This Too Shall Pass

I hate it when a favorite blogging friend just disappears with no explanation. I’m not notifying you that I intend to leave, but I will not be posting regularly for a while. Things here in the meadow are rather difficult right now.

I’m not sure how much additional snow we got, but enough that we are again snowed in. We will be having someone plow us out later in the week. Our stove is not heating well, and is smoking a lot, and this is causing great difficulty for the Contrarian who has lung problems. We are going to have to go out in a day or so and try to cut up wood. I’m not much help but together we should be able to get in enough to keep warm.

We have food aplenty. A doctor’s appointment next week, and pretty much nothing else on the radar. Sometimes you just have to wait and hope and pray a lot. I am struggling with depression and obviously we are holding on at this point. Anything else goes wrong–well I cannot think about that.

As I feel able, I’ll post here. I’m just not able to concentrate on much of anything right now.

Take care, stay well and warm.

Curbing the Rhetoric?

It seems that as never before, at least since the Civil War, has this country been so ideologically divided. The fractures appear to be between what are known as liberal/conservative labels, but in truth, there are several dozen cracks–small groups who have their own personal issues.

Some are interested in health care reform, others in gay rights, others in abortion denial, tax reform, regulators or not, first amendment issues, church/state, and on and on. We artificially call people liberals, socialists, fascists, communists, conservatives, neo-cons, right-wing evangelicals, wackos, reactionaries, anarchists, you name it. Some of us fit one category and some of us fit partially in several. We are all at each other’s collective and individual throats on any given day.

People have solutions or not. Obama urges that we sit down and bypass the rhetoric and get down to details–look for common ground issues and build on them. Others want utter purity within their ranks and will give in on nothing. The GOP increasingly becomes branded as the party of “NO!” Tea Party adherents in more than a dozen organizations emphasis different core issues. Plenty of people are more than happy to give lip service to any group to gain their vote.

Fran, who is a great blogger and posts often on Facebook, decries this labeling. Many others do as well. Some decry the fact that those in powerful positions cause much of our dismay, by “modeling” bad behavior and making it “okay” for others to come forth with their favorite brand of bigotry. Those who feel put upon decry their martyrdom, and those who are accused of the outrages point to their own martyrdom imposed from the other side. We talk past each other.

We are the product of a lousy inadequate public education system that leaves us ill-prepared to evaluate the problems of our day. We are victimized by a co-opted media that no longer has much of  a clue as to what journalism is supposed to do.  We are the recipients of too much wealth and “stuff” and have developed the attention span of gnats. We are lazy and want others to do our thinking and research for us. We are susceptible to the “snappy retort” the glib “sounds good” bite.

We, all of us, are mired in way too much rah rah flag waving exceptionalism. If we are “best” then somehow, others must be less. If Episcopalians are best, then Baptists must not be. If Toyota is best then Kia can’t be. We are dualistic to an extreme. If there is left, there must be right, and if there is right there must be wrong. We like tidy columns like that, even when it leads us to “sides” that are separated by an increasingly uncrossable chasm.

Our churches, those valuable places where so much good could be done, are often times just exactly the opposite in that they claim exclusive ownership of the “interpretation” of God. Mainstream churches have lost their way, sliding into secular happy religion, while the Evangelicals are trapped in a rigid sense-deprived world that demands pure faith against physical realities.

Wherever we look, we are asked to choose. It is the battle cry of big business. Our car/computer/kitchen cleanser/potato chips are better than theirs. Pick us! Buy us! Taste test  us and them–See! We are better. They suck. Polls are run now, not days later, when we have had time to digest, reflect and work through new information, but now, as it’s happening. We have the clicker in our hand, dial it up for “like that” and dial it down when you don’t.

The immediately generated “public opinion” is pulled from the copier and sent off with a click to all those that need to know, and adjustments are made on the fly. A little less emphasis on “green” power Senator, the voters are projected to not favor that so much today. We can perhaps mold, manipulate that opinion later on, if you truly care that much about it. The election is the thing today. Stick to the script of what works.

