mourning in america
I’ve been in a great mood thus far today. The election is over and maybe there will again be something substantively interesting for this Curmudgeon to blog over. It has been a hard couple of weeks for the de facto disenfranchised because all anybody has wanted to talk about is the election.
For the record, I was way off on my election prediction: I expected a Shrub victory at quite a bit larger of a margin than what he achieved. I based my prediction on the exploitation of fear by the GOP and apparently that was broadly the case, though it would appear that the fear of homosexuality was at least as great as that of the terrorists.
Nope. I didn’t see that coming.
But as the hours go by and my the energy fades from my personal jubilation at the nation finally choosing its preppy potentate of choice, I do sense that mourning is probably in order. As I survey the message boards, I detect unmasked triumphal ecstasy on the part of the 43 apologists and extreme bellicosity on the part of the Kerry crowd. These feelings are unlikely to be buried by today’s calls for healing.
I did see one news story that directly stated the obvious truth: this election was fantastic for incumbents. Very few of the incumbents were turned out though of course there was the notable firing of Daschle. I would like to think that the re-election of incumbents was notably high for good and honorable reasons. It would be comforting to believe that these politicians are doing a great job and that the voters were confident in casting their votes, but of course that is not at all what happened.
The problem is there are no real choices in elections for most Americans. We have for the most part neatly divided into two camps, and Cowboys do not vote for Indians. The actual number of swing voters is small and shrinking. So we repeat this cycle over and over, casting our vote for our party man and ensuring that the same old politicians get returned to office year after year.
Instead of calling it Election Day, they should call it Ground Hog Day.
Third party voting appears to have been virtually non-existent this election and that saddens me far more than returning the Shrub who would be King to office. While I firmly believe that the damage that will be done over the next four years may well be permanent and unrepairable, it would nice to have a little hope that people might actually wake up to voting for change rather than the lesser evil.
If you want to really get down about things, realize that a lot of the voters subjectively were voting for change.
But a gadfly such as myself needs much to complain about and I have been assured by this election of a cornucopia of good material-or at least that might be my attitude if I didn’t actually care about America. Rather, what begins today for me is a renewed quest to make a difference in our society and my vehicle for this endeavor is this blog for now.
And in regards to the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon, I would ask for your prayers. For those of you who castigate me as a Liberal, I would ask that you pray for my greater wisdom in expressing my steadfast confidence in our traditional values of personal freedom. For those of you who condemn my imputed Conservatism, I would ask that you pray for a strengthening of my compassion so that I might more effectively advocate for those in our society that are the most needy. And lastly, for those of you who understand that I do not fit into these political moulds and find some form of common cause with me, please pray that my readership can grow and that together, we can have some small part in changing America for the better.
Please hurry. Tempus fugit.
23 Comments:
Andrew,
Well said my friend. I share your discomfort. The Body of Christ is but a microcosm of our greater society in many ways. Clearly the lessons of history are lost on much of our clergy.
Thank goodness that those who formed our union weren't such zealots for the status quo. Texas Conservative's stumping for "what we have and the way things work" in this arena is a little reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty admiring his secure perch.
It may be an inevitability that all world powers must ultimately fall; social and political evolution may demand it, and progress in a global sense clearly requires the death of the outmoded. It stands to reason that those who are the most dominant and affluent are the least likely to adapt along with the rest of the world. I would venture to say that one of the first undeniable signs of this actually happening is the alienation of allies to suit some selfish end.
But back to more granular matters, when I look at our political landscape starting today and back over time, I have to wonder...
Where are the great thinkers?
Where are the people who inspire us?
Where are the ideas that change the way people think?
If they're out there, they're summarily quashed by the Cowboys and the Indians. Our bi-partisan status quo simply doesn't allow those who would challenge their existing notions to have a voice. When that sort of ideological repression happened in England a few hundred years ago, people up & left... but now there's nowhere to go, nowhere to go.
Personally, I don't think it's hopeless. But the 4th quarter has started, and I'm pretty sure we just fumbled.
-Gene
TexaCon,
“You'd find reason to mourn on vacation.” Gee. You would think I was a dour and sad person. And I too was relieved that we didn’t have an election by litigation this time.
