The Oprah Obama Show
Every once in a while, politicians and celebrities slip their handlers’ leashes, let their guards down, and reveal how really stupid they are. Case in point: the recent and extraordinary performance of Oprah Winfrey and her hero Barack Obama.
John McCain and George Bush, to ay nothing of Dan Rather, Alec Baldwin, and Tom Cruise, do this nearly every time they speak off the cuff. Others are more careful. Bill Clinton was good at deflecting embarrassing questions, and Hilary stays on course by following the script and keeping anyone but supporters from asking questions, and some celebrities—Johnny Carson and Raymond Burr, for example—mostly kept their bizarre private lives private. The cleverest are those who turned their little problems into opportunities—Clinton’s sexual peccadillos actually won him respect in some quarters, and Oprah Winfrey’s highly publicized struggles with obesity and unreliable boyfriends gained her sympathy from her mostly white middle-aged female fans.
(Aside: If you catch your wife, mother, sister, daughter, girl friend, daughter-in law or female second cousin twice removed watching Oprah, destroy the TV set.)
Watching the presidential campaign casually, as a disinterested spectator—like William Godwin’s liberal angel looking down impartially on poor deluded humanity—I have been impressed by Barack Obama’s ability to mask himself in campaign rhetoric. In general, Obama contents himself with promising change without ever entering into such messy details as policies or programs, and as for his private life, he reads the same script—co-written by Horatio Alger and Booker T. Washington, occasionally throwing in little humanizing details that may arouse the ire of Mitt Romney’s handlers but endear him to voters under 60.
This past week, however, Oprah and Romney seemed to have solidified some kind of suicide pact. When Oprah merely endorsed Obama, there was little risk involved, and the pundits may have been correct in claiming that Oprah’s vast, largely non-political following of bored and ignorant housewives could represent a new factor in American politics, but the Oprah-Barack show in Columbia, South Carolina, is, as they would say, sump’n else. The Charlotte Observer’s Mary C. Curtis was thrilled by the stars’ performances and the enthusiasm they generated among the 30,000 fans, but even Ms Curtis (a middle-aged black female) could not help noticing that the audience was “predominantly black.”
Unfortunately, the cameras were also there, and non-black voters have been able to watch the spectacle of Oprah and Obama trying to outdo each other in their imitation of Al Sharpton. I thought immediately of the old song from the all-Negro version of Annie Get Your Gun. “Anything you can do, I can do blacker, I can do anything blacker than you.”
What did they think they were doing? Neither Oprah nor Obama have ever been convincing putting on the ghetto, and their performances reminded me of nothing so much as of Steve Martin as The Jerk. At this point in Obama’s campaign, his only hope is to appeal to non-black voters of the lower-middle and blue-collar classes, who feel that business as usual, as conducted by the traditional leadership of both parties, is lowering their expectations for the future. Now that Oprah and Obama have put forward Obama as the black candidate, the real Obama, the Obama who just happens to be black, is going to be a hard sell.
Perhaps Obama’s race-pandering to half his own people explains why the Greatest Show in the history of politics has so far given him no bounce in the national polls that still show Hilary leading by 30 percentage points. Worse news for Obama is that a poll taken after the show indicates that while 1% of respondents thought Ms Winfrey's endorsement made them more likely to vote for him, 14% said it made them less likely.
This PR is no great matter, perhaps, since the most Obama can practically hope for at this point is a cabinet position. He cannot be the candidate, unless the Democratic Party leadership completely loses what passes for their minds, and, if the front-runner receives the nomination, he cannot even expect to be the vice presidential candidate: A Hilary-Obama ticket is the Republican Party's dream. It is Oprah Winfrey, who may turn out to be the bigger loser. She, too, may have transformed herself from a wise long-suffering celebrity woman who appeals at least as much to white as to black women. She runs the risk of becoming the black version of Rose O'Donnell: a leftist crank with a narrow following and, worse than that, a "controversial" character. Up until now, Oprah has been an institution something like the Smithsonian Museum, but unless she draws back from the black power abyss into which she seems determined to leap, she may turn out to be more like Dick Gregory. Remember him?
The Oprah-Obama show, like all good variety specials, was introduced by a musical act, the hip hop band “Arrested Development.” The musical style told white voters over 30 what to think of Obama, and their name encapsulates his campaign aspirations and his political maturity.
115 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Decline and Fall of Common Sense: Oprah, Allow Us Voters to Form Our Own Opinions
- gratis poker ohne anmeldung
Entries(RSS)
If it makes a difference which race or religion the President is, that's a sure sign the office has too much power and needs to be contracted. Governors govern; a president merely presides. According to legend, the Swiss have it right: few can even name theirs.
"Dick Gregory. Remember him?"