We are caught, you and I with having nobody out there that we can rely on for truth much any more. Everyone has an axe to grind it seems. Everyone is lying or cheating, or somehow disguising who they really are for whatever they think is some greater good, for the moment. I may be a philanderer, an abuser of the public funds, but hey, guys, you need me! I’m convinced only I can save you from yourselves. So I tell myself, and will tell you if you catch me in all my naked wrongness.

I have not a clue how to get beyond this. I can only, it seems try to carve out my little corner of sanity in an insane world. I’m a offender. You come here to read my “witty” repartee, my sarcasm dripping with some truth and a lot of anger. Occasionally, I write uplifting stuff, but truly, you come for the ball-busting screech at the other side. That makes you chuckle and nod, or it makes you angry enough to write comments dripping with your own sarcasm and lauding my lacking mental faculties.

I am part of the problem, yet I have no clue what would work. They are wrong, and I want to state that very clearly. And so I do. You right wing wacko! Get a brain, get a life! And then I confess my sins and promise to do better. But you see I don’t.

As the snow starts and we face another long week of being locked within, I’ll give it some thought. But I don’t think I’ll come up with an answer. After all, I am right, right?

Evolution Evolving

A few days ago, I had a surprise. A high school classmate who had “unfriended” me on Facebook, suddenly messaged me. In fact she sent two messages. The material she was so desperate for me to see, after a sentence of  so-called pleasantries, (hope you are having a joyous winter?) was a long and tedious bit of trite flotsam on the errors of evolution. It came of course from the usual literalist rag website, designed to buck up all the fundies of the world that their outrageous worldview is meritorious.

I sent back a rather hot reply, boiled down to “don’t waste my time with such chit. Oh, and hope you are having a joyous winter too.!” Yech.

Truly, I have no time for such nonsense. As Patrick Moynihan once said,  “you are entitled to your own personal opinion, but not to your own facts.”

Evolution is real, get over it;  it’s embarrassing to have a conversation with someone whose brain has ceased functioning.

We tend to speak about evolution as something that “has happened.” In reality, it of course is still happening, but from our short life spans as humans, we cannot “see” it happening. Brain research shows I think rather clearly that our brains are still a work in progress. But still, we are in progress, both as brains and as species.

There is plenty in the world to suggest that regression seems to be more our direction. One can speak to certain personalities such as the Palin, the Limbaugh, and such. Certain people dash into our viewfinders rather often with swill so silly and off the wall as to astound us all that humans ever left the cave.

Sarah wants Rahm Emanuel fired for using the “R” word, yet has her press secretary does everything but kiss Rush’s butt-kins lest he think that her words reflected on his rather overactive use of the same word. Tancredo urges that Obama was elected by a bunch of illiterate folks (white and black presumably) who can’t spell vote and what kinda name is Barack anyway for an American? Any day, you can find a good dozen of such gems just for the asking, perusing the blogging world and regular media.

Still, I hold to the proposition that despite the detours and abrupt halts and throwbacks to more simian brain power, we are moving forward. Since I am a believer, I also believe that at the heart of every person, whether they are aware, do it honor or shame, is a soul/spirit, that is always in perfect communion with the divine and the connected wholeness of God.

I believe in what is called by some a “cosmic consciousness” and this humanness is moving upward slowly,  imperceptibly but still upward.

I have to think that our increasingly world wide information dispersal must help in this raising up. It stands to reason. My notions may seem strange to even myself. I may feel alone with them. Odd. Bizarre. I might even feel that my thoughts are weird, fanciful and Utopian. Yet, through the power of the Internet, I can connect with thousands of others who think exactly as I do. That creates dialog and speeds up the process of movement upward. So I think at least.

The dangers are there as well. We all, bloggers too, tend to congregate around the water cooler whose conversation is agreeable with their own predispositions. Liberals read liberal blogs, conservatives read conservative ones. So it should come as no big surprise that the fringe nuttery tends to read and listen to those who support and validate their beliefs. Soon, they use these as their “talking points” and link up to “prove” they are right to unsuspecting others.

