I've been keeping up with Bob Jones's letter to the president, the one the Josh Marshall keeps coming back to.
My own take on this, besides the scary thought that Bush might actually think like this rather than just be playing the role of someone who thinks like this, is that the whole Red-Blue divide is increasingly an aesthetic and linguistic choice.
As I read Bob Jones's [Jones', if you prefer] letter, I can help but to keep coming back to the language:
Dear Prez:
The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!
In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.
Christ said, “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour” (John 12:26).
The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit ourselves to pray for you—that you would do right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.
Best wishes. Sincerely your friend,
Bob Jones III
President
This whole "king-james" speak reeks of the Old Testament to me.
What's funny, is that the evangelicals that I know, use this phraseology all the time in their normal speaking. Last year we had a family of missionaries staying in our house. I spare you the whole story: very nice people, 26 years old, 4 young boys, living in beat-up RV until they moved to Madgascar to setup a charity school to teach english AS IT IS SPOKEN IN THE KING JAMES VERSION of the bible. Yes, they actually consciously or unconsciously adopted the same rhetorical figures. On some level, it sounded absurd. It was absurd. On the other, it was chilling.
The problem is not that we're going back linguistically to the late Middle Ages/Early-Modern period--I don't beleive in linguistic progress, only linguistic change. The problem is that we're going back to the the same friggin' mentalities of that enlightened time. The linguistic codes mirror this and seem to be a trait of recognition among the "beleivers."
The world is getting stranger. Teaching King James's English is both a symptom of these groups' subjugation (mental, linguistic...) to thier cause and a trope for recognizing the knowing.
Amen.
Andy
Friday, November 12, 2004
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Ivory Coast...
La Côte d'Ivoire is going to hell in a handbasket. Not many resources, but a vital rail line into Burkina Faso's gold and magnesium. I don't think this will make the administration's radar, so the French will maintain a foothold.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Oh, Thank you, mighty Howler
The Daily Howler
It is time for some class "warfare" of the reality-based type.... From The Daily Howler.
CONTEMPTUOUS VALUES: Many readers—many readers—sent us the Tax Foundation tables which show which states are federal free-loaders. And yes, the “red states”—the states whose denizens love to preach that bracing self-reliance—routinely take in more federal money than they submit in taxes. Meanwhile, who subsidizes these free-loading states? Who else? “Contemptuous” “elitists” from northeastern blue states, whose troubling values red-staters love to ponder! In 2003, for example, blue-state New Jersey received only 57 cents in federal spending for every dollar submitted in taxes. But then, the top ten states whose pockets are picked include eight which are nominally blue:
1) New Jersey: 57 cents
2) New Hampshire: 64 cents
3) Connecticut: 65 cents
4) Minnesota: 70 cents
5) Nevada: 70 cents
6) Illinois: 73 cents
7) California: 78 cents
8) Massachusetts: 78 cents
9) New York: 80 cents
10) Colorado: 80 cents
Eight of the ten donor states are “blue,” including Massachusetts, New York, California and Illinois—home base to the contemptuous elitists whom red-states denizens love to scold. Throughout the campaign, George Bush mocked the troubling values of liberal Massachusetts voters—people who send big bags of money to support Bush’s red-state supporters.
Is this a silly, pointless critique? In some ways, yes, as one e-mailer claimed in a semi-spot-on analysis:
E-MAIL: Here is the source of those tax numbers. I have to say that, while I generally agree with you and am also a bit tired of the whining, your prejudices are showing here. Most of the "red states" (other than those in the Midwest) have extractive economies and many are in effect internal colonies. Their current poverty is historically constructed by these facts and the relative prosperity of the “blue states” has created and
is dependent on their continued poverty (the existing economic development of the blue states in effect inhibits the red states from developing). The relationship here is essentially the same as the relations between the first world and the third world. There is a general correlation here between relative prosperity (even within red and blue states) and voting patterns. I think what the red states have in common is economic deprivation and a sense (justified) of a lack of control over their future. Unfortunately, they have wrongly identified "liberals" as the cause of their problems—in part because, as Thomas Franks points out, we have stopped talking about economic and class issues while still pushing for minority and gender enfranchisement.