Yes! Like Ronald Reagan, he had the common sense and good taste to realize that entertainment and politics do not mix, and quit show biz to be a full-time activist at a fraction of the remuneration. Whatever his stands, that alone merits some respect. (Until his family got hungry, anyway.)
"Muslims also preserved some valuable bits of civilization, while Mormons have contributed nothing but the Osmonds."
It's not that bad. Otto Harbach, a Salt Lake Dane, who may or may not have been Mormon, had a role in raising the literary standard of popular and theater music, though, as with P.G. Wodehouse, it was more through mentorship than example. And the Disney theme "When You Wish Upon a Star" was composed by Leigh Harline, a Salt Lake Swede who was a Mormon. While it's hardly Mozart, can anyone name anything from thirteen centuries of Islam (or five decades of rock, R&B and rap) to match its whistlablity?
(Harline also composed "The World Owes Me a Living", a more apt theme for Obama's Democrats than the Hoover-era tune they've been using.)
The Moslems gave us literally nothing-- they borrowed India's use of zero and passed it on. The Middle Eastern contribution to U.S. music comes down to Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Ahmet Ertegun, Frank Zappa and Paula Abdul. Tradition carries on!
TJF
Your accusations against Mormons reveal much ignorance to the subject.
1. Apostle is a title that is never used in addressing one. In church settings it is always "Elder" or "President" if he is the leader of a Quorum, and the man's last name. I have never heard it stated otherwise. The Apostles' Creed would be 100% accepted less the "holy Catholic Church" part of course. Your acquaintance must have confused it with the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed or not known what he was talking about.
2. You're apparently unfamiliar with much of the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, most of it comes from the old world. There are several names and geographical references used that were discovered long after Joseph Smith published the work. The evidence is quite extensive and clear.
3. As difficult a concept polygyny may be, I've got a more difficult one for you. Do you believe in an imperfect God? Are we to believe that God's chosen in the Old Testament were chosen despite their practice of an abhorrent sin. In some cases He commanded the polygyny. God couldn't have found monogamists to proclaim his word and perform his miracles? Or at some point did He figure it out and then it became sin?
4. The only doctrine concerning Africans was that they could be baptized but males could not receive the priesthood until 1978. As to the reasons why, all is speculation. The change came in 1978 well after the pressure of the civil rights movement had subsided. As a doctrine, what is your view of Genesis 4?
5. Twelve Apostles, what a unique concept, who could of thought of something so ridiculous? Again, a progressive God? At some point He figured out that His organization was flawed and conceived a new, more brilliant plan that allows apostates to continue to work within the organization, and doctrines to be promulgated that even its members abhor?
6. God talking to a prophet. How can that be? I'm sure glad He finally, after thousands of years, learned what a stupid idea that was. Let us all take a moment and be thankful for the clarity and unity that has existed in the Christian world for the last 1900 years or so.
7. The unwashed heathen comment is absurd. That has never been part of the Church. Except for Joseph Smith, who wanted to affiliate himself with a protestant denomination, but was commanded not to, all of the early leaders of the Mormons as far as I know were devout Protestants. They didn't view themselves as heathens before or after their joining the Church.
8. The means of procreation that resulted in The Only Begotten are unknown . The disgusting act you allude to is not doctrine. I'm sure that you have mastered the metaphysics that result in God being born of a mortal. I'm sure it's quite simple if explianed correctly.
9. What is Satan? From whence did he come? Did he exist independently? Was he created? By whom? How did he get into Heaven to battle with Michael and lead away a third of the hosts of Heaven? Who let him in? Why? How is it that he was on the Earth tempting the Lord himself? Who let him into the Garden of Eden.? Mormon belief is that he was, as we all are, a child of our Father in Heaven who was cast out for rebellion, he is allowed with those that followed him-- a third of the hosts of Heaven--to provide opposition, that we might be proven faithful in all things. He will be eventually cast out of God's presence for eternity. Is he being our brother any worse than Cain being the brother of Abel?
10. With our views on eternal marriage, what could your comment about the secret name possibly mean? The husband will not be without the wife.
11. Creation ex nihilo--brilliant, too bad it wasn't doctrine until the doctors got a hold of the Church and is contrary to all physics that we understand. Your synopsis on Mormon cosmology is not accurate. It is not taught that God is progressing. Only that as Jesus did only the things that He saw his Father do, so God the Father at some point probably went through something like what Jesus did. Has Jesus been God always, Yes. Has the Father been God always, Yes. Did Jesus have a work to do in which failure was a possibility? Yes. Did he fail? No. Would He have been the same without completing this work? We say no. We believe that Jesus under the direction of His Father created the Earth from existing materials. That all matter is eternal. We believe that we are eternal. If we are created ex-nihilo how do we claim any free will whatsoever? We would be what God made us and nothing more. How does this make God less of a God? Why all the Father and Son designations if the relationships are nothing like fathers and sons as we know them? Sons possess the inherent ability to become like their fathers. How long this may take and what it may entail we do not know at this time.