I like to think that some of us have the smarts  to not use each other as this kind of “proving” ourselves right. Rather, we bounce off each other ideas–with plenty of argument and disagreement–and slowly we come to a higher level of  “right.” Perhaps that’s just wishful thinking on my part. But I do read conservative blogs, not a lot, but some.

I’ve noted that among the blogging, facebooking world, real friendships exist, people do make a point of meeting up with these new friends. More importantly we do reach out through prayer, and hands on “help” to each other. One blogger has sure stepped up to assist me recently. I feel blessed indeed. And I try as best I can to extend myself to others in the same vein. This kind of thing was not possible a few decades ago.  Our worlds were small, usually encompassing a few dozen miles. Now, our networks exist world wide in many cases.

It seems likely that our cosmic consciousness will grow exponentially as a result. So much more to draw from, so much to find support from, so many new ideas, new ways of living and thinking. New ways of being. If indeed our work here is to maximize our potentialities as humans, we have taken a major step forward.

At least I think so each and every time I reach out across miles, states and sometimes countries, to ask for help, and lo and behold receive it, offered with love. As we note more and more our commonality as humans, perhaps some of the hatreds and fears and suspicions start to retreat from our brains-in-progress. That’s got to be progress wouldn’t you agree?

Perhaps one day, we will all just suddenly agree that war is a waste and we have no more blood to spend on it.
Just sayin’.

Loyal Opposition or A Convenient Excuse?

It is common for the religious right to complain that the left demonizes their “legitimately” held religious views on homosexuality. And I grant, that there is some efficacy to their argument. After all, one can be supportive of gay rights from an economic sense, and from a personal sense, and still believe that they must adhere to a biblical understanding that they are convinced (however much I might disagree) prohibits such unions, involving marriage or otherwise.

And, no doubt there are plenty, maybe even many such conservative Christians out that that react in this manner. But I have to say, some things give me pause–causing me to think that in reality religious objectives are a convenient excuse that supports an already personally held belief that the GLTB community is an “abomination.”

A couple of things have happened recently that suggest that my concerns have some “legs.” One is the recent Daily Kos poll of self-identifying Republicans.

An outrageous 73% of all Rethugs answering, claimed that gays should not be allowed to teach school. This in a nutshell, belies the argument that one’s opposition is strictly biblically based and that one has no personal fear or animosity of the gay community per se.

Such a response suggests that the holder of such an opinion is mired in the usual anti-gay pseudo science that suggests that somehow gays are predatory and take every opportunity to “recruit” new members into their club, especially children. This horrifically wrong and well documented fallacy points rather to a personal homophobic fear that is illogical and not at all based in real world facts.

It falls directly into that very old and very warn out cliche, that gays “choose” this lifestyle. It denies any genetic component, except insofar as one might have “a predisposition” much as a person has a predisposition to be alcoholic or a drug abuser. Along with the predisposition, they would argue, comes all the tools (God given of course) to withstand the “urges” and to live aright.

I truly understand their reasoning, because they in the end, must admit that they believe that there would be no gay community, if God did not desire it. God creates directly, from their prospective, thus God created the gay world. For reasons that are inexplicable, gays are placed in a trap not of their making, and with no way out. They cannot “choose” to be celibate, they must be, to remain in good stead with God. Or so the theory goes. They are no different than singles or priests who are also called to celibacy. However, of course, singles and priests can choose to marry or leave the priesthood to get out from under their celibate hardship.

What they finally must admit to is that God created gays and then leaves them with a life long prohibition to have families and intimate love like the rest of humanity. This is a permanent condition, end of story. That in a nutshell is why most religious right anti-gay adherents, will never agree that gayness is a matter of genetics with some environmental aspects.  They do not agree that people are “born that way” except insofar as God by his mysterious ways, so designs them.

