Skip to main content

Never trust a man with two first names...

 I find it interesting the Republican party, so hunkered down in religion, specifically fundamentalist Christianity, has picked a spirited (pun intended) critic of their faith to be Mormon Mitt Romney's running mate. Taken at face value, it seems at least strange. Why would such a religious party offer up another seemingly problematic candidate?

The answer, of course, lies in Ryan's criticism of Christianity. Ryan, like Romney, has no beef with the reactionary social views many fundamentalists espouse. In fact, Ryan would almost certainly deny he is a critic of the religion using "defense of marriage," or whatever other silly cultural cry to arms is currently fashionable, as undeniable proof of his belief. Ryan, however, firmly takes issue with the "Prince of Peace." His issue is with Christ's annoying insistence on helping the poor, his chicken-shit clamoring for peace, etc. In short, weakness. Like any true Randian hero, Ryan hates weakness. His soon to be excruciatingly vetted budget proposal says as much.

So there we have it. The overwhelmingly Christian Republican party has nominated someone from a regional sect of Christianity many Christians don't consider legitimate and someone who is at odds with the only part of their dogma that isn't steeped in first century backwardness. Now if only we could find enough principled folks, we would have strange bedfellows.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hanging from a cliff

The day after Obama won his second term the markets took a bit of a tumble. The Dow dipped below 13,000 for the first time in a few months. US Congressional gridlock and the ongoing crisis in Europe are mostly to blame. What is more interesting, even if it's unsurprising, is the rush to bonds- US government bonds to be exact. Indeed, the yield on ten-year treasury notes dipped as low as it has since May. Even with our ratings downgrade (which no one now cares about in the slightest) and huge debt, it is cheaper than ever for us to borrow money. We are still the safest piggy bank out there. 

With the "fiscal cliff" of expiring tax cuts and automatic spending cuts looming, the spirit of compromise is being sprayed into the air like a bottle of Glade mountain berry. Democrats are fond of saying we need a "balanced" approach to reducing the deficit. Nominally this means some tax increases along with spending cuts. Republicans are now, apparently, open to some sort…

Austerity Ecology and The Collapse-Porn Addicts

I just finished Leigh Phillip’s left defense of humanity, “Austerity Ecology And The Collapse-Porn Addicts.” I think it’s important to frame it that way, as one of the main point he makes (and I fully agree) is that the earth doesn’t need us to survive. What we should focus on is our species. And not just surviving, but prospering, even conquering (I know people don’t like that word, but we ought not be scared of power). Phillips goes through every argument that I grew up with, from green austerity to that overpopulation nonsense, and convincingly does away with them. (I read Derrick Jensen was I was younger and had completely spaced out how truly terrible his arguments are. Embarrassingly bad. When I tried John Bellamy Foster I luckily found him too dense to get through. Just like George Ciccariello-Maher is a caricature of your “edgy” left wing professor, Foster is a caricature of what a Marxist is, tough to understand but you should know what he’s saying is super important!) 

Phill…

The Earth is not Fragile

I found myself cringing the other day listening to a well intentioned, yet completely ridiculous, city slicking environmentalist tell a room full of us how fragile the earth is. I wanted to scream "it is not!" but decorum got the better of me and I stayed quiet. It isn't fragile, not in any real sense of the word. The earth would just as soon wash us all away in a flood than conjure up a gorgeous sunset.
One of the most punk rock things you can do these days, particularly at dinner parties in liberal enclaves like where I live, is say you're skeptic when it comes to what people view as scientific consensus. Usually people think climate change, and are immediately offended by the idea that someone may disagree with what they've been told is humanity's most desperate and urgent threat. This is not to say I don't believe the earth is getting warmer, I surely do, or that I believe humans haven't had an effect on the environment, we certainly have. It'…