12. The Book of Mormon stands for all to refute. Instead of snide references to its literary style, be the first to expose the work as anything less than it claims to be.
Mr. Kevin Rudd,
Your letter is as incomplete as it is much too short. With TJF's “permission”, you should remedy this by reproducing here your “Book of Mormons” in its entirety, lest anyone misses your point. Fear not, this web site has idiots galore to discuss theological subtleties of any crap that happens to be in “book” form - Christianity, Jew-ism, Islam, you name it. There is no reason that even an e-book cannot be deemed “holy”, should enough idle asses agree.
***
'In the second century A.D., it was the Christians who were denounced as “atheists.”'
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb/
Thomas Fleming: "Race and ethnicity are often political dynamite, and what often pass for religious conflicts are really ethnic or racial."
Very true. While we shouldn't make race the only important concept, it is important. We needn't follow Richard John Neuhaus down the road of "race doesn't exist / race isn't important, and anyone [i.e. any white person] who thinks so needs to be rebuked."
Kevin Rudd ? Who knew the new Australian Prime Minister writes for FARMS.
Religious proof ? Fatima happened in front of hundreds, including agnostics, atheists and Catholic arch-enemies, the freemasons (much like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) Veritas is knowable.
The Book of Mormon stands refuted by all, except the LDS. Hebrew DNA in American Indians? DNA anyone?
Paging St Dominic Guzman, gentle converter of the Albigensians.
How about "meat before milk" straight talk for once ? How about delving into "Exaltation" with clarity? Do Mormons believe their male members can become gods? Yes or no would suffice.
Extra eccelesium nulla salus.
Richard,
The DNA evidence is by no means conclusive. Only an extremely simplistic understanding of the Book of Mormon would lead one to believe that DNA has refuted it.
Concerning exaltation a yes or no will not suffice. We believe that as children of our Father in Heaven we possess the potential to become like Him. However latent this potential may be, and however long it may take, we as sons and daughters possess this capacity. We believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ we may be saved from death and sin and live in the presence of Him who created us. We believe that our progression does not have to stop at this point. Some will fufill their potential and be able to do the things that the Father does under his direction.
These were not uncommon beliefs in the early church, and are alluded to in the Bible. Jesus alluded to this in the 10th chapter of John
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for ablasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Red:
It really doesn't make much difference whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins in 2008. Their respective positions on Bush's Folly aren't particularly relevant, since the Empire is already deeply enmeshed in the Iraqi tar-baby. Both of these Pander Bears are committed to expanding American National Socialism, particularly in health care. Both of them are also committed to maintaining the entitlement programs and the regressive tax structure that sustains them.
Both of them are pro-abortion, anti-traditional family and firm supporters of "public education". Both of them support a policy of de facto surrender on our borders. How is either one of them even remotely acceptable ?
A choice between Hillary and Obama is like a choice between dying by heart attack and dying of Ebola. Some choice !
Your servant,
Lord Karth
As regards to the Mormon issue: I am reminded of a certain series of books, Dean Ing's "Streamlined America" series of the early 80s. One cannot help but wonder (even just a little) if Mitt Romney could be the real world's variation on Ing's Mormon President Blanton Young.
Literarily yours,
Lord Karth
"Blacks are NEVER held accountable for screwing blacks over!”………………….A reality………But, WHITES are!"
Hmm....
Whites are way more accountable for screwing whites over...especially if they do it in front of blacks...
"Kevin Rudd" ... you still don't get it, do you?...
A friend of mine once said "Well.....you know, you just can't tell a heinz pickle anything!"
If anyone would like a descriptive glimpse of Mormonism at work, he should read Zane Grey's RIDERS OF THE PURPLE SAGE. He fillets the Mormon soul and exposes its innards.