My second concern is with the uptick in the discussion on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Here again, we see the fallacies run amok. We are told by Senators that openly gay men and women will destroy morale and unity within the armed services, and this dangerous change will harm our fighting objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Plenty of time down the road, when we are at peace (whatever century that might happen) to carefully work through these issues.

However, I have as yet to see ONE single piece of research analysis that says that being truthful about ones sexuality has anything to do with morale or unity. Are not most of us sophisticated enough these days to identify the sexual preference of others after a short time? In fact, one of those who is most vocal, a young West Pointer, drummed out for coming forth with  his orientation, says that the Honor Code he learned at West Point was the REASON he cannot maintain the lie. It is abhorrent to him as a graduate of the institution.

Worse yet is the flagrant and ugly turn about of John S. McCain on this issue. Faced with a crazy extreme right attack against his Senate seat at home, Johnny has thrown all sense of right and decency out the window in now making it clear he will try to block any legislation that would overturn the policy. His swaggery mewling makes one shrink in revulsion.

Only a few short years ago, McCain claimed that he would be guided by the military brass on this issue. Only they, he argued were in a position to actually judge whether a change in policy would harm the morale and unity of our military forces. Their expertise on this issue should be controlling.

That opinion has been given.

Secretary Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, agree, that the time of “DADT” has passed and that it is right both morally and practically to end this sick practice.

But McCain, apparently like many Rethugs, is unable to comprehend that we actually keep video footage and written records of what people say. He ignores his previous stance, and is “disappointed” in the military for their position.

How can we forgive this unmitigated assault on decency and morality all in the name of one’s personal political ambitions? We simply cannot, and one John S. McCain needs to be openly vilified in the strongest terms possible. We understand that he puts John first. He did that when he was willing to put forth a complete moronic idiot as a Vice Presidential candidate, hoping that it would shore up his failing candidacy. So we are not surprised.

So excuse me if I’m just a tad skeptical of those that protest that their opposition to gay rights/marriage/military service is honestly the result of a deep adherence to religious principles. That works, until you open your mouth–then we see your true colors. Shame on you all.

More Biblical Thoughts

I’ve said it many times before; the more deeply I probe the bible for understanding, the more I stand in awe of it. Fundamentalists may protest that all this unpacking will destroy faith, but I find it the opposite.

It remains, and is, all the more clearly a human document, but as I’ve been wont to say in the past, the inspiration seems to grow when one sees it for what it is: the work of human hands, telling their story of God and His involvement in human history.

I’ve pointed out that I was no novice as I began this more intense study of the Hebrew Scriptures. I was well aware of the various writers of Genesis for instance. Two, the Elohim and Yahwist traditions are considered ancient, and it is not clear that these were written until perhaps even centuries after the stories had passed into Hebrew folklore.

These ancient traditions arose from different Hebraic tribes, not all of which had even participated in the Egyptian “bondage” and escape. Archaeology and anthropology have done much to assist us in understanding how disparate groups of Hebrews some in Canaan and some not, came, for the most part to coalesce into the unity of the confederacy and then monarchy of David’s time.

During the time of the Davidic monarchy, another writer, known as the Deuteronomist arose. He views the world through the lens of the successes and failures of the monarchy under King David. And finally, after the Babylonian exile, the Priestly writer comes forth to organize finally it seems much of the material thus far acquired. He writes/edits/theologizes from the point of view of a destroyed Jerusalem and the need to unite once more after the long exile.

What becomes exceedingly clear to me at least, is that the E, J (Yawhist tradition designated J because in German, the name is Jehovah), D and P, continued well past the Pentateuch,  of which I was aware, and continues into the books of Joshua, and Samuel. I am thinking that perhaps it permeates the entire Hebrew Scripture.

What I mean by this, is that as you continue reading, you find again and again, stories being told twice. As a novice, I think that I concluded that these stories must be of particular importance since God chose to repeat himself. If I saw what appeared to be contradictions or inconsistencies, I attributed that to my faulty learning as do most fundamentalists today. However, of course, I now understand that they merely reflect a different tradition who understood the story somewhat differently, often having major or minor contradictions to the other tradition.

