If you’re like me, you have a hard time ingesting current news, especially on the political front. The polarization of America is, front and center, the most perplexing aspect of current political discourse. Take for instance this fixation on defeating Obama, making him a “one term President” as Mitch McConnell promised early in his administration, during a time of economic crisis when millions of people were losing their homes, their jobs, and their way of life, and Congress should have been working WITH the President, not against him.
Is there a reason why we have to suffer through all of these political debates? The candidates seem to be on tour, stopping in all the big venues, trying to extract something from the ticket holders, but it’s not money, it’s votes. It reminds me of Bob Dylan’s Neverending Tour (which actually started in 1988), only there’s less drugs and you can’t dance at the events. I know we used to complain that there were never enough debates, that the candidates should all get on the same stage and hash out their differences before a public audience on a regular basis, so that we uninformed voters could become informed, but I thought that was only after we had whittled it down to two. This is getting ridiculous. With 57 varieties stumping across the country, with less distinction between them than between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum (another Dylan reference), things just begin to smell, and it ain’t the fresh odor of lemons, either. There seems to be a conscious effort to lull us to sleep, or perhaps asphyxiate us with the smell of ripe methane gas, in the hope that when (or if) we wake up, we’ll have a new President, and we won’t even remember how we got him (or her).
But that’s not really the point of this post. Continue reading
Sam Brownback, who is presently running as a Republican for President, recently wrote an article in the NY Times explaining his stance on evolution. He felt the need to do so after he raised his hand at the last debate when the moderator asked all of the candidates to indicate who didn’t believe in evolution. 1 In the Times piece, he blatantly attempts some political fence sitting, by claiming that he believes in evolution, but then doesn’t believe in it when it conflicts with his beliefs. (Confused? You’re not alone.) Clearly, he’s stooping to the level of stereotypical politicians who feel the need to pander to whatever special interest he thinks will help him win, so he obfuscates and deflects, and tries a little linguistic dodging and weaving, all in the hopes that intelligent people will think he actually believes in evolution, while his religious base will see his sly wink and a nod. Continue reading