Too easy it is to reply to Dr. Fleming’s remarks on Mormonism by saying the same was said 80 years ago regarding Al Smith – too easy. Dr. Fleming's remarks prompt a serious consideration of principle and foundation. The principle and foundation of Real Conservatism, a historical movement in opposition to the French Revolution and the its begetter (the Endarkenment), and of Christian Democracy, a movement in the 20th Century attempting to apply Catholic Social Teaching to an early industrial society, need both enumeration, then application to a post-industrial order:
1. That persons live in social orders by nature, and thus their personal good presupposes a common good for the social order. (personalism, the common good, and solidarity)
2. That such a social order must be local. (subsidiarity)
3. That the a social order’s source and cohesion is based on its history, habits, customs, tradition, ceremony, and religion. Take these away, and persons become simian. (conservatism)
4. That what Europeans call Liberalism (analogous to American “libertarianism”), because it is against things, not for things, is inadequate for a principle of social order. Much of what Liberalism opposes ought to be opposed, yet it still must be asked, Freedom for what? (telos)
5. That Liberal Democracy (again the European meaning) and Social Democracy, because they stress the the useful and medial virtues, not the honorable and ultimate virtues, are inadequate for the principle of a social order. (telos)
6. That those religions (1) with a millennia of history, (2) with an established interpretive authority beyond individual judgement, and (3) with the best social teachings are the best religions for a social order. And (now comes the hard part), those religions are Judaism and the Latin Rite Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox churches. There may be other religions.
This will do for starters. I invite discussion on foundational principles, and consideration of these questions in particular: If Mormonism is inadequate as a principle of social order, can the same be said of Protestantism? And to what extent should coercion be used?
One thing is certain. #54, someone to cowardly to use his name, ought to be indeed soundly rebuked.
C.H.,
There is no reason that even a book by a slimy alcoholic faux-intellectual celebrity -- who cheerleads as better men than himself get sent off to die -- cannot be deemed “insightful” ... should enough idle asses agree.
"subtleties of any crap that happens to be in 'book' form"
Those who live in Marxist houses are hardly in a position to throw stones, vis-a-vis meaningless and self-important goobledydook.
agree!
I have only one or two observations to make in response to the Mormon apologists, whose very silliness proves my case better than I ever could. I did indeed write sloppily about the "Apostle." In fact, he only wanted to be listed/addressed in informational materials as "Apostle". I did not want to be more specific in order not to provide clues to the identity of a well-known and well respected man. It is not always easy to distinguish between what Mormons are officially required to believe and what many or most of them do. The avoidance of caffeine, for example, is an interesting question. It appears to have arisen as a piece of sumptuary legislation passed by Brigham Young, who wanted to discourage importation of coffee and tea, expensive commodities, from the gentile world. When I ask Mormons if the ban extends to decaf coffee and or/ caffeinated soft drinks, they tell me it is a matter for personal decision.
Finally, the writer pretending to be Orthodox appears to know very little of any Christian faith, and I suspect there is a reason for his ignorance. There is nothing superstitious in the Orthodox Church's prohibition, which is only slightly stiiffer than the traditional Catholic position. There are obviously good reasons to discourage members of one Church from hanging out in another, where they might pick up ideas and practices alien to their own tradition. The main focus of Orthodox hostility, however, was against the Western Church, especially in border areas, such as the Balkans and the Ukraine, where both sides have spent the last 1000 years trying to steal each other's sheep. Out of friendship and in my travels, I have attended Orthodox services with some frequency, though, obviously, without receiving communion. I can only hope that the schism may some day be healed or, if not healed, at least bridged in some way.
I thank Mr. Ryan for his exposition in the matter of Galileo and Bellarmine, and I bid good by to the Mormons who are wasting altogether too much time on this site. I am not a good enough person to lie awake at night praying for their conversion to Christianity. I am perfectly content to let them rave in their conventicles and even to defend their mock-religion, so long as they do not attempt to deceive the innocent into believing that they have anything to do with Christianity. It would be irresponsible of us to give them an opportunity to repeat this lie. Their dishonesty was made transparent a few years back when they started referring to their cult as "The Christian Church," though that particular trial balloon seems to have lost its hot air and fallen to earth.
Sid
"That those religions (1) with a millennia of history, (2) with an established interpretive authority beyond individual judgment, and (3) with the best social teachings are the best religions for a social order."
It is also extremely useful that the religion actually be true. That is where Mormonism fails. I realize that even a false religion can possibly help regulate a social order better than no religion, but since we are not liberal pluralist here, why not concern ourselves with truth?
PS On the subject of the politics of race, Chronicles is the only above-ground magazine to have grappled with this issue seriously. Our efforts, as Mr. Wilson points out, have frequently been hampered by the single-issue loonies who insist, to borrow a phrase from one of them I used to know, that "race is the whole ball of wax." This is one of the most trivializing forms of reductionism, as foolish as the argument that everything can be reduced to economics. I do try to avoid discussing race on this website, primarily because the response is something out of H.P. Lovecraft. The very word "race" is like a spell uttered from the Necronomicon that invites the "Old Ones" to come pouring into our world, reclaiming it for their destructive madness. Sam Francis once, in a memorable essay, argued that the nativist Lovecraft used the Old Ones as a metaphor for undesirable immigrants.