What is even more apparent as one reads, is that the editor (often the Priestly writer, but also the Deuteronomist) had very clear theological ideas. In fact, they provided often, the framework around these stories, they gave them context and meaning. They never suggested that they were being “objective” and simply giving you all possible theories and one was free to chose which one was “best.”

Reading the bible is reading a point of view. God’s creation was “good.” The Deuteronomist makes it clear again and again in Joshua and Judges that “the people did what was evil in God’s sight” and were thus punished by God. When they returned to faithfulness, God blessed them with victories and good life. It is always clear upon reading what is the “right” response and what is wrong. The synchronization of Canaanite and Yahwistic faith tradition which was common in the confederacy years was unacceptable to the Deuteronomist, and he makes it clear it is apostasy. His point of view is that the Israelites were “different” and their God was the only one they needed.

So, it is astounding, given this, that the writers continued at all times it seems, to include other traditions that disagreed with their theology. Yet we see this time and time again. The Priestly creation story (the first encountered at the beginning of Genesis) reflects Priestly theology and is represented by the “modernized” view of creation of the 300-500 BCE period. The J-E version, located in chapter two, reflects a more primitive version of creation that would have preceded the period of the monarchy (1000-800 BCE).

We wonder why. Some scholars see the J-E and D and P as reflecting ideas from the “southern” tribes and later kingdom, and the “northern” tribes and later kingdom. We know the confederacy was only loosely united, the bible itself makes that clear. The kingdom of course split itself. Yet, the Priestly writer, probably a Levite, chooses to include the traditions of what may well have been political enemies of sorts, those that he might well have claimed “caused” much of Israel’s woes.

In this I see great inspiration–these were the stories of a “people” something the Israelites were well before they were a nation. In fact, they were not a nation one might argue until the time of the kingdom of Saul and then David. As such, these stories belonged to all the people, even when they were at odds with one another.

A case in point should suffice. In 1Samuel, we have the story of the movement from confederacy, and the time of the judges to monarchy. There are two traditions represented. One is called the “Saul tradition.” This makes the claim that the movement to monarchy was blessed by Yahweh upon the request of the people. A second tradition is the Samuel one, represented I believe by the Deuteronomist, who maintains that a change to monarchy makes them apostates, no better than the rest of their neighbors.

The writer chooses to include both. It seems the reason is that he understood that no unity could be approached but through the combined traditions of the Hebraic community. The story in some sense, must be “common,” even when parts were in contradiction. One may be favored as “correct” by the writer, but the two traditions perhaps serve to emphasize the “confusion” of the people and thus their falling into sin. It is from this linked and troubling “history” that the people find themselves in the place they are at the time of the final redactions.

This beautiful genius if you will, is surely inspired. Threaded through this mosaic are the clear indications of each writers sense of providence–how God worked within history to walk with his people. Nothing could be more inspiring to us as readers as we struggle to find answers to our own perplexing problems. We are reminded that we are all “a people” and we are best when we share our history, which is truly “all” ours.

Looking at the Bible Anew

For anyone who has come face to face with the clear evidence that factually the Bible contains many historical errors, a crisis of sorts must ensue. If one believes, as I do, that there is inherent worth in the book itself as a dispenser of spiritual food, then one must reach some conclusion as to what the word inspired means.

Clearly, as most any biblical scholar will attest to (excluding the strange world of the fundamentalist who engages in a process of no-think) the Bible was not either dictated, nor was it kept from factual error of any kind by God. The record simply cannot support such a conclusion. Yet, we do claim that the sacred scripture is “inspired,” and we must define what we mean by that.

Some claim that inspired refers to the timelessness of the moral teachings that are the heart of each story told within its pages. Some claim that we are informed through the stories of some of the attributes of God. Others suggest the inspiration comes from the unfailing integrity of the writers to set down as clearly and honestly as possible their vision of God’s walk with his people.