You forget a few important non-Demopublican candidates, though TR was probably one of the most significant. There was of course John Andersen who ran as an independent. And the candidate of the American Independent Party, George Wallace. Those of us who remember the 1968 election find that hard to forget.
You said, “Our system of government is not built on the idea of factions within our democracy that each vie for power much like parliamentary style in the UK. Two parties is what we have and that's how things work. Howard Dean and Michael Moore have realized this. Why can't you?”
True. Many of our founders absolutely abhorred the idea of political parties. Adams whole theory of factions had a big influence in how our government was organized. Every effort was made to attempt to dilute the possibility of factions gaining control of the government. Two parties may be how things evolved, but that doesn’t make it right or make it the way it was designed to work.
Frankly, I think your suggesting that I just get over it is amazingly simplistic. On the one hand, you criticize my not voting, yet on the other, you think I need to just get smart and deal with it. I suppose the fact that I find the two major parties to hold positions that I can not morally endorse is of no consequence? I am supposed to just shut-up and suffer and vote anyway because its my civic duty. I am supposed to choose between deep moral convictions like I might choose a brand of cologne.
Well, I’m not going to. The truth is that Howard Dean and Michael Moore are making their choices because they seek the power and notoriety. I am quite a bit different: I actually believe the things I say. And I believe that certain things are so important that they can not be compromised.
Cheney has already made great noise claiming their mandate. If I had voted for the Shrub Cabal, I would be adding to that claim. My number would be counted as a voice in favor of greater destruction of our civil liberties. If Kerry had won, they would be claiming a mandate and my number would be counted as a voice in favor of abortion rights.
It is easy to cast this criticism when you are one that has a comfortable choice available.
You said, “Oh, I know, Nth-parties are good for slaps and tickles in blogs but I don't think this is realistic.” This is the very notion that is at the heart of what I will continue to fight against. Your own example of Ross Perot is proof that a third party candidacy is realistic. The condition of our society is proof that viable third parties are necessary.
You said, “Seems like voters not aligning themselves with the incumbent always want change. Scratching my head I'm not sure I got that comment but I am a Bush supporter so I'm slower than the rest, slower than the rest.” Let me say it slower for you then. Cowboys don’t vote for Indians. Most voters feel they have no choice. That is exactly how I felt for over a decade of pulling the straight GOP lever (yes, I’m old enough to remember levers). This leads to an automatic strong bias in favor of the incumbent.
You admonished me, “I pray that you take a big whiff of all those things in our American system that DO smell really good.” That is fair. My joy over being an American seldom comes through in my writing here. Again, I think that is a hazard of genuine dissent. I am grateful to live in the richest nation in the history of the world and even more grateful to possess the protected Liberty that was bequeathed to us. But it is that very gratitude that gives me my passion and will to dissent.
I can not stand idly by and allow these great privileges to be stolen from our posterity. I will not be goaded into supporting an anti-American agenda no matter how carefully the political hucksters wrap it up in the language of baseball, apple pie and eternal damnation.
TexaCon, while we are strongly at odds over things political, know that my heart is truly burdened by the same issues as is yours. We just have radically different ideas of how to get to a better society. Only by having these frank discussions can either of us hope to make a difference. I truly enjoy and appreciate your contribution here and thank you for it.
No matter how misguided. :-D
TexaCon,
I certainly hope you will reconsider and continue to contribute here. At the center of my beliefs on how we build a just society is vigorous discourse on the matters of the day. I believe that nothing proves an idea like competing in what others have termed the Arena of Ideas.
Ultimately I have every confidence that Christian beliefs will win the day. That we are losing battles now is of little consequence. What matters is in the long haul we “run the race” and try to make a difference for time as well as eternity. To affect eternity, we must win the world one heart at a time and part of winning those hearts is being fair players in our pluralistic society. Playing fair does not mean abandoning the struggle. May it never be! No, what I am talking about is going toe to toe in the Arena and letting the best ideas rise to the top. I have every confidence that over time those ideas will reflect and embody the Christian values you and I both hold so dear.