What a question, Dr. Red: "What is truth?" I dimly recall a minor Roman official asking it on a famous occasion. In English we often confound truth with honesty or sincerity. In this sense I may be said to be truthful if I sincerely say what is false. In Latin, Greek, Italian, truth does not primarily mean sincerity or honesty but that which is real or that which corresponds to reality. In English, a Mormon might be truthful in saying what he believes to be true, but in Latin etc. this would make little sense.
When Our Lord declared himself to be "the way, the truth, and the life" he was not being tautological or rhetorical but was making three important points: He is the way to the Father and to the Kingdom of God, He is everlasting life for those who accept him, but he is also the truth, the ultimate reality of our existence, without Whom our life makes little sense.
The truth of the Greek philosophers, thus, was based on a perception of the Logos "by/through whom all things were made." This is one of the reasons why Christians cannot reject any truth discovered by scientists, whatever the scientist's motivations, but must learn to integrate the truth, whether it comes from Newton or Darwin, into the overarching understanding of the universe taught by Christianity. For the same reason, sectarians and cultists must reject any truth not compatible with their guru's teachings, whether the guru is an Arab or a water witch from upstate New York.
Oprah has done the black thing many times over the course of her national career and this is just another, albeit different, instance.
And predictable as she is, there is something most of her viewers recognize and appreciate about her "I did it, despite a rigged system that was against me" mantra that's been at the center of her experience. The frustrating thing is that she makes a living by turning this mantra inside out by telling others that they can't do it, at least not without the help of benevolent Democratic government.
Lord Karth,
I realize both Hillary and Obama are complete libs. That is why I said if worse comes to worse. But, I will be pulling for Obama to beat Hillary in the Democratic primaries as I am pulling much harder for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. And not just for the cynical reason that I think he would be easier to beat. I really would rather be governed by him than Hillary.
I may be wrong, but I think that Obama's conciliatory, unifying, "can't we all get along" rhetoric is genuine. I detect in him a temperamental inclination to avoid conflict and be a pacifier and a conciliator. I think that is part of the reason he has not been willing to play hardball against Hillary despite pleas from the "smart" people around him that that is what he needs to do.
Now when liberals want to get along with conservatives it is always self-serving. 3/4th of what they want instead of 100%. But better a guy who is inclined to decrease conflict than a ruthless, conniving, self-interested politician like Hillary.
Maybe the people from IL who have seen more of him know him better.
Sid,
It seems to me that you try so hard to maintain your liberal, non-judgmental attitude that you can’t make important distinctions. For that reason the Al Smith/Mitt Romney comparison falls flat. Would you make the same argument if Mitt Romney was a Wiccan or a Muslim? Do you think the Counter-Revolutionaries you admire thought religion was not an important thing to consider?
Anti-papist Protestants had good reasons to reject Al Smith. The real question is whether or not they should be anti-Papists. I prefer to be somewhat ecumenical. While I would prefer to vote for a serious Catholic, if one can ever be found to run for office, I would have no trouble supporting candidates who are faithful to the traditions of Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism (though in this case we are speaking entirely hypothetically), and probably Southern Baptistism. With some of the flakier sects, especially those who go in for charismatic shows, megachurches, pseudo-Christian Zionism, I would have more serious difficulties. If I thought Huckabee was anything but a political preacher turned preachy politician, I would consider supporting him. Making these distinctions is partly a question of prudence and partly a question of taste, but any imaginable line drawn by a serious Christian would exclude the Mormons, the Witnesses, Quakers, and Adventists. The alternative would be to say religion does not matter at all and to go out and root for whatever Caligula is most likely to win.
I do not support Huckabee, but he is managing to make himself the right enemies.
There are many likeable things about the Huckabee persona, and, as you say, the enemies he has gained are a plus and his following are at least the more decent members of the GOP. I think he is the wiliest politician in the race. I say that after watching him debate but also after seeing interviews and conversations with knee-jerk liberals. He's good, as Bogart might say, too good.
Dr. Fleming, what is your take of the recent Led Zeppelin concert? How can you put into a cultural context the 20,000 or so who plonked down big money to listen to grandfatherly musicians blaring their heavy metal rock?
Did Red Phillips #73 read carefully, or read at all, what I wrote in #63, where I clearly rejected the Smith comparison as too easy, clearly rejected Liberalism (as Europeans understand it), and clearly supported a religious foundation for a social order?
55 Richard: "Religious proof ? Fatima happened in front of hundreds, including agnostics, atheists and Catholic arch-enemies, the freemasons (much like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) Veritas is knowable."
Of course, by Fatima, you are referring to the "Miracle of the Sun". But it was not witnessed by hundreds, as you said, but thousands. (70,000 witnesses across several miles, I believe.) This miracle was the greatest of our time, and the circumstances that surround it are irrefutable. Anyone who takes the time to research this magnificent event will not soon be able to shake the obvious conclusion. In fact, reading about the events that took place in Fatima are what converted me to Catholicism; it wasn't an overwhelming need to find "purpose" or "meaning", it was as simple as looking at the facts and coming to the logical conclusion.