We are today a people who depend increasingly on the interplay of numerous disciplines in our quest for knowledge. This of course was not always the case, and particularly so in the case of biblical study. For very long, the bible was examined within its own pages for knowledge. History, slowly at first, and then with the help of various other sciences then began to help us flesh out that knowledge. We saw where it confirmed and where it contradicted.

The linguist consults the anthropologist and archaeologist, the historian, and the astronomer. It is because of this trans-disciplinary interface that we confirm or not the work of each other. Nowadays, an archaeological proposition is subject to biological, geologic, and a host of other disciplinary talents all of which study, test and then confirm or criticize the conclusion of the principal field.

Take for instance the case of Jericho, the Canaanite city that fell to Joshua’s trumpets. The bible tells us this generally in the story from Joshua, chapter six. The problem with this is that Jericho, at the time of the Israelite entrance in the promised land, was long desolate, a pile of rubble, a city no more. The city of Ai, referred to at length in Chapters seven and eight, was reduced to rubble during that time period, and thus may have fallen at the hands of Joshua. Also, Bethel fell similarly, although this is not noted in the bible.

We learn, as we have throughout much of the Hebrew Scriptures, that “history” is often factually wrong. And this was not because of faulty ability to tell the truth, but rather the stories served the greater purpose of establishing a “truth” believed by the people–namely that whatever happened that was God came from God, and whatever bedevilment befell the Israelites was due to their unfaithful behavior.

As I have studied so far up into 1Samuel, I’m discovering that this pattern of telling somewhat incorrect history for a greater purpose of “spiritual truth,” continues. There are double traditions in most of this history. Stories from the Northern Kingdom and the Southern are placed side by side, as if the writer is unable to choose the “correct” one. And later editors, also abhorring the idea of removing theological conclusions they disagree with–rework the traditions to point to their favored beliefs.

The movement from tribal confederacy that developed from the entrance into Canaan until the time of Saul, and the ensuing monarchy, are treated similarly with double traditions. One is demarked the Saul tradition, the other the Samuel. The Saul tradition  suggests the “rightness” of the monarchical movement, the Samuel cautions against it. Indeed, the monarchical period will not go well over time, and a number of the prophets, (Hosea) will rail against it and claim it was a turning away from the true Kingship of Yahweh, the only rightful king of Israel.

I have come to realize that to understand the factual history of Israel from its inception  is to understand the bible. It is to make clear why we tell the same stories usually twice. And why the stories set side by side conflict so often.  We see the factions within the Israelite communities vying for power, attention, and prophetic correctness. Most importantly, we see the conflicting theologies being played out. We truly do see how a  people day to day struggles with this difficult God whom they both look to for protection and yet in some way fear.

It is, as I have said, not a particularly good way to know God, but it certainly eliminates a lot of the grunt work as having already been done by our ancestors. We can move from there, as we have, using the interdisciplinary tools available to us to more completely reconstruct the world of our ancient religious fore bearers.

As believers, all, we share in this tapestry this is still under construction. We learn from it, we grow, we alter, add, subtract, join and sever elements. We match colors and shades, echoes of songs and poetry, epics and sagas, wise and foolish. In the Bible, as in most any sacred scripture founding any faith, we find ourselves–the good, the bad, the beautiful and ugly.

Some suggest that our “job” here is to be authentically human. Surely, the Bible is one of our most honored mechanisms for doing just that. That is plenty of inspiration for me.

Political Points in Peyton Prospective

It’s been a good two weeks of political this and that. Time for everything to marinate, blend, shake out, and the subtle themes and nuances to shake out. In other words. . . .time for a retrospective, Peyton style, of the news. We are after all, a hurry up, short attention span sort of species.

I can only conclude, as I always do, that I have been misplaced again in the universe, for surely I don’t fit in with what I consider to be the majority of Merikans and others around said globe. In other words, they are all nuts, I’m sane, and stop the world, I wanna get off. Preferably on the planet from which I was abducted, and am still Queen in absentia.