Keep up the good work, but try to have a little sympathy for the unlovely lot of those red staters (if not for their infernal and unseemly whining).
But the mailer misconstrues our incomparable fairness. It’s that infernal whining we have specifically criticized—and the bogus attempt to blame “elitist liberals” as the source of red-staters’ problems. We’re not economists, and the e-mailer surely knows more than we do about red-state status as internal colonies. But, as Michael Lind discusses in Made In Texas, Southern red states became “internal colonies” with “extractive economies” because of the choices and values of Southern elites—the same Southern elites who feed their boo-hooing red-state voters their phony grievances against “contemptuous eastern liberals.” Historically, Texas elites helped make Texas an “extractive economy,” and blubbering Texans need to be told that, even as they stick their hands deep into northeastern pockets.
It is time for some class "warfare" of the reality-based type.... From The Daily Howler.
CONTEMPTUOUS VALUES: Many readers—many readers—sent us the Tax Foundation tables which show which states are federal free-loaders. And yes, the “red states”—the states whose denizens love to preach that bracing self-reliance—routinely take in more federal money than they submit in taxes. Meanwhile, who subsidizes these free-loading states? Who else? “Contemptuous” “elitists” from northeastern blue states, whose troubling values red-staters love to ponder! In 2003, for example, blue-state New Jersey received only 57 cents in federal spending for every dollar submitted in taxes. But then, the top ten states whose pockets are picked include eight which are nominally blue:
1) New Jersey: 57 cents
2) New Hampshire: 64 cents
3) Connecticut: 65 cents
4) Minnesota: 70 cents
5) Nevada: 70 cents
6) Illinois: 73 cents
7) California: 78 cents
8) Massachusetts: 78 cents
9) New York: 80 cents
10) Colorado: 80 cents
Eight of the ten donor states are “blue,” including Massachusetts, New York, California and Illinois—home base to the contemptuous elitists whom red-states denizens love to scold. Throughout the campaign, George Bush mocked the troubling values of liberal Massachusetts voters—people who send big bags of money to support Bush’s red-state supporters.
Is this a silly, pointless critique? In some ways, yes, as one e-mailer claimed in a semi-spot-on analysis:
E-MAIL: Here is the source of those tax numbers. I have to say that, while I generally agree with you and am also a bit tired of the whining, your prejudices are showing here. Most of the "red states" (other than those in the Midwest) have extractive economies and many are in effect internal colonies. Their current poverty is historically constructed by these facts and the relative prosperity of the “blue states” has created and
is dependent on their continued poverty (the existing economic development of the blue states in effect inhibits the red states from developing). The relationship here is essentially the same as the relations between the first world and the third world. There is a general correlation here between relative prosperity (even within red and blue states) and voting patterns. I think what the red states have in common is economic deprivation and a sense (justified) of a lack of control over their future. Unfortunately, they have wrongly identified "liberals" as the cause of their problems—in part because, as Thomas Franks points out, we have stopped talking about economic and class issues while still pushing for minority and gender enfranchisement.
Keep up the good work, but try to have a little sympathy for the unlovely lot of those red staters (if not for their infernal and unseemly whining).
But the mailer misconstrues our incomparable fairness. It’s that infernal whining we have specifically criticized—and the bogus attempt to blame “elitist liberals” as the source of red-staters’ problems. We’re not economists, and the e-mailer surely knows more than we do about red-state status as internal colonies. But, as Michael Lind discusses in Made In Texas, Southern red states became “internal colonies” with “extractive economies” because of the choices and values of Southern elites—the same Southern elites who feed their boo-hooing red-state voters their phony grievances against “contemptuous eastern liberals.” Historically, Texas elites helped make Texas an “extractive economy,” and blubbering Texans need to be told that, even as they stick their hands deep into northeastern pockets.
