long as those points of view can be defended with sound logic. That's not lazy. And requiring a logical justification isn't liberal or "secular." It's actually a lot of work requiring a lot of faith in the person espousing that other perspective. What's lazy is taking for granted the fact that a few key words absolve one from having to argue or defend one's position. That is decidely not liberal, not logical, and in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS folk in Texas, all the justification they need to maintain their compound.
Luth
Out
After all, I'm as much for government staying out of my life as the next guy. On the other hand, government should provide some basic services and protecting children is one of them. In my humble opinion.
So for now, I'm going to assume the folks who filed the complaint alleging child abuse did so because they truly believed it was happening. (I know, I know, just like people who bomb abortion clinics) BUT, I'll assume that because they didn't just rush in with guns blazing, but rather, followed the law, filled out the paperwork, and allowed the wheels of justice to turn, ever so slowly, that the folks who filed the complaint were semi-reasonable. (or is it unreasonable to wait on the system when you believe kids are in danger?) BUT I'll assume that as part of due process, others with less personal interest in the case including judges, law enforcement officers and elected officials signed off on the complaints and pursued them with the diligence of a reasonable human, and that brings us to where we are today.
167 kids were removed from a fort - a literal fort - where they'd been shut off from just about every aspect of modern American society. Say what you want about modern American society, if you live here, you should have access to it. Now for the hard part. One of the LDS women described the raid in which the kids were removed as similar to what "Russians" or "Nazis" did. (Sounds like she could use a little more exposure to current events) There's some truth to that. Armed men raided a homestead (fort), pushing women to the side and taking children. That does sound a lot like terrorism.
But the really tricky part is that in their minds, these self-described fundamentalist LDS Churchgoers (I won't call them Christians just yet) were only doing what their faith told them was right. Or at least within their rights. According to their interpretation of the Bible, the way they lived was cool. And they do believe the Bible offers the guidance for their way of life. (Ok, NOW I'll call them Christians) Granted, they've dropped the violence of the Old Testament, and the lessons to be learned, but their beliefs, though slightly appended by more modern "prophets," are based in the New Testament. Fundamentalist LDS folk are LDS folk and LDS folk are New Testament Christians.
So, how does faith help solve this matter? And if it doesn't, then it's part of the problem. In the case of the 167 kids in Texas - abused or not? Drop the religious protection, and the choice is clear. Raid the place. It's a cult fortress. But put it back in the context of a religious organization, and it's no longer as easy to decide. There are religious freedom rights to consider, and those rights require absolutely no logical justification other than being called a religion.
So there you go. Our nation, founded on protecting religious freedom, is now damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we interfere on behalf of a 15 year old girl who may or may not want to be married to and bear the children of a 50 year old man with several other wives, we're fascists. If we don't interfere, we may be violating that 15 year old's basic human rights... so we're... fascists.
Sounds like a pretty easy decision to make like that... err on the side of caution, eh? But toss the religous argument into the mix and it's no longer easy. So by my moral standard (that which causes human suffering is bad/immoral) interfering is the way to go. While we may violate someone's religious beliefs, that alone doesn't directly cause suffering, and they'll have their day in court. If we're wrong, their lifestyle/religion will be restored. But if the girl really is being abused, held against her will, raped, then not interfering is condoning the abuse and furthering the suffering. That's wrong. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, eh?
I've read that one of the pre-cursors to the fall of an empire is that the empire becomes more "liberal" and its citizenry grows lazy, taking the fruits of the empire for granted. It's true, except for the liberal part. Because liberal means willing to consider other perspectives, making an effort to understand other points of view as long as those points of view can be defended with sound logic. That's not lazy. And requiring a logical justification isn't liberal or "secular." It's actually a lot of work requiring a lot of faith in the person espousing that other perspective. What's lazy is taking for granted the fact that a few key words absolve one from having to argue or defend one's position. That is decidely not liberal, not logical, and in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS folk in Texas, all the justification they need to maintain their compound.
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)