Thessaly's Tooth

The urge to quote Homestar Runner cartoons has finally proved overwhelming. I’m a song from the sixties!
The Labor Day weekend was good. Monday we went to Saugatuck and looked at some boats and wandered around town. We saw the movie Hero which was quite good, if rather heavy on the propaganda as I had been warned.
Other highlights of the weekend involved food, as all good highlights do. On Friday we braved the rain to have a cookout with some intrepid friends at scenic Dwight Lydell park (everything has a web page these days), and Friday we went to an Indian restaurant with friends.
In conclusion, I would like to note that I’m a fiercely independent woman, and I’m fiercely independent about the soy products that I choose.

The other night at Schuler I picked up (and by that I mean picked up, not bought) a book called What’s the Matter with Kansas? I have no immediate plans to read the book, but don’t see why that should stop me talking about it, at least in passing. Its main argument is that Kansans consistently vote for the party which is least likely to protect their own (agricultural, blue-collar) interests, because that party purports to uphold conservative moral values on abortion, gay marriage, or what-have-you. I have, with difficulty, restrained myself from posting a critique of this premise without having read the book; but the reason it drew my attention is that I have recently been wondering why certain sets of political/moral/social beliefs seem to come as an indissoluble package in this country. Are the beliefs of conservatives or liberals, or the platforms of the political parties related functionally? Are they derived from underlying core value systems? Or are they merely cobbled together for political expediency? Is the Kansas factory worker voting for values which ultimately undermine his/her own material position, or have these values been artificially joined with a set of economic policies which bear no necessary relationship to these values? If the latter, what are those of us who are Kansans at heart to do–sacrifice our values in order to (allegedly) improve our material situation? Is it indeed the case that we must choose between our moral values and our own self-interest, and if so what is the alternative?
Growing up, I was given to believe that Republicans were more successful at winning the presidency and such than Democrats because they were more unified. Republicans shared fairly conservative social values, were in basic agreement on laissez-faire economic policies, and believed in a strong national defense as the main (or some might say only) function of the federal government. Democrats, on the other hand, seemed to represent widely varying groups of people with an array of conflicting beliefs and interests, united only in favoring a more interventionist government. Blue collar union workers, civil rights activists, Dixiecrats, feminists, pro-choice activists, various religious groups with rigidly tradional moral values but favoring expanded welfare systems–all were Democrats but one could hardly expect them to agree on much, or even manage to be in the same room together for more than five minutes without fireworks.
I think things have changed, and I see two emblems of this change: Bill Clinton and the rise of the religious right. I think that Clinton unified Democrats, liberals, and moderates as never before. He belonged to a conservative religious denomination, yet consistently favored what one might call secular morality on issues like abortion. He and Gore talked like liberals when it came to the environment, health care, welfare, etc.; but their actual policies appeared to me to be very moderate. Most importantly, Clinton was just the kind of guy everyone liked. When most of us try fence-sitting in an attempt to please both sides, we end up making both sides hate us; but Clinton pulled it off. A lot of people could find at least some common ground with him, and rather than just putting up with the rest of it for political expediency, they heartily forgave him for it. I think Reagan was the same way. There’s no way anyone could get elected, or at least re-elected, with Reagan’s policies today. Maybe that had something to do with the Cold War or a different economic and political landscape, but I think it mostly had to do with his personality. He was way more conservative than, say, our current president; yet he was hugely popular while Bush draws forty kinds of ire from all sides, despite his moderate social policies and the fact that most of this ire is based upon allegations of lying and manipulation which have been proved untrue.
Then there’s the Religious Right. This represents a package of social, moral, and economic beliefs and policies which has, ostensibly, conservative Christianity as a basis; but which includes items which don’t seem to have any logical or necessary relationship to Christianity. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage have clear links to Biblical morality. However, why is opposition to gun control linked to Christianity? Nothing in the Bible or Christian tradition seems to either prescribe or condemn gun control. An individual person might subscribe to both traditional Christian morals and to conservative political beliefs, but there is no logical link between the two, and it seems strange that a political movement based on Christian morals would package them together as though they did.
It seems to me that the effect of the Religious Right has made conservatism more specifically religious rather than secular. I think this has caused alienation of some semi-conservatives and moderates who aren’t Christian or particularly religious; and has led to liberal suspicions that conservatives hope to institute some kind of theocracy. It has also packaged together sets of beliefs that aren’t necessarily indissoluble. To me, conservativism (by which I mean belief in a minimal government) isn’t inconsistent with Christianity–there is plenty of precedent in the Bible for opposition or indifference to government. On the other hand, what most people think of as liberal beliefs, such has helping the poor and defenseless, is mandated by the Bible. In spite of the rhetoric, I’m certain that the latter belief is held by both liberals and conservatives, they just believe in different solutions–governmental vs. private charity.
I have to stick up for beleaguered conservatives on this point by saying that the most conservative people I know are also among the most giving of their time and money to the needy. If everyone was like them, government programs would die off for lack of use! Of course, everyone isn’t, so the problem remains.
To hop back over the fence for a moment in my own inimitable way, I also don’t think the liberal worldview is inconsistent with Christianity, at least pertaining to relief for the poor (whether other aspects of liberalism are inconsistent is a debate for another time and somebody else). In fact, one question I have wondered about lately is why conservative Christians consider legislative solutions to issues such as abortion or gay marriage appropriate, but inappropriate for fulfilling the Biblical mandate to care for the poor. Or perhaps that’s not an accurate characterization…it sometimes seems to me that liberals and conservatives have exactly the same philosophy about the proper role of government, and only wrangle about how this philosophy should be carried out.
The way that issues have been carved up between the Republican and Democrat platforms leads to a quandary for conservative Christians. Those who vote Democrat because of their social policies for the poor might have to compromise on issues such as abortion. This isn’t always the case, of course, but both Kerry and Lieberman, both of whose religious traditions condemn abortion as murder, had to categorize this position as a personal belief that they would not attempt to pursue legislatively if elected, since as a personal belief it should be a matter of individual conscience and not public policy. Now, this position is plausible on some issues, but if you genuinely believe abortion is murder it is much less so (assuming you believe a fetus is a human being, insert any other group of human beings into this line of reasoning–doesn’t sound too good).
On the other hand, however, voting for Republicans based their stance on issues such as these is, in most cases, a vote for limiting government, including programs for the poor (leaving it at that for the moment, without getting into whether or not conservatism favors the rich at the expense of the poor in other ways). It’s tempting to start presenting some argument as to which political philosophy is more consistent with Christian belief and why, but that’s venturing even farther into territory that I’m not qualified to comment on. Let’s just say that I think that neither liberalism nor conservatism is prescribed by Christianity. I think that Christianity is prescriptive of some things that tie into politics, such as justice, freedom of worship, care for the poor and defenseless. It is possible to hold different philosophies about how these should be carried out; but I think that it is unfortunate that the different manifestations of these in the two parties tend to be divisive between Christians. The lines tend to be drawn between social justice vs. personal morality–as Christians there should be no division between the two, and it is too bad that the party structure seems to exacerbate this artificial division and lead to animosity between Christians who, rightly or wrongly, accuse the other group of inappropriately emphasizing one over the other.

