The LK Manifesto, Part 1
I’m dismayed by a populace that sees adapting to a changing environment as flip-flopping. Using a Darwinian train of thought, if we hadn’t flip-flopped, we wouldn’t be here now. We’ve become so used to politicians who drift where the wind blows, and/or aren’t mentally agile enough to think on their feet, that when one does, they’re accused of wavering. This is only compounded by our current president, who, if one is to be judged by one’s actions and words, can’t much think at all.
It’s depressing.
As I’ve written previously “it’s going to take dismissing … polarizing categories of thought in order for us to get back on track with the expediency that’s necessary”.
Therefore, I hold these truths to be self-evident, and not mutually exclusive:
Barack Obama, although by no means ideal, is this country’s best hope for improving our individual daily lives and our nation’s relationship with the rest of the world.
If anything, the Christian Right should be the most tolerant folks around, and yet they are the epitome of “my way or the highway”. If you’re a Bible believer, we’re all sinners, we’re all imperfect, and the candidates, none of whom are members of the Holy Trinity, are no exception. Why Dr. Dobson gets apoplectic in the face of Obama’s carefully considered modulations is inexplicable, and would be inexcusable if he and we weren’t directed to turn the other cheek while reminding ourselves that no one is beyond redemption. If he’s secure in the knowledge that his God is both just and vengeful, he should simply take comfort in knowing that pro-choicers (to take one contentious issue) will meet their fate in due time, and realize that he’s being a bit presumptuous giving them hell on earth. That’s not his job, although I’m sure his staff can dig up a line of scripture making it clear that it is.
John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., is a brilliant man and a gifted strategist. He is also, by all accounts, an ethical and forthright fellow. I don’t agree with every conclusion he reaches, but his input should be sought by whichever party wins control of the White House.
Big oil is not the big problem. Their profit margin is less than most businesses; they do such a large dollar volume that they appear to be far more greedy and prosperous than they are. Except for Dick Cheney and those of his cronies who were cut from the Jeff Skilling cloth. Way back when, big oil had to take on the risk of drilling when they didn’t know if the well was going to be dry or a gusher. America has always rewarded and been rewarded for risk taking. When did that change?
Another energy related problem is the NIMBY (not in my backyard) crowd. Years ago, Texans and Louisianans were willing to alter the land and seascape if it meant energy independence. And the nation flourished. The Hyanisport and Malibu elites can’t have it both ways. Spouting bright green doctrine while claiming a privileged exemption to wind farms destroys their credibility, and cripples the pace of progress towards national energy independence.
To be continued.
6 Comments
Leave a Response
Additional comments powered by BackType
Brilliant as always, LK!
Except you’re wrong about the Christian Right. Or rather, taking a 2-Dimensional view, and painting a diverse group with a very broad brush.
Otherwise, pitching nothing but hard-breaking strikes!
Bulyaksun
confess to the broad brush, and acknowledge that the rank and file have differing viewpoints, but the figureheads make it hard not to respond in kind. thanks for the nuanced response. LK
LK, I am impressed that you were able to spell the word “nuanced”, as it is clearly one not naturally familiar to you. Blunt speech is fine but careless speech isn’t.
I used to think highly of your bloggings but now I’m forced to think less. You seem to radiate a sense that as long as you’re highly intelligent and free of bigotry–as you clearly are–you’re also free of normal obligations to avoid sloppiness and carelessness.
I don’t claim to speak for other members of your Christian readership. That in fact is the main point of the prior comment! But I wouldn’t be surprised if many agreed with the following.
You carelessly write that “the Christian Right should be the most tolerant folks around, and yet they are the epitome of “my way or the highway”.
Really? Is this true? Holding people who set a higher standard of tolerance for themselves to that standard is fair. We make it part of our operating creed, and should do what we preach or be rightfully called hypocrites. But the “EPITOME”, really? The “very pinnacle” of overall systematic failure to exhibit tolerance?
Not even AVERAGE in our intolerance? Like all their extra commitment to a gospel of tolerance is beyond pointless, and actually nets out strongly negative?
Sometimes a necessary adherence to key dogmas, as part of our operating creed, makes us inflexible in a few areas, a few key areas that rub you the wrong way. Sorry. It’s been happening for 2000 years so don’t take it personally.
Then you go on to write, “If you’re a Bible believer, we’re all sinners, we’re all imperfect, and the candidates…”
What the heck is a “Bible believer”? What does that mean? Someone who takes every word of the Bible literally? A strict fundamentalist who never heard of the terms “parable” or “allegory” and believes Creation happened in 4004BC? Or someone who believes the Bible contains Divine wisdom and guidance strewn about its pages?
And wouldn’t many atheist psychologists also make the claim that we’re all sinners and imperfect?
Then you make no link whatsoever to why the next focus of your attention is Dr. James Dobson. None whatsoever.
Thus, after two fuzzy, and faintly menacing slanderous insinuations about this ‘bloc’ of souls, you then jump, completely and with no visible connection whatever–except in your head–to a critique of a popular and beloved Christian moral Teacher and storyteller, and imply that his political babblings somehow represent the political philosophy of some vast “union” of fuzzy Bible believers who are off the charts in their intolerance.
Only the Catholic Church has a Pope. The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t even speak for all Anglicans. Please give the slightest hint WHERE you get the notion that Dr. Dobson speaks for anyone but himself, and then people listen.
I described his political thoughts above as “babble” because that is my personal view of them. Otherwise I happen to think he’s the cat’s meow. I don’t agree with his politics. I feel the same way about Kobe Bryant. Both in no way speak for me, and yet I feel myself a righteous Christian, and a Lakers fan.
Loose cannons on wooden sailing ships were a disaster to body parts and wooden structures. The yell of “LOOSE CANNON” was more dreaded than that of “man overboard”.
Keep that in mind. It did its harm to its own vessel– not to the military adversary.
I believe you owe a penance and an apology to your Christian readership, lest they too turn away in disappointment.
what a wonderfully thought out comment. “the Christian Right” generally conjures up characteristics that “Christians” do not, and so for matters of communication to folks without microscopes it makes the point that was intended. as Dobson is an accepted figurehead both in religious and political circles he’s fair game for being on the receiving end of a mild version of the zealous “my way or the highway” attitude he spouts on a daily basis. he’s a lot of fun to listen to, by the way. a political doctrinaire masquerading as a messenger of God.
my penance is living under President Bush, and I think it’s Dr. D who needs to apologize to all Christians (and there are many of them) who don’t believe that Christian Right is the same as Christian Correct, and would prefer that he not speak for them.
I agree. Dr. Dobson often comes on like a Messiah who speaks for others, and not just an educator.
I agreed with you