Classical Music & Opera Forums

pczipott wrote:As for the implications: many evangelicals are already very pro-Israel, since they can hardly wait for the battle of Armageddon to begin; this would just give Palin a bit more motivation. Of course, their version of "pro-Israel" is a bit weird, since the last thing they want in the region is a lasting peace settlement, for the above reason.

That's a rather grotesque distortion of the Premillenialist position. Many Evangelicals are pro-Israel because they regard Israel as God's Chosen People, the promises and prophecies regarding whom have not yet been completely fulfilled. If Israel is the "apple of God's eye," as the Biblical saying goes, then, they believe, it behooves them to treat Israel accordingly. Actually, if your view that they "can't wait" for Armageddon is correct, than you should say that they "can't wait" for the "lasting peace settlement," because in the Premillenialist scheme of events, such a settlement, although illusory, is one of the events leading up to the Second Coming. Evangelicals would not be opposed to a "lasting peace settlement;" they would just regard it as a sham. In any case, it is a complete falsehood to say that "[Premillenialist] evangelicals...can hardly wait for the battle of Armageddon to begin." That's like saying that they "can't wait" for the persecutions of the Great Tribulation to begin. It's not something they look forward to with anticipation; it's just something that, in their view, is going to happen inevitably at some point in the future. (And BTW, those Evangelicals who believe this also believe that they aren't going to be around for all this bad stuff anyway, so saying that they "can't wait" for it is nonsensical.)

One may regard all this as arrant nonsense, of course. Many Christians (e.g. Amillenialists, who BTW vastly outnumber Premillenialists, worldwide) certainly do. But please, get the facts right. Your grasp of eschatology is obviously shaky.

The Washington Post ombudsman acknowledges: "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02895.html

As Elizabeth Bennett says in Pride and Prejudice: "Really? Astonish me."

Actually, I wasn't being merely casual, but tendentious and unfair. Jamie, I sit corrected.

Nevertheless, "whack job" still seems a fair description...

Well, Karl, I suppose you can find a "subset" of any point of view that includes extremes (i.e., your hypothetical Schadenfreude crowd) that don't represent the norm or mainstream. What some may find questionable, although it is a common tactic in demonizing (if you will pardon the expression) one's opponents, is taking those extremes and using them to characterize the group as a whole. It would be a bit like equating all Obama's black supporters with the wackier elements in Farrakan's Nation of Islam. Or using that handful of nutjobs who bombed abortion clinics to characterize all pro-life Americans (which some who frequent this Forum have done in the past). It's an easy cheap shot, but it's certainly not honest or fair. And shouldn't we all prize honesty and fairness?

Oh, and BTW, Peter, I was not personally offended in the least by what you wrote, just correcting what I perceived as an inaccurate characterization of the beliefs of one particular group of persons of faith (about whose point of view I take no position here, one way or the other). I don't walk around with a chip on my shoulder waiting to be offended by someone else's remarks, a juvenile attitude which unfortunately afflicts many in our society today.

No problem, Jamie. I should know better -- and usually do. Corrections of your sort are always welcome.
Cheers,
Peter

Now THIS was not supposed to happen. The Messiah was going to save us all from the "Constitution-shredding" policies of the EEEEEEVIL Bush administration, and it looks like we're going to get more of the same! Reality certainly has a way of concentrating the mind.

(Of course, since the Good Guys are going to be waterboarding and listening in, instead of the Bad Guys, I suppose that makes it OK.)

The always stimulating feminist iconoclast Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin. (She likes her.):

"How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

"Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice. I like Sarah Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. ...."

RTWT here. (The bit on Palin begins on p. 2.)

I anm not normally one to talk politics much less even like politics, but I will jump in this one time because I am feeling a bit redeemed by this article. I like Paglia and always find her controversial but brilliant. She is making me feel less ashamed to express how I actually feel myself about Sarah Palin. I have carefully been hiding under the rug.
As late as last evening, while we were out to dinner with another couple, I expressed the fact that despite believing that Palin would have made a very poor candidate for Pres, and not supporting almost any of her beliefs about world issues, I personally like her and find her down-to-earth, non political talking, straight from the hip personality a breath of fresh air. I mean, on a personal level, I can see how we could be girlfriends -- just so we talked about anything but politics and world issues.
Well, I tell you, I thought those 3 people were going to faint on the spot. "How could you! Are you serious? Just about everything you don't believe in, she's for! Have you lost it?"
But this well written article has redeemed me somewhat. Though my friends and mate still go around staring at me funny and shaking their heads.
(Lulusheen, don't leave me!!)

Was that my bride who posted that Palin testimonial ?


I guess that's what makes her a continual mystery!

Actually, I don't find it difficult at all to reconcile liking Palin's down-to-earth personality and still finding her utterly unqualified to be vice-president. Personally, I don't like Palin's personality. I don't like that condescending tone in her voice when she's "telling it like it is" but I can completely see why people can like certain qualities of her personality. There are lots of people that I like very much and whom I would never consider for the highest office in the land.

God Bless America!

Link

ACD

That poor guy. I really feel for him. Jeez, these days it's just a normal part of speech to emphasize anger, shock, elation, whatever. Give me an effing break!

Ever thus to deadbeats, Lebowski.

[urlnw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqtgfjkB6Pg[/urlnw]

Ridiculous. It's amazing what's allowed on TV but how offended become by a four-letter word.

ACD wrote (on S&F):

This sort of imbecility could prevail only in sharia-governed Muslim countries and in America the only difference being that in the former you get your tongue cut out; in the latter, merely a slap on the wrist.

That's rather an important distinction, don't you think? Even drawing the comparison is ludicrous.