Politics Drives the Fly Crazy
Guten Morgen, folks. As I sit here, watching the first season of the Drew Carey Show, I'm thrilled: my Outfitter XL Cot arrived. Excellent!
First thing's first: part four of the Royal Marines in Afghanistan, from the CBC program The Passionate Eye.
On the subject of Afghanistan, I've seen a couple of articles recently that are worth paying attention to. People are very concerned about high global food prices, and their connection to biofuels; and that's a very real concern (and just part of the reason why we shouldn't tie our energy policy into biofuels). However, there has been at least one good dividend of the rise in wheat prices: Afghan farmers have swapped out poppies for wheat in the last few months. For most of the last several years, cash-strapped Afghans have been unable to justify growing subsistence crops because it was so much more cost-effective to grow poppies. Wheat prices are now high, and opiate prices are low, which is leading to a shift. It's widely known that the Taliban use the profits from opium sales to fund the insurgency, so the issue of poppy cultivation has been closely tied into efforts to hamstring the insurgency. Apparently the Taliban have stockpiled poppies after last year's bumper crop, in order to provide more financing once prices go back up. Personally, if I were an ISAF commander, I'd make locating and destroying every last opium cache one of my top priorities.
I've also wondered for years why the Afghan government and ISAF don't just legitimize the opium production and use it for pharmaceuticals, thus eliminating the Taliban's ability to profit from it. I discussed it with M@, who's in the medical field, and he suggested that the supply of Afghan opium exceeds the demand for legitimate opiates (morphine, codeine). I suppose the idea is also to eliminate the opium crops altogether, as an opium crop intended for legitimate use could still be subverted, stolen, and used for Taliban purposes. I suppose we can only hope that the Afghans take this opportunity to continue to grow wheat.
Alright, I'm going to go ahead and give my expert testimony on this latest issue with Senator Obama. I'm going to try to be coherent, professional, and reasonable... While I watch Sports Night.
* * *
Okay, I had a long explanation drawn out for why the thing between Senator Obama and Dr. Dobson is such a big deal. Again, I'm not thrilled with it, because it left out a couple of details, and because I'm less and less comfortable commenting extensively on politics. So now, I'm going to simplify. Let's see if I can get this.
The reason that this is an important issue is that it's another big hit to Senator Obama's religious credibility. Particularly when there are rumors that Senator Obama is a "secret Muslim" or something of that sort, he needs to connect with the average American voter by demonstrating that he actually is a Christian. That took a major hit when two clergy who he'd identified as spiritual mentors (Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger) turned out to have made blatantly anti-American and racist statements from the pulpit, on video. That made Senator Obama appear to be either radical himself, or disingenuous about the depth of his personal commitment to his faith. Assuming that his recent statements about being unaware of Jeremiah Wright's views until 2008 (and that's a big leap of faith for American voters to take), it made him look as if he'd joined the Trinity United Church of Christ for the purpose of political convenience, not for the purpose of fostering his religious faith.
This most recent event once again brutalizes Senator Obama's credibility, because it shows either a willful disregard for Biblical context; or a profound ignorance of the Bible. Senator Obama's speech in 2006 demonstrated less understanding of the Bible than I had going into college. Anyone who has really been a dedicated, devout, mainstream Christian for twenty years would have a better understanding of the Bible and his context than Senator Obama demonstrated in his speech. So, the first controversy with Jeremiah Wright made Senator Obama look either radical, or "faithful" for the sake political convenience. Now, this incident makes Senator Obama appear to be profoundly ignorant of a faith he claims to follow devoutly. It makes him look disingenuous, inconsistent, and phony.
The other issue, and it's also a big one, is that the speech essentially boils down to this: "We can't and shouldn't use the Bible to inform our political views, because it's no longer relevant and not everyone accepts it as the word of God." This is a problem for Obama because many American voters use the Bible to inform their political views as well as their personal lives, and mainstream Christians believe that the Bible is both relevant and inspired. On this issue, too, Senator Obama has demonstrated a fundamental schism between himself and the Christian voters he's trying to bring into his camp.
