Friday, October 14, 2005 Natural Disasters: Angry Deity, Angry Scientist, or Angry Scienty?
Bam, Iran Earthquake Tsunami Hurricane Katrina Hurricane Rita Hurrciane Stan Pakistan Earthquake East Coast Flooding
Could the Religious Right be right? Could this be the Apocalypse, the End Times? I'm a high and dry Navigator and a future Episcopal priest, but are the rest of you stupid commie pinko Ivy League heathens about to be Left Behind?
Or, as other RR members proclaim, could this be God punishing us for being so liberal? Indeed, in this nation where the courts, Congress, White House, state houses, and lobbyists are all controlled by the Republicans, NARAL and the ACLU are scary institutions to behold, and both red states and Asia alike must suffer for them.
If that doens't sit well with you, perhaps Jon Stewart is right. Is it scientifically possible that these various disasters are due not to a wrathful God's will, but to hot air meeting cool air, global warming, and plate tectonics?
I guess it's sort of the same thing, really. One answer involves Republicans, the other hot air. What's the difference? Nevertheless, I would like to introduce a third possibility. Mr. Stewart, for all is glorisness, is wrong: God is indeed at work. HOWEVER, he is not punishing us for tolerating the lispy dude with an earring and a boyfriend sipping cappuchino at Starbucks.
No, our God is one who sends His Son to this earth in order to tell us, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto the Lord what is the Lord's." God is a loving God, not a wrathful one. He is not punishing us for tolerating the gays and the civil libertarians, or for the Kerry voters. John Kerry and the Patriot Act are nowhere to be found in the Bible (point to passages about the Antichrist and I, a loving Christian, shall punch you in the head).
Indeed, it is my firm belief that God is punishing us for a different reason: for tolerating Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Throw in a little James Dobson, and you've got yourself a not-so-Holy Trinity of doom, and a heaping of Franklin Graham for dessert (at least Billy's kinda cool). This is why we suffer.
Posted by Nathan S. Empsall,
1:03 PM
-
Sunday, October 09, 2005
On The Nature Of George Bush (the current one)
It occurs to me that President Bush is not a politician. He is a businessman and an evangelical, but not a politician. Everyone knows that he'd had little political experience before '88, and jumped in himself almost on a whim. I would add to that, watch what we he says. Whenever he nominates someone to some position, he says they're qualified based on jobs they've had and the fact that they have a "good heart". Resume items are good in business, and an evangelical cares about having a "good heart". Loyalty, another trait W cares about, is important to both groups, as well. He never talks about ideology, something his advisors would seem to have but his SC nominees do not; he never talks about the ability to connect, or of vision, of policy details. These are the things politicians care about and pay attention to. And look at how he deals with problems - to gain success in the first place, he stresses the same points over and over again. When he loses that success, when his Social Security plans don't go over with the public or when Iraq, Katrina, energy, and five ethical scandals jump out at him and yell "BOO!", what does he do? He stresses the same points harder. These are the signs of an evangelical ideologue, but not of a savvy politician (or a good businessman, which explains why while he may be a businessman, his companies all failed). Karl Rove, previously Ken Mehlmann, and a host of others handle the politics for the President. He's certainly involved - Paul O'Neill says that every meeting focused more on politics than on policy - but that's not who he is as a person.
Posted by Nathan S. Empsall,
12:18 AM
-
I just saw the documentary, "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room". I'm not sure if I recommend it or not. On the one hand, it was the most credible, professionally done movie-documentary I have ever seen. Many of them, including Farenheit 9/11, are partisan screeds, and others, like The Hunting of the President, focus more on the moviemaking aspect than the informative aspect. This movie was good for PBS; I learned quite a bit from it and was never bored. The film was a real eye-opener, and lives up to the fact that it didn't get one negative user comment on Amazon.com. On the other hand, you'll leave angry - not at the directors of the film or authors of the book it's based on, but at Skilling, Lay, Fastow, and the Enron traders.