Part of the frailty of being but mere men is that neither your or I have a perfect understanding of what Truth is in all of its many facets. Only when thoughtful people such as you and I hash it out in the Arena do we as individuals come to a better understanding of what Truth is.
But if you should choose to move on, I certainly understand. Know that I will always count you a good friend and cherished Brother in Christ. And know also that all of the readership here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon will be poorer for your departure.
CG,
Winning to a Christian should mean only one thing: winning souls to Christ Jesus through serving our fellow man as God would direct us.
Serving is key.
What I mean by winning in the social context is that victory will take care of itself. As Christians we know that this World is doomed for evil. There is no America exception clause in the Bible. So as Christians, I think our first priority is to make a difference as and for individuals.
It isn’t that I believe that more pluralism is losing per se, but rather it is evidence of losing a temporal battle. God was the ultimate libertarian: he created free choice. Christ makes an invitation-you and I have a choice. No matter what laws we pass, we will still live in a society that is far-very far-from Christian homogeneity.
History teaches us, that the closer that men of faith come to political power, the more that power gets turned for evil and results in oppression (that is the outcome every time). It is sad that even some of the most prominent and well-educated of the Christian Church seem to have noticed this historically proven axiom.
I suppose that where I am out of sync with many of my Christian Brothers and Sisters is that I do not think passing a law preventing gays from getting married is nearly as important as is changing hearts so that people no longer desire to engage in homosexual activity. Obviously, this formula applies to any sinful behavior. But to me, that is really winning: when your ideas shape society because of the force of their reason and the strength of real Truth.
Andrew,
I'd be laughing if the matter where not so serious. As always, you paint the picture with great economy of words (definitely not my strong suite).
But I must say, if I were choosing a place in which to go to Hell, Frisco would be a very nice choice indeed.
CG said: “I am convinced Bush believes he is fighting a holy war for small government.”
Was it the 49% increase in federal funding of education through a joint effort with Ted Kennedy that convinced you? Was it his affirmation of the Clintonian ban on “assault weapons?” Maybe it was his signing into law the intrusive McCain/Fiengold bill with the expanded government authority that prevents free political speech? Could it have been his manufacturing the new Medicare entitlement to drugs that convinced you?
The biggest delusion of the liberals has been that George Bush is a conservative. It just they have been starring at the pure pagan socialism of the Democrat party for so long that anything looks conservative by comparison. Oh, he dropped the top tax rate of the wealthy from 39.6% to 35%? Yea, killer tax cut. Billionaire Mz Hienz pays 12.8% effective rate and ½ of that is alternative minimum tax.
CG: “... no desire to enumerate exceptions where small government and laissez-faire fail.”
For my intellectual curiosity, could you enumerate those for me? Email if you like so that we do not interupt the natural flow of despair that this current blog exudes.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
Gee, you sure put a lot of words into my mouth with that post.
You said, “God created all life, some of that life is created homosexual, those created homosexual are suppose to believe God made an accident with them and they are suppose to ignore their chance for lifetime intimate companionship because ... even though God created them, he made a mistake.”
First, I do not claim to know whether God created people with a homosexual nature or not. The Bible does not address the point. What the Bible does address is that we are not to engage in homosexual activity. It list that proscription along with many others and what many Christians love to side-step is that adultery is very high on the list.
The point is this: I don’t know too many people that would deny that we have a natural desire to do many things that God prohibits. The reason Billy Crystal’s line from “When Harry Met Sally”, “yeah, you pretty much want to nail them too.”, is funny is because it capture a lot of truth about human nature. We all have compulsions to do things that God prohibits. The Bible doesn’t qualify it and say, “but, if you really feel like to be fulfilled as a human being, feel free to nail all it take to satisfy your basic nature.” Neither does God exempt people who believe they were “made” homosexual.
Then you said, “Next you are going to tell me all homosexuals choose that life...” Yes of course they choose that life. I’m not saying that there isn’t some pain involved in the choice, but there is little doubt it is voluntary. People choose to be celibate. People choose to not engage in pre-marital sex. People make all kinds of choices that are not necessarily the easiest path. That does not mean it isn’t a choice.