Back to the topic at hand, as a Christian it is not in my best interest to support those that represent competitive faiths; especially when those views dictate that we are gentiles, infidels or worse. If your faith is hostile to outsiders, as many are, then the idea that you will remain "true to your beliefs" is not a good thing from my perspective. I appreciate Mr. Romney's honesty, but I assure you that what he says on television and what he says at the kitchen table with friends and family are two very different things. And if he is a devout Mormon, then it's likely that he holds the view that a majority of citizens in this country are enemies of the faith. You don't think that might effect his judgment?
If I found myself in a position of authority in Syria today, I don't think I would be able to make decisions that were in the best interest of the Muslim majority if I were true to my beliefs as a Christian.
Sid, I thought you meant it would be "too easy" to use the Al Smith comparison against Dr. Fleming who argued it is OK to consider Romney's religion. As people argued it was OK to consider Al Smith's.
If that is not what you meant, what did you mean?
As a stupid young man, I once wasted time and money to take a date to a Led Zeppelin show. I learned one thing only, that there were worse grops than Grand Funk Railroad. Puerile, self-indulgent, wasted..were a few of the gentler remarks I uttered on the way out. What does it mean today? I think my generation and those that followed are puerile, self-indulgent, wasted....
PS Re Sid's comment. I misread it the first time, but then realized he agreed with me. This a problem with websites--hasty writing. What I believe he was saying is that some who were saying that religion did not matter might reply with a tu quoque, to the effect that the same arguments were being made against Al Smith, but, in fact, the cases are not the same.
#79 is the best post in the history of "Chronicles"!!!....
I wonder about Huckabee. Up until recently, he was a shill for globalism (and probably still is), always ready to insinuate the charges of racism and nativism against anyone critical of immigration. But more recently, he almost sounds like Buchanan on trade and immigration. He says regarding immigration he's had a "conversion," and got the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, which apparently is a result of over 6 weeks of secret meetings with the Minutemen, and which where initiated by Huckabee himself. Allegedly, Huckabee gave him many assurances. But does Huckabee, like the Minutemen, support the reduction of legal immigration, especially from the Third World?
I don't know how sincere the Huckster is, but I hope that more politicians see the light on the road to DC. If we paleos are the only immigration reductionists, then not much headway is going to be made. Paleos were definitely the trendsetters on this issue. What was "extreme" 10 years ago, now is mainstream. But I think paleos still need to keep up the fight, holding their feet to the fire.
Given Huckabee's recent rhetoric on trade and immigration, and the Gilchrist endorsement, I wonder whether he's attempting to play the "Middle America card." If so, ergo, the neocon disdain. Just read Ramesh Ponnuru's rants about Huckabee at The Corner.
I received in my inbox today notification from National Review that they are endorsing Mitt Romney. For twenty-seven years, since I was a sohpmore in college, I have maintained my subscription with NR. For the last fifteen or so years - since at least the fall of the Soviet Union - I've had to hold my nose over various issues of the mag. As a Chronicles subscriber since 1987, it long ago replaced NR as my favorite journal of opinion (with the New Republic a distant third - obviously). I always held out the vain hope that NR would somehow return to form, but it is filled with jingoistic neocons, pseudo-intellectuals that pass for serious thinkers in the much stunted dialogue of todays political environment. I'll be cancelling my subscription to NR, just a footnote on the death of the conservative movement that really happened twenty years ago. I too would rather vote for slick preacher like Huckabee, or an agnostic womanizer like Guiliani than an avowed Mormon. What a sad state the "stupid party" has fallen to.
TJF, you have mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses a couple times.
I agree with what you said, but I have experience with those nuts, experiences unimaginable to sane people, so my condemnation of them is far more extreme. Sure, some may be personally decent, but they are an evil cult. They are anti-family as you have mentioned. I have heard them talk about trying to influence other people's small children with their cult beliefs when their parents wetren't around, and they are as shameless about it as Muslims on Jihad. They act as a subversive element in society at large, just as Muslims do in Christian societies. They're just not violent like Muslims. And of course, anyone who opposes their cult does so because they are posessed by demons, influenced by the devil, or, as I have heard them put it, 'demonised'. They actually believe that.
Their rejection of blood transfusions is silly and causes unnecessary death. Apparently, to them, it's okay to take a liver or heart transplant, but not blood. They will take platelets and plasma, and ignore the fact that these are just components of blood. They dont even have enough sense to see how illogical and stupid this is. I have come to the conclusion that only a fool would join their cult, and a person's membership in it says all I need to know about him or her.