And the comparison of Dr. James Dobson to Al Sharpton is just asinine, and Senator Obama should have known better. That was just uncalled for. That having been said, I do want to make a couple of quick asides.
First, I don't support anyone's decision to vote against Senator Obama because they've heard he's a "secret Muslim". The fact that his father was a Muslim and he claims not to be is an issue, as that makes him an apostate Muslim in the eyes of devout Muslims. I'd rather people voted for Senator McCain, because I honestly think he's the best choice in this election. However, if someone is going to vote against Senator Obama, they should be doing it based on his political views, or his policies, or his lack of experience. These are all legitimate justifications; rumors that he's a "secret Muslim" are not legitimate justifications. I want no one to vote in ignorance, even if it means they vote the same way as me.
Second, I do want to give Senator Obama credit, because I did agree with him on one issue. Senator Obama criticized religious conservatives who vote solely based on the Bible, without having any deeper explanation than that. I honestly believe that every political issue for which there's a religious justification can also be explained in secular terms. In an increasingly schismatic conservative movement, religious conservatives will have less and less success by coming off as religious zealots. It's okay to point out what the Bible says, but it ought to be backed up with logical, coherent justification that doesn't require the Bible in order to be logically sound.
I may post that other stuff at some point, but these are the basic points. As I've indicated previously, I have no malice toward Senator Obama, I just think that Senator McCain is far more qualified for the highest office in the land. I'll try to avoid politics for a while, because it takes a lot of time and isn't really what you folks stop in for.
* * *
Ugh. And I haven't even touched that Air Force blurb that I started on last night. Oh, yeah, and I didn't get a chance to touch either of my spy novels tonight. Okay, I've blathered on and on, probably for at least a couple of pages at this point, but I'm going to close with a funny exchange between me and the former LSG, who needs a new name.
Have a great day, folks! More to come!
First thing's first: part four of the Royal Marines in Afghanistan, from the CBC program The Passionate Eye.
On the subject of Afghanistan, I've seen a couple of articles recently that are worth paying attention to. People are very concerned about high global food prices, and their connection to biofuels; and that's a very real concern (and just part of the reason why we shouldn't tie our energy policy into biofuels). However, there has been at least one good dividend of the rise in wheat prices: Afghan farmers have swapped out poppies for wheat in the last few months. For most of the last several years, cash-strapped Afghans have been unable to justify growing subsistence crops because it was so much more cost-effective to grow poppies. Wheat prices are now high, and opiate prices are low, which is leading to a shift. It's widely known that the Taliban use the profits from opium sales to fund the insurgency, so the issue of poppy cultivation has been closely tied into efforts to hamstring the insurgency. Apparently the Taliban have stockpiled poppies after last year's bumper crop, in order to provide more financing once prices go back up. Personally, if I were an ISAF commander, I'd make locating and destroying every last opium cache one of my top priorities.
I've also wondered for years why the Afghan government and ISAF don't just legitimize the opium production and use it for pharmaceuticals, thus eliminating the Taliban's ability to profit from it. I discussed it with M@, who's in the medical field, and he suggested that the supply of Afghan opium exceeds the demand for legitimate opiates (morphine, codeine). I suppose the idea is also to eliminate the opium crops altogether, as an opium crop intended for legitimate use could still be subverted, stolen, and used for Taliban purposes. I suppose we can only hope that the Afghans take this opportunity to continue to grow wheat.
Alright, I'm going to go ahead and give my expert testimony on this latest issue with Senator Obama. I'm going to try to be coherent, professional, and reasonable... While I watch Sports Night.
Okay, I had a long explanation drawn out for why the thing between Senator Obama and Dr. Dobson is such a big deal. Again, I'm not thrilled with it, because it left out a couple of details, and because I'm less and less comfortable commenting extensively on politics. So now, I'm going to simplify. Let's see if I can get this.