Then you continue, “...so society can pass laws against them, and highlight them from the pulpit as REALLY BAD sinners, and have some of them dragged behind a truck until dead.” That is pretty much an inappropriate and rude remark to address to me don’t you think? I don’t know too many Christians that have spent the time and personal capital that I have defending the rights of homosexuals. And, I never once have said that I think they are “REALLY BAD sinners”. Sure, there are a lot of idiots out there that make that case, but don’t accuse me of that. And don’t assume that those who do are properly representing the view of historic Orthodox Christianity either.
I know there is a lot of hate filled rhetoric out there, but please don’t project that crap on me. Jesus died for sinners like me, myself and I. And I try my best to be careful to understand that indeed, “there, but for the grace of God, go I.”
Prof,
Welcome back to the fray. At least we definitely agree that Shrub is no Conservative. Now, I do not share your view that this forum is despairing-maybe some individuals, but certainly not everybody. IMO, there is just a lot of emotion on the line these days.
CG: “Exceptions to laissez-faire being best/only choice. Healthcare when it involves unprofitable widgets (.... I thought we have already covered this).”
We did. I won that argument, remember? :-D
Prof. Ricardo
C.G.
“Bush 44 works... Bush 43 was not legit. :)”
So Al Gore was 43? There’s got to be a joke I can throw in here somewhere.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
You asked, “I still am waiting for someone draw the line for me between ‘more Christian values’ but ‘not theocracy’". Didn’t mean to skirt a question. In fact, I don’t think I did. But I can tread that territory again if you like.
Christians are given the command to be salt and light to the world-not conquerors. It is often said that we are to be “in but not of this world”. While that saying is somewhat trite, it is so because of its truth. Jesus promised to make his disciples Fishers of Men, not Potentates. It would be easy to over-simplify and say that as Christians, we are not to concern ourselves of the worldly matters of politics-but that would be misleading. As Salt, we are clearly intended to season the affairs of the world in a positive way. I see no proscription in the Bible toward our participation in government as long as we do so consistently with the will of God.
Salt is not meat. We are not to be so worldly as to be indistinguishable from the World. This could be examined from many facets, not the least of which would be my personal introspection and confession of inadequacy, however it does seem clear that we are never more indistinguishable from the World as when we fully embrace the political class.
I have no issue with Christians participating in politics and indeed believe that we as a society will be richer for that participation. Where things “go over the line” is when Christians start marking out political candidates or positions as being clearly Christian. There is a big difference between opposing abortion and supporting the GOP as the party that stands against abortion. The latter dirties our hands when the political leadership inevitably fails us.
Here is how I said it to my minister after his endorsement of Shrub from the pulpit: “A great example of how dangerous [political endorsement] is can be seen in the Abu Graib prison torture scandal. There is little doubt that the tendrils of this scandal reach very near the top-Rumsfeld has admitted this. In an era where ‘plausible deniability’ speaks of ordinary matters, it is very reasonable to conclude, that the President was at least partially complicit. There is no doubt that a political defense can be mounted to counter these claims: the administration has done exactly that.” To paraphrase, I continued and expressed that I can see how many people would be reluctant to cast their lot with nominal Christians after having reached this reasonable conclusion, yet they see Christians continue to stand by their man without wavering.
So this is the line in politics, what of the line in policy? As I have often said, God was the first libertarian. As Christians, I think we have a duty to stick up for the rights of the minority and extol the virtue of God’s gift of freedom. We owe it to the God who gave us choice to allow those in our society that might choose to partake of the forbidden fruit to do so. We should take our model from Christ and rather than impose our beliefs with the force of law, instead practice our beliefs and extend a hand of help and love.
I do not call for Christians to stand idly mute either. We also owe our God the service of resolutely standing for truth and refusing to equivocate on the morality of homosexuality, adultery and idolatry. That steadfast stand for truth, however, should not translate into oppressive laws because of the temptations of power. Instead, we should stand by our laws that protect individuals from the majority because ultimately, those laws protect all of us: especially Christians.