Why am I so hateful toward them? Because my mother converted, and when I was bleeding to death in ICU, she refused to sign the release to allow me to receive blood, after I had told her repeatedly over the years that I wanted to receive blood if I had to. She ignored my express wishes. I would be dead right now I my father hadn't gotten there in time to sign the release. He asked her, 'what the hell are you trying to do, kill him?'
Any 'religion' that would cause a mother to let her own son die like that rather than just do the right thing, something the average atheist would have had no problem doing, is evil. If I could, I would burn every kingdon hall to the ground and hang the heads of the Watchtower society.
"#79 is the best post in the history of “Chronicles”!!!…."
This is obviously from someone who has read only the few posts made by the mormons on this thread. Drawing out the lunatics is but one of the valuable services performed by Chronicles in its online form. My thanks to Dr. Fleming and to the several regular contributors who have taken their time to post thoughtful comments on this site.
1. Dr. Fleming has read me correctly. Instead of "too easy" perhaps I should have said "too superficial".
2. The Constitution, a work that Europeans would call "liberal", doesn't protect someone from being stupid. Nor does it oblige me to vote for the stupid.
Seen "liberally" (again in the European meaning), if a group of the stupid, say, those folks in Waco, are no threat to my liberty, my life, my property, my chance for self development ("pursuit of happiness"), or my good name -- in short, my civil rights --, then "liberally" I can live with them, and they with me. Would than the Justice Dept at that time had been "liberal"!
Yet Real Conservatives know the social fabric is more complex and that the telos of life in community is more than just protection of these civil rights.
So who is correct? The Liberals (libertarians) who, not without good reason, fear coercion, or Real Conservatives, who wish to maintain a particular social order beyond just the utilitarian?
Mormonism
I understand that the interest in the SLC branch is due to Romney. For those who don't know, though, there are 4 branches of Mormonism, the other three being headquartered in Kansas City. These all have a much lower profile. Of these other three one is comparable in size to the SLC group, and one is very tiney -- only a few hundred souls -- but they possess the holy ground. If either of the two largest branches ever got control of it they would erect a "Taj Mahal" on it.
Also, I don't know of the specific origin of polygyny in the SLC branch (nor whether it is part of the other branches), although it is certainly part and parcel of the OT, but it was propagated by the women of the SLC group who wound up in Utah with many more women than men and it was an expedient and easily rationalized appeasement of a group which had invested so much psychological energy, but yet faced dire prospects.
"Neither Oprah nor Obama have ever been convincing putting on the ghetto, and their performances reminded me of nothing so much as of Steve Martin as The Jerk." -TJF ... I thought Oprah might have in a moment of introspection endorsed Huckabee and the two could have commisserated with one another about their weight problems and how they each continue their battle of the bulge. Is Barak still smoking-?-cigarettes. That voters in the south might applaud. In his yute he was a small time coke dealer apparently - not coca cola. Is he the one?
Re: Mr. Kyser
"The Middle Eastern contribution to U.S. music comes down to Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Ahmet Ertegun, Frank Zappa and Paula Abdul."
Did you intentionally pick non-Moslems when you wrote this? Paula Abdul and, I guess, Neil Sedaka are both Jewish. Paul Anka was raised "Antiochian Orthodox." Frank Zappa was, I believe, raised Catholic. Ahmet Ertegun is the only Moslem in the group.
Allen Wilson tells a hair-raising story. The Jehovies I have known seemed like decent simple people, but their willingness to go against their families because of religious differences always alarmed me. Remember the abuse Augustine's mother put up with from her nonbelieving husband. Her example converted him in the end. This objection is quite apart from their rather silly views: All depends upon correct use of the divine name, but when you point out to them that Jehovah is actually a made up name--early Hebrew lacked vowels and the tetragrammaton was not to be pronounced--they shrug their shoulders and say, "Close enough."
The question about Huckabee is not whether I can like him--I know Ii cannot--but whether he is sufficiently different from the others to justify the energy it takes to vote--roughly the time it takes to smoke a cigar.
In the heat of the battle, I may have been too harsh on the poor Mormons themselves. As I explained, I do not begrudge them their fantasies, but their leadership knowingly tells lies about their relationship to Christianity and the rank-and-file follows along, claiming, sometimes sincerely, to think they are Christians. But if they were Christians, why would they need new Scriptures and new teachings? And if the BOM is of divine composition, why is is so poorly written and why is there so much plagiarism?
The Mormons try to trap you into reading long passages of their book to which they attribute great wisdom, but they never answer the plagiarism question and they never seriously take up the charge that Smith stole it from the trunk of a man for whom he worked. As I understand, two contemporaries claim to have read the BOM as a Biblical fantasy novel, one was the cousin of the author and the other was a publisher's reader. I may have the details a bit wrong, since it has been 20 years or so since I looked into this question.