Today is my dad’s birthday. Happy Birthday, Dad!
Two years ago today, Andy and I got engaged. Happy engagement day, us!
I’m not good at keeping up with my list o’links…but I must direct you to some remarkably good reading material at the freewheelin’ and at Enchilada Relaunch. Actually there has been a lot of good blogging going on lately, but I need to save some links for later…in case I still can’t think of any original ideas to write about.
In other news, we have at long last begun dealing with wedding pictures–scanning and such. It would be rash to make any promises, but it is within the realm of possibility that some might be put online some time soon. Better late than never, that will be my epitaph (no wait! that’s terrible. Never mind.)

I’ve been having difficulty thinking of things to write about lately. Actually, I can think of things, but they’re all kind of depressing. I start formulating my thoughts, then get gloomy and quit.
For example, the presidential election. I ought to have something to say about that–everybody else on the planet does. But thinking about it provokes an automatic gag response, and trying to write about it brings on migraines. Actually, there seems to be some sort of spell over everyone; the moment anyone tries to talk about our esteemed candidates, all that comes out is incoherent ravings. Like so:
“Bush’s latest campaign advertisement promises—acchh–gargh–that– (bleeping)–manipulative, lying—bblllrrgghh –just hate him–so much —aarrr–the yawning void–the stinking chasm–”
“Kerry claims to be a war hero. But, in this book, a group of—bllrrgg—eechch– creepy, lying–big pansy–rrrggh–the original, the eternal, the undying–”
So I’ve tried to lay off the political commentators recently. If I wanted to hear crazed ramblings I’d start listening when I talk to myself.

Today is August 11th. The high temperature predicted for today is 59 degrees. 59. This is so bizarre. It’s cooler in the summer here and in Chicago that at home in Nebraska, but 59 would be pretty low for a low temperature at this time of year. Yesterday, I had to wear jeans & a sweatshirt to walk outside, then later I sat on the couch under a blanket reading The Long Winter. What on earth is going on? I’m guessing we’ll either have the worst winter ever, or we’ll have summer in November.

An international team of little girls will be monitoring the presidential election this fall.
(nice juxtaposition of headline & picture 🙂

as the old Infocom games used to say. Man, do I seem to have a lot to say these days.
Here’s some more (about Israel this time, from the journal):

Read the rest of this entry »

I read Farmer Boy a couple of years ago, but other than that I’m not sure when I last read the rest of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books. After catching a couple of episodes of Frontier House recently, I wanted to re-read them to find out how the Ingalls family dealt with the pressure of the nonstop work and uncertainty of survival that the 21st-century “homesteaders” faced.
Update: Here’s a fun site I just found about the Ingalls family.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s about time I wrote some more about Israel. Here’s some stuff from my journal about a trip we took to a few sites and the Dead Sea.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Evil Wal-Mart theory has been brought to my attention a couple of times recently, reminding me of some questions I’ve had about what makes Wal-Mart Evil. Rather than do any “reading” or “research” on the subject, I thought I’d put my questions up to you, my 2.5 or so loyal readers. Before beginning, please note that I am not trying to articulate my own opinion or claim that any of my conclusions are valid, being that I’m quite ignorant about economics in general or the American economy specifically. Rather, I’m attempting to expose my own ignorance in the hopes that some of my astute readers will help me out.
This has become quite the treatise. I had no idea I had so much to say about a subject I know virtually nothing about. I’m going to quit yakking and just post it, if you actually make it through this please feel free to correct me on my economics, factual knowledge, or anything else:

Read the rest of this entry »