You see, I believe a day not too distant will come where perhaps it will not be the Christians with the power. A day when the power to oppress will be firmly in the hands of the secularists. And when that day comes, I want to be on the side that stood for the God given human rights of the minority when taking such a stand was unpopular. Because in that day, I pray that the new majority will remember my stand for Liberty and that thereby the hand of retribution might be stayed.
I do believe we are all in God’s hands and ultimately his way will win. In the mean time, it does matter how we treat others and we should wash the feet of even those who vigorously stand against us. Perhaps we will not be spared retribution in that day which I fear is far closer than many imagine, but then we will be able to bear the cost of those stripes with humility for our Lord. And only through such humility now and in that day to come can we make a difference not just for Time, but also for Eternity.
TexaCon,
I thought I was being pretty clear what I was talking about, but perhaps not. I was addressing CG’s inquiry about how Christians define “winning” in the public debate and how we are to engage with the world in terms of drawing the line between belief and policy. Unlike CG, I’m not too concerned about Shrub imposing his views on anyone: he doesn’t have the votes to do that in any meaningful long-term way. I am far more concerned about a bare majority trying to impose its beliefs on a pluralistic society and the alienation that has already resulted because of those attempts. Most importantly, I was trying to lay out how I think Christians should approach politics, therein suggesting we should keep politicians at arms length rather than embracing them as symbols of virtue.
I hope that clarifies.
TexaCon,
Hey, just a quick response for now. First, I don't support embryonic stem cell research. But, I have it on some pretty well educated authority that the whole fetal stem cells not being useful is simply a crock. Fetal stem cells do not have cell surface receptors that will trigger a non-self immune response. They are unique in this regard.
I think the argument of the Rabid Right hinges on the words that treatments have not been developed. I am uncertain as to whether that much is true or not, but regardless of the merits of that argument, there is little doubt that fetal stem cells represent a unique and valuable resource for research. As I've said, I'm opposed to using fetal stem cells, but I think it is important to be completely honest in our arguments.
TexaCon,
I really was not suggesting that you were not being honest in your argument. More precisely what I mean is that those who you are relying to form your opinion are not being honest in their argument. The National Review article you linked is a case study in what I mean.
Therein, the author says, “Embryonic stem cells have produced nothing like this — in fact, their tendency toward uncontrollable growth and tumor formation has so far made them unfit for any trials in humans. Even in animal trials they have not been able to treat long-lasting or chronic injury.”
The key language is “so far made them unfit for any trials in humans”. This is probably a correct statement-I have not done my own research on the latest developments. But the truth is that there is a lot of research that goes on that is far removed from clinical trials. Because a person’s physical malady can not be helped by specific methods it does not follow that research using fetal stem cells is automatically worthless.
I hesitate to go farther in my explanation because my own understanding of the biology is extraordinarily poor. I rely primarily on a certain Ph.D. in Molecular Biology with whom I am very well acquainted. Fetal stem cells are unique, as even the NRO article points out, in several aspects. The very fact that the tend toward uncontrollable growth is itself evidence of the unique service they might provide if fully understood. Understanding how they operate and specifically, how they specialize, is an area of intense interest. It has ramifications for medical science that go far beyond your and my simple ability to understand such things. Science is working toward an understanding that will lead to the eventual ability to coax normal adult somatic tissue to behave in ways that mimic embryonic stem cell behavior. The potential applications of this knowledge are staggering.
One thing I have learned over the last twenty years is how slow and complex medical research has become. That embryonic stem cell research has not yet yielded clinical results is in no way indicative of whether that research may be profitable for the advancement of science. That these logically fallacious statements have gone virtually unchallenged is yet another symptom of the tragic condition of our society.
TexaCon,
No, I simply can't agree that nothing of significance has came out of stem cell research. That is a hyperbolic statement created by people with a polticial agenda.
Ironically, this is one issue where I agree with Shrub's approach. I am just not content to allow disinformation to go unchallenged because that disinformation happens to support my point of view.
Proceeding from the idea that we can now use myth as a guideline for Constitutional amendments, I have a few proposals.
» No arachnid may assume a seated position in the proximity of any citizen, regardless of sex, physical stature, or marital status.