Eschaton
Atrios puts up some interesting Ohio numbers....
Highland Heights: 1385
Mayfield Village: 1385
Seven Hills: 2147
Broadview Height: 2540
Berea: 3146
Olmstead Falls: 3146
North Royalton: 4009
Maple Heights: 4744
Brook Park: 5295
Oakwood Village: 5460
Euclid: 5724
South Euclid: 5724
Cleveland Heights: 6007
East Cleveland: 6007
Garfield Heights: 6170
Lakewood: 6226
Middlebury Heights:
Parma: 7284
Bedford: 8553
Bedford Heights: 8553
Warrensville Heights: 8553
Bay Village: 9948
Fairview Park: 9948
North Olmstead: 9948
Rocky River: 9948
Westlake: 9948
Cleveland: 49324
http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/110003866197985353
Highland Heights: 1385
Mayfield Village: 1385
Seven Hills: 2147
Broadview Height: 2540
Berea: 3146
Olmstead Falls: 3146
North Royalton: 4009
Maple Heights: 4744
Brook Park: 5295
Oakwood Village: 5460
Euclid: 5724
South Euclid: 5724
Cleveland Heights: 6007
East Cleveland: 6007
Garfield Heights: 6170
Lakewood: 6226
Middlebury Heights:
Parma: 7284
Bedford: 8553
Bedford Heights: 8553
Warrensville Heights: 8553
Bay Village: 9948
Fairview Park: 9948
North Olmstead: 9948
Rocky River: 9948
Westlake: 9948
Cleveland: 49324
http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/110003866197985353
Jeffersonians unite
If--and it's a big 'if'--we are going to really talk about injection religion even deeper into our PUBLIC lives, well, listen to
Gary Hart
"If we are to insert 'faith' into the public dialogue more directly and assertively, let's not be selective. Let's go all the way. Let's not just define 'faith' in terms of the law and judgment; let's define it also in terms of love, caring, forgiveness. Compassionate conservatives can believe social ills should be addressed by charity and the private sector; liberals can believe that the government has a role to play in correcting social injustice. But both can agree that human need, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and sickness must be addressed. Liberals are not against religion. They are against hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that one side or the other possesses 'the truth' to the exclusion of others. There is a great difference between Cotton Mather and John Wesley.
There is also the disturbing tendency to insert theocratic principles into the vision of America's role in the world. There is evil in the world. Nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents is there support for the proposition that the United States was given a special dispensation to eliminate it. Surely Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. But there are quite a few of those still around and no one is advocating eliminating them. Neither Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world's avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy concerned them above all else. Mr. Bush's venture into crusaderism frightened not only Muslims, it also frightened a very large number of Americans with a sense of their own history."
Gary Hart
"If we are to insert 'faith' into the public dialogue more directly and assertively, let's not be selective. Let's go all the way. Let's not just define 'faith' in terms of the law and judgment; let's define it also in terms of love, caring, forgiveness. Compassionate conservatives can believe social ills should be addressed by charity and the private sector; liberals can believe that the government has a role to play in correcting social injustice. But both can agree that human need, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and sickness must be addressed. Liberals are not against religion. They are against hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that one side or the other possesses 'the truth' to the exclusion of others. There is a great difference between Cotton Mather and John Wesley.
There is also the disturbing tendency to insert theocratic principles into the vision of America's role in the world. There is evil in the world. Nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents is there support for the proposition that the United States was given a special dispensation to eliminate it. Surely Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. But there are quite a few of those still around and no one is advocating eliminating them. Neither Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world's avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy concerned them above all else. Mr. Bush's venture into crusaderism frightened not only Muslims, it also frightened a very large number of Americans with a sense of their own history."
CIA, Inauguration
It was announced today that the security level for this year's inauguration is going to be the very highest possible. Read: we will do everything to exclude protesters from the scene. Of course, it is highly likely for the networks to oblige. What interest does GE have in curbing the president's enthusiasm?