The reason that this is an important issue is that it's another big hit to Senator Obama's religious credibility. Particularly when there are rumors that Senator Obama is a "secret Muslim" or something of that sort, he needs to connect with the average American voter by demonstrating that he actually is a Christian. That took a major hit when two clergy who he'd identified as spiritual mentors (Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger) turned out to have made blatantly anti-American and racist statements from the pulpit, on video. That made Senator Obama appear to be either radical himself, or disingenuous about the depth of his personal commitment to his faith. Assuming that his recent statements about being unaware of Jeremiah Wright's views until 2008 (and that's a big leap of faith for American voters to take), it made him look as if he'd joined the Trinity United Church of Christ for the purpose of political convenience, not for the purpose of fostering his religious faith.
This most recent event once again brutalizes Senator Obama's credibility, because it shows either a willful disregard for Biblical context; or a profound ignorance of the Bible. Senator Obama's speech in 2006 demonstrated less understanding of the Bible than I had going into college. Anyone who has really been a dedicated, devout, mainstream Christian for twenty years would have a better understanding of the Bible and his context than Senator Obama demonstrated in his speech. So, the first controversy with Jeremiah Wright made Senator Obama look either radical, or "faithful" for the sake political convenience. Now, this incident makes Senator Obama appear to be profoundly ignorant of a faith he claims to follow devoutly. It makes him look disingenuous, inconsistent, and phony.
The other issue, and it's also a big one, is that the speech essentially boils down to this: "We can't and shouldn't use the Bible to inform our political views, because it's no longer relevant and not everyone accepts it as the word of God." This is a problem for Obama because many American voters use the Bible to inform their political views as well as their personal lives, and mainstream Christians believe that the Bible is both relevant and inspired. On this issue, too, Senator Obama has demonstrated a fundamental schism between himself and the Christian voters he's trying to bring into his camp.
And the comparison of Dr. James Dobson to Al Sharpton is just asinine, and Senator Obama should have known better. That was just uncalled for. That having been said, I do want to make a couple of quick asides.
First, I don't support anyone's decision to vote against Senator Obama because they've heard he's a "secret Muslim". The fact that his father was a Muslim and he claims not to be is an issue, as that makes him an apostate Muslim in the eyes of devout Muslims. I'd rather people voted for Senator McCain, because I honestly think he's the best choice in this election. However, if someone is going to vote against Senator Obama, they should be doing it based on his political views, or his policies, or his lack of experience. These are all legitimate justifications; rumors that he's a "secret Muslim" are not legitimate justifications. I want no one to vote in ignorance, even if it means they vote the same way as me.
Second, I do want to give Senator Obama credit, because I did agree with him on one issue. Senator Obama criticized religious conservatives who vote solely based on the Bible, without having any deeper explanation than that. I honestly believe that every political issue for which there's a religious justification can also be explained in secular terms. In an increasingly schismatic conservative movement, religious conservatives will have less and less success by coming off as religious zealots. It's okay to point out what the Bible says, but it ought to be backed up with logical, coherent justification that doesn't require the Bible in order to be logically sound.
I may post that other stuff at some point, but these are the basic points. As I've indicated previously, I have no malice toward Senator Obama, I just think that Senator McCain is far more qualified for the highest office in the land. I'll try to avoid politics for a while, because it takes a lot of time and isn't really what you folks stop in for.
Ugh. And I haven't even touched that Air Force blurb that I started on last night. Oh, yeah, and I didn't get a chance to touch either of my spy novels tonight. Okay, I've blathered on and on, probably for at least a couple of pages at this point, but I'm going to close with a funny exchange between me and the former LSG, who needs a new name.
The Fly: Well I've got a cot ready and waiting when you woman up and come to [Van Dieman's Station].With smooth lines like that, it's truly amazing that I'm not yet married.
Transitional LSG: oh a cot... you know how to make a girl feel sexy
The Fly: You won't even know that's what it is.
Transitional LSG: lol i may be able to tell
The Fly: I'll make a pretty good attempt at disguising it.
Transitional LSG: it better be a big cot
The Fly: Outfitter XL. The XL stands for an eXtrachanceofnotbeingawkwardforthe Lady.
Transitional LSG: lol
Transitional LSG: post that
The Fly: Okay. I'll see if I can work it in... Heyo!
Transitional LSG: lol
Transitional LSG: i did like the 'woman up' comment
Transitional LSG: well played
The Fly: Thanks.
Have a great day, folks! More to come!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home