Re polygyny, my understanding is that it was first preached publicly by Brigham Young but practiced secretly by Smith, who was accused of seducing young women. The formal charges against Smith and his brother were that by refusing to allow writes to be served in Nauvoo, they were committing treason against Illinois. The story is complicated because the governor, who had received votes and I believe contributions from the Nauvoo settlement, backed up Smith, and his account in his history of the state reads a good deal like special pleading. On the other hand, the lynching from Carthage jail seems to have arisen from a general hatred of the Mormons as heretics and of Smith as a seducer. There must be people who know the story better than I do, though I did once take the trouble to go to Nauvoo and Carthage, one of the stranger experiences of my adult life. I'll see if we can post the piece I wrote about 5 years ago.
Caper, respectfully, there's Cat Stevens whom I imagine was raised xian then went and converted to Moslem? What's his story. (Or, was he 1st Jewish???) Good music - Longer Boats - I'm Looking For A Hardheaded Woman etc., etc. So did the last wannabe Jewish Messiah Shabbetai Zevi in the 1600's convert (whom at least half of world jewry believed to be the Messiah, until he converted to being Moslem.) Upon Zevi's appearance (i.e. he had an astonishing publicist apparently in Nathan of Gaza) it had been a while, understandably after the disasterous Bar-Kokhba as Messiah A.D. 132 -135 (whom his own Jewish followers burned at the stake after he failed in the last great revolt against the Romans.) Caper, respectfully you jews and/or ex-jews have a history, and tear everything else apart, but never discuss yourselves? Or deconstruct or tear yourselves apart much, publically - there's just the rumor via the/(your) media that you're somehow 'self-hating' and that's just another reason to pity you and elevate you simultaneously... And Gentiles/Christians since Christ, in hubris do tend to sin in believing (somehow) themselves, Each, to be the cat's pajamas. So they rarely in their self-admiration are looking into Actual jewish history. Or study what they 'claim' to themselves, they stand upon in terms of the judaic.
Funny.
But what about Cat Stevens? I like him once in a while. Also his song "Peace Train" ...
PS The Reorganized Mormons, I believe, descend from Smith's family and from those who did not make the Great Trek to Utah. They are well-represented in Nauvoo. They seem far closer to mainstream Protestantism and a lot less weird than the Salt Lake City bunch. The Reformed Mormons, on the other hand, are rather more like the Unitarians, accepting Jesus, Mohammed, and Smith. This is obviously a gross oversimplification, but from my point of view, while the Reorganized Mormons are an odd sect, they seem far less offensive than the SLC. Imagine generic Protestants who respect the BOM as a continuation of revelation.
Chance Gardner, you are probably one of the pseudonyms of the wacko who writes here. Everything for you is Jewish-Zionist. I will remember not to read posts under your name in the future.
I never said I liked any of those musicians, as I don't. I wasn't claiming anyone for any group, just pointing out that they weren't Moslem, which I think Mr. Kyser implied. I am not Jewish. Why would you think I was? I pointed out that several of the people in the group were Gentiles. But you latched onto the ones who were Jewish, because of your private obsession. Then you read into my comments a point that wasn't there. Let that be a lesson to you.
If you look up the posts by "Caper," you'll see that I'm Roman Catholic.
Actually, what the present primary election circus reminds me of the most is another Steve Martin movie, "The House Sitter." Not only was this the best documentary ever done about Yankee New England, but its relevance to American electoral politics is profound. The first liar does not have a chance.
"Chance Gardner, you are probably one of the pseudonyms of the wacko who writes here. Everything for you is Jewish-Zionist. I will remember not to read posts under your name in the future. ... If you look up the posts by “Caper,” you’ll see that I’m Roman Catholic." (end Quote above) of - CAPER
Horesefeathers, scum... what is your real name whore. I feel free to call names since caper called me "wacko.''
As for all of his B.S. - to the contrary - if interested in a little bit of TRUTHFUL Jewish history go to my post # 95 (above) for that. Unlike Caper although I am Christian, I am also genetically via my grandmother Jewish...
Only a Jew (yet at heart) would bristle at hearing of his or her's acutal history in PUBLIC like Caper did above in attacking me personally. REFUTE, scum historically ANY of the above history... Then I'll reveal to you my Rabbinical sources. SEE - his tactic is to disparage me - so you the idiots will believe the history is not accurate.
If the times are Sane? I'm proud then to be weird.
Wacko, i don't start unnecessary Wars, Caper. What's your real name, whore?! Or is it whore.
-proud to be called wacko
p.s. by the way what do you think of Cat Stevens... he's a bit of a genius, unlike a whore like you ...
_________