None.
What are we going to do about this inauguration? Hopefully nothing since, in some ways, I don't think we should protest. It takes our eye off the ball--namely, the Senate and Congress, whose members will be attempting hijinks previously unseen in Washington now that they seem to beleive they have a "mandate."
None.
What are we going to do about this inauguration? Hopefully nothing since, in some ways, I don't think we should protest. It takes our eye off the ball--namely, the Senate and Congress, whose members will be attempting hijinks previously unseen in Washington now that they seem to beleive they have a "mandate."
Le Monde.fr : Mais o? sont pass?s les votes d?mocrates de Floride ?
Le Monde is asking about missing votes in FLA according to the GAO Heres the article...
Fallujah
1.
Well, we're attacking Fallujah, which is what we should have done a long time ago. Or, if the invasion had been done properly, perhaps we wouldn't have to be doing it at all... But, hey, it'll make for some exciting TV! Blood, explosions, RUmsfeld. It'll be great, I promise. Just watch your LOCAL news and see how much they talk about it.
Let's not be too coy. We're there and be have to do it now....
2.
I'm feeling a bit depressed today as I look across the Democratic board and see the same old actors doing the same old thing. We're not going to win unless there is a major shake up/shake down of the self-loving, pandering folks.
More later.
Well, we're attacking Fallujah, which is what we should have done a long time ago. Or, if the invasion had been done properly, perhaps we wouldn't have to be doing it at all... But, hey, it'll make for some exciting TV! Blood, explosions, RUmsfeld. It'll be great, I promise. Just watch your LOCAL news and see how much they talk about it.
Let's not be too coy. We're there and be have to do it now....
2.
I'm feeling a bit depressed today as I look across the Democratic board and see the same old actors doing the same old thing. We're not going to win unless there is a major shake up/shake down of the self-loving, pandering folks.
More later.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
As I thought on Wednesday without even
looking at the results. Things are not as bad as they may seem for Dems. Yes, the national party is, as it has been, in need of inspiration, new blood, etc. I firmly believe however that there is a liberal message and that it is getting out that the bottom of the ticket. The problem is the communication alleys between top and bottom. We have got to quit playing the Republican's game and create a coherent elevator message for the party. Unfortunately, I'm talking about branding it. We need persistent messages sent out, we need them starting yesterday. We must attack Frist and co.
MyDD (Chris Bowers) looks at all the stats and sums it up nicely:
"Democrats also made state legislature gains in Michigan and Ohio, and in both cases are now within only three seats of taking at least one of the two branches of the legislature. Vermont saw notable Democrats gains in the state legislature as well. Finally, Republicans wrested the Missouri and Indiana governorships from Demcorats, while Democrats wrested the Montana and New Hampshire governorships from Republicans.
Do I need to go on? The pattern is clear. We have been thoroughly routed out of the South, but are making significant gains in virtually every other part of the country. We are well on our way toward building a new post-Dixiecrat, and entirely post-New Deal majority coalition. If we cling to some foolish believe that our problems in the South can be fixed by nominating a conservative Southern governor who talks faith, we might as well fold up our tents right now. It has taken us twenty years to come close to building a national majority since the fracturing of the Democrat-Dixiecrat coalition in the early 1980's, but we are finally close. For a long time we were propped up by the false impression that the Southern wing of the Democratic Party was not completely dead, but after Tuesday it is time to put that false hope out to pasture. I'm not saying we should not keep trying in the south, as I believe we should keep trying everywhere. However, it is time to stop believing that just having a southerner on the ticket, or talking a little faith is somehow going to turn our fortunes around in the region. For that matter, we should not even believe that doing these things would even make us competitive in the region anytime soon. The Blue-Gary divide in the country is once again rearing its ugly head, and the Mike Easley's, Wesley Clark's, Mary Landrieu's and Phil Bredesen's of the party are not going prevent that from happening.