First on the docket is the SCOTUS disaster–personhood for corporations. This is indeed a sad day for democracy lovers world wide. It of course makes a joke out of the concept of “judicial restraint versus judicial activism.” As I’ve said, one is either one or the other, depending on whether the Court acts as you desire or not. Surely, no Founding Father could have anticipated nor condoned the idea that a “thing” a corporation would have personhood.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission bodes no good in many directions at once. Overruling decades of precedence, the reactionary and activist right, reset the playing field as election politics go. Now, it seems, corporations will be able to flood the market with millions to promote the candidate that best helps their cause of greed. And with a slight bit of finesse, foreign countries will be able to influence and perhaps control elections in this country.

While everybody is bemoaning this state of affairs, I see a much more sinister movement here. Declaring corporations to be persons for purposes of constitutional rights such as free speech, can only embolden those who see to reverse Roe v. Wade. After all, how can you sustain an argument that a corporation is a person, but a fetus (which will grow into a human being in time) is not? I suspect you will be hearing more about this “business” case than you might think.

***

The tea baggers are proving to be about what we would expect from people who have spotty educations and basically little in the way of actual sense. Their convention seems fraught with problems, mostly stemming from the fact that the whole thing is a bit of a scam.

First they start with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah as their two-pronged assault team. These two are enough to make a grown man celibate for life, hoping to stop the generation of any more spawn from these two crown idiots. But Michelle has now pulled out, and Sarah is being impolitely asked to leave by a segment of the tea bagger nation.

The reason? Seems Ms. Moose is not quite right wingy enough to suit the multi-faceted tea brigade. People are also complaining about the exorbitant price for one of the Alaskan Artist’s prized tickets.

How did Sarah get too “mainstream” for the tea bagger cult? Why she’s agreed to stump for one John Sydney McCain, the poor old Senator from Arizona who is having a hard time being right enough against his primary challenger. The tea bag gang thinks McCain is decidedly NOT right enough, and therefore Sarah can’t be either.

Speaking of which, Johnny is sure showing his true colors–”Ideology be damned, I wanna be re-elected!” It seems John has privately at least expressed his mea culpa about hiring on the said Palin express in his failed presidency bid. Yet, when push comes to shove, the ideal-less get going and bring in what might work, much as he privately might despise the woman. So much for John and integrity. But we knew that.

Which all goes to show–picking through the trash just locates trash doesn’t it? A pox on all their house.

***

Obama, following what was touted as a rather brilliant State of the Union speech, traveled to Capital Hill and met with the GOP. As you might expect, the cleaned the floor there too, making the Rethugs look like petulant children. One poor representative, was shocked that Obama had read his bill–though he quickly reverted to the usual handed out talking points that all Rethugs have come to know and love

What is at work here, and what the crazies in the GOP can’t get, is that, much as they try to deny it, Obama is a first class mind. And alas, they are holders of quite ordinary small minds. Thus the shock that he actually reads bills, even those proposed by lowly junior representatives.  I suspect in some sense, they truly cannot “get” him for just that reason.

It also points out just what we and they look for in candidates. It seems the GOP is not big on thinkers, but is very big on those that will faithfully mouth the GOP mantras of big business and low taxes for the wealthy.

***

Last but not least. John Edwards. Oh my, what can we say? To be duped by a sleazeball of this size is really thought provoking. It can cause one to stop in mid-stride. How can I or anyone be so incredibly wrong about our take on the integrity of another human being? It utterly boggles the mind, and contributes again to the belief that politicians are all worthless scum who via for office as a means to personal power.

Can you imagine being his new daughter who will one day have access to the information out there today about what her daddy did to try to stay at arms length from her? From pleas for abortion to substituting another daddy in the breach. What an awful man. Elizabeth, whatever her personal failings (and we all have them), is well rid of the snake.