» The blood of a citizen shall be considered personal property, and may not be seized by any agent, public or private, living or undead.
» Upon death, any serial killer shall remain dead, without regard to:
º Athletic equipment worn at the time of death
º Box office grosses
º Cloning
» Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of The League of Justice.
» No sea-bound pineapple-dwelling Sponge may, in time of peace be quartered in any house or body of water therein, without the consent of the Owner.
» Any water transported between states for the purpose of miraculous conversion to wine shall be taxed at the time of transport as if the conversion had already occurred. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
-Gene
TexasCon,
Our ships keep passing in the night on this one. What I am saying is twenty-three years is not dispositive of the merit of the research. Watson and Crick first elucidated the structure of DNA in 1953. By 1976, practical applications for the knowledge were limited and few. Twenty-three years is nothing in basic research.
The fundamental science here is instructive. Adult stems cells are simpler to understand and use. Because they are recognized as self by the immune system, they lend themselves naturally to quicker clinical trials. Embryonic stems cells are a much more complex thing. Weighing one line of research against the other is pointless. It is like saying in 1926 (Kitty Hawk + 23 years) “nothing has come of these jet engine things yet so it couldn’t possibly be worth while”.
Saying that there has been no profit from embryonic stem cell research is hyperbole because much has been learned from studying those lines. Much more will be learned.
You can choose to oppose embryonic stem cell research on this irrational basis if you choose. I just think it distorts the argument and makes Christians look silly those who actually are involved in science. If we want to be credible in society, I believe we need to quit arguing that the Earth is the center of the universe and focus our energy on intelligent application of God’s word to the actual world in which we live.
The argument against embryonic stem cell research is a strong one if we stand on what the Bible actually tells us rather than indulging in the political rhetoric which currently pollutes the Body of Christ.
TexaCon and CG,
I could broker the tape exchange. I know where you both live. :-D
TexaCon,
I was, as you can imagine, being quite purposeful when I changed from discussing “application” to “learning anything”. There is a huge difference and it is important to the discussion.
The rhetoric you are using is intended to leave the impression that embryonic stem cell research has yielded no benefit. That is exactly what narrow politically motivated statements such as this are designed to do: give a small part of the story and imply all kinds of broad conclusions. If you are comfortable that you are being complete, I won’t try harder to convince you otherwise.
Twenty-three years is nothing in basic research. And yes, that does mean that the field of study is “no-where-near ready to help us regenerate tissue or organs”. Guess what? Studying anti-matter is no where near ready to help us create a warp drive either. That is a particularly illogical way of testing what is useful research and not.
TexaCon,
HAHAHA... you are amazing. You first prattle on endlessly that in 23 years, no application has come from embryonic stem cell research then when I finally get through to you, you complain that you know it takes a long time and ask that I not lecture you.
I’m not trying to saying anything more than that your specific argument applying adult stem cell research results to judge research using fetal stem cells is not logical. Finally, you grudgingly acknowledge: “It may be ‘useful research’ but my position is that I would rather my tax dollars NOT go to that.”...which is a weakly worded expression of what my only point to begin with.
TexaCon,
Facts? What would constitute a fact in your world? Frankly, I could spend the money to subscribe to Med-line (which my wife sorely wishes she had anyway) and dig out the papers for you, but I don't think there is even a shred of a chance that even THAT would convince you that important research is happening using fetal stem cells. You will stubbornly insist on clinging to the non-sense that embryonic stem cell research isn't useful, so I will not bother.
TexaCon,
Yes, I did. The honest truth is that I don't know enough about biology to intelligently prove it to you. I took just enough cellular biology to have a superficial understanding of how obviously unique embryonic stem cells are and I just happen to have a molecular biologist I trust COMPLETELY. I am more than happy to let her be my guide-thirteen years of post-graduate education is something I don't have the energy to question when there are so many other things that deserve my time.
You asking me to prove it is kind of like asking me to prove Shrub is stupid. Yeah, I could, but the only thing that would happen is I would waste a lot of time trying to convince you of something that would only have a shot of changing your mind if you did your own reseach.
Med-line is very cool. You should check it out.
Post a Comment
<< Home