MyDD :: Due Diligence of Politics, Election Forecast & the World Today
This is essentially what I said the other day. This is about belief in the system, in progress. If the Republicans have gotten this far it is because they have a core base of believers integrated into a cynical political machine. The democrats have never been nor will they ever be as cynical or as manipulative as the Repubs. The Dems have realists. Now these folks must coordinate with the believers--who are very different from the glossy-eyed Republican ones.
There is a realignment going on and we must catch this wave with our own coherent ideology that is based neither on hate nor exclusion, but belief in a better, fairer America. Forget gay marriage--propose civil unions for everybody. Talk about debt-relief--this makes more sense to most folks than tax-relief. Talk about good, well-paying jobs. Talk about health care. Talk about family, food, property. Talk about MORALITY--There has b een an increase in abortions since the Bushite coup of 2000. What does that mean? What does that say about this administrations dedication to family? I say that we must learn to hear and speak of a moral truth that goes beyond us while not preaching or sounding haughty, which has been the case for so many righteous Dems in the past.
The Dems are well-positioned for this, but will the national party learn or will it be an eat-your-child-power-grabbing party? Folks, we need some vision.
Andy
MyDD (Chris Bowers) looks at all the stats and sums it up nicely:
"Democrats also made state legislature gains in Michigan and Ohio, and in both cases are now within only three seats of taking at least one of the two branches of the legislature. Vermont saw notable Democrats gains in the state legislature as well. Finally, Republicans wrested the Missouri and Indiana governorships from Demcorats, while Democrats wrested the Montana and New Hampshire governorships from Republicans.
Do I need to go on? The pattern is clear. We have been thoroughly routed out of the South, but are making significant gains in virtually every other part of the country. We are well on our way toward building a new post-Dixiecrat, and entirely post-New Deal majority coalition. If we cling to some foolish believe that our problems in the South can be fixed by nominating a conservative Southern governor who talks faith, we might as well fold up our tents right now. It has taken us twenty years to come close to building a national majority since the fracturing of the Democrat-Dixiecrat coalition in the early 1980's, but we are finally close. For a long time we were propped up by the false impression that the Southern wing of the Democratic Party was not completely dead, but after Tuesday it is time to put that false hope out to pasture. I'm not saying we should not keep trying in the south, as I believe we should keep trying everywhere. However, it is time to stop believing that just having a southerner on the ticket, or talking a little faith is somehow going to turn our fortunes around in the region. For that matter, we should not even believe that doing these things would even make us competitive in the region anytime soon. The Blue-Gary divide in the country is once again rearing its ugly head, and the Mike Easley's, Wesley Clark's, Mary Landrieu's and Phil Bredesen's of the party are not going prevent that from happening.
MyDD :: Due Diligence of Politics, Election Forecast & the World Today
This is essentially what I said the other day. This is about belief in the system, in progress. If the Republicans have gotten this far it is because they have a core base of believers integrated into a cynical political machine. The democrats have never been nor will they ever be as cynical or as manipulative as the Repubs. The Dems have realists. Now these folks must coordinate with the believers--who are very different from the glossy-eyed Republican ones.
There is a realignment going on and we must catch this wave with our own coherent ideology that is based neither on hate nor exclusion, but belief in a better, fairer America. Forget gay marriage--propose civil unions for everybody. Talk about debt-relief--this makes more sense to most folks than tax-relief. Talk about good, well-paying jobs. Talk about health care. Talk about family, food, property. Talk about MORALITY--There has b een an increase in abortions since the Bushite coup of 2000. What does that mean? What does that say about this administrations dedication to family? I say that we must learn to hear and speak of a moral truth that goes beyond us while not preaching or sounding haughty, which has been the case for so many righteous Dems in the past.
The Dems are well-positioned for this, but will the national party learn or will it be an eat-your-child-power-grabbing party? Folks, we need some vision.
Andy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
