home

Welcome

FaithFusion offers blogs and columns on many topics: storytelling, society and culture, philosophy, religion, politics, science, and especially “deep doctrine magic” about all seven.

 

Features

 



Tags

 

Archives

 



 

Search

 



Updates



Follow me on Twitter
 



Recently read:
Nonfiction















 


Recently read:
Fiction







 



Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 05:25 PM ET , Thursday, May 14, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Life Applications



(Adapted from responses, this one and this one, posted today to the Boundless Line blog.)

Perhaps the Miss California furor is finally fizzling out, after spending most of the month in national headlines. Yesterday none other than multimillionaire Donald Trump defended infamous Miss U.S.A. pageant contestant Carrie Prejean, and even got in a great zinger against Barack Obama™. Trump noted that Prejean, after being asked a rather loaded question from a homosexual activist about marriage, had given the same answer as the president of the United States — that is, it should be between a man and woman.

I grinned at the rhetoric, which was so shrewdly and perfectly balanced between justifying Prejean’s honest answer yet not directly agreeing with it. And I wished so much that I could also fully rally to this young woman’s cause.

Yet it seems that during conservatives’ and Christians’ haste to defend Carrie Prejean — rightfully! — from the rabid liberal factions’ intolerance of her brave stance on real marriage, folks have been just sort-of skipping past the whole Immodesty issue. And this isn’t just incidental immodesty, this is making a living from being intentionally immodest.

First, though, a disclaimer: All of this would ordinarily not apply if Ms. Prejean did these kind of things in the past, and has now turned away from them. For that, Christians — like the Christ they follow — should be lavish in their Grace and unilateral in their defense of one of their own.

However, from what I have read, Ms. Prejean has responded to the release of provocative and even naked photos of her, and said “I’m not perfect” while also defending her showing her body in provocative ways in the present tense. “I am a Christian, and I am a model,” she said. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.” (Summary: It’s my job.)

Unfortunately that job is not something Christians can support Biblically. However, this does not mean we leave one of “our own” to suffer at the hands of secularists. What is needed here is neither full-fledged support nor repulsed rejection — but rather, careful discernment (especially on the part of men like me who’d like to write about the issue and be informed about it, though, ahem, without actually seeing the photos).




Last week in brief

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 01:07 PM ET , Monday, Apr 20, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Media: Film and DVD, Books, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing



On Thursday last week I finally looked into the infamous “Twitter,” but found it wanting for style, links and lengths.

So instead I added my own mini-feed to the right side of this site, for tracking my other comments and activities around the web. It was called “What's up, 'Doc'?” but I'm considering changing it to “Quotes and notes.” Any thoughts?

Coming soon: improvements to the blog's comment system and especially the too-small and -limited form.

For now, here is an overview of my in-brief updates last week:


Apr 16, 2009, 10:08 AM —

Earlier this morning I reminded a NarniaWeb newbie of C.S. Lewis's famed “trilemma”: Christ cannot be “just a good man” ...


Apr 16, 2009, 10:20 AM —

(Sigh ...) The head-in-the-clouds liberalism (not the true Heaven's “clouds”) of some Boundless blog commentators following political posts like this one is continually wearying ...


Apr 16, 2009, 12:17 PM —

— Folks, think about what the conservatives' reaction would have been if the Obama posse had not covered up the university building's Christ symbolism as has been reported. Would they not then claim B.O. was trying to equate himself with Jesus? Let's critique and defeat the man's radical anti-American Socialism, not stupid things like this.


Apr 16, 2009, 07:29 PM —

My last Speculative Faith column was about C.S. Lewis and the forbidden fruits of fiction. Now, just two weeks later (that's a record, ahem) I've also assembled Following the Marcher Lord, about three new Christian-oriented spec-fiction titles. One of these, Hero, Second Class, is a novel I'm reading now ...


Apr 17, 2009, 10:07 AM —

For those of you recently accessing the site with Firefox who received scary-looking error messages — everything is now repaired and in working order.


Apr 17, 2009, 12:00 PM —

Author/pastor John MacArthur finished his blog series on “The Rape of Solomon's Song” this week — a rape committed by some pastors, no less. I wrote about part 1 on Monday; now I'm catching up on part 2, part 3 and part 4.


Apr 17, 2009, 05:51 PM —

First there was the Star Trek breakfast cereal I saw in the store the other day. Then this morning, while I was sorting through district-court lawsuits for my day job, I saw that none other than James T. Kirk was getting divorced. (This one is an apparently unemployed horse manager.) Quite a stretch for the film's promotion!



Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 01:07 PM ET , Tuesday, Mar 10, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology



Sometimes it seems most of my columns here originally come from alternate sources — such as NarniaWeb or the Boundless blog. What often happens is that I'll start a short comment on either site, and it turns into a column that I end up writing with FaithFusion in mind.

In this case, the focus is Rush Limbaugh, about whom Boundless writer Motte Brown posted yesterday. He gave a summary of Liberals’ efforts to take out Limbaugh and that garnered, predictably, lots of support from readers along with even more predictable grumblings from those who consider Limbaugh and firmer conservative advocacy the bane of the Republican party and polite political discourse.

The silliest of responses came from commentator BDB, who often has some great things to say but in this case is just ill-informed about right-wing rhetoric and recent elections:

Rush and Hannity are so great for Republicans! Just look at how well the 2008 elections went!

Maybe we can spend all our time over the next two years talking about unrepentant terrorists! That will be GREAT for the 2010 elections!

Why bother with actual policy questions when it's so much more fun to just ridicule people!

— BDB

I had to respond to this.

BDB, the only way your point has any validity is if Republicans in 2008, especially John McCain, had actually been implementing philosophy-based political conservativism the way Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity advocate it.

You cannot logically or seriously argue that national Republicans took those pundits' advice.


None other than Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who seems to enjoy American politics just as much as defending Biblical creation (sometimes resulting in similar “that’s so mean” objections), also noted:

BDB (#2), yeah, look how great the GOP did by NOT listening to Rush and Hannity, and instead impersonating the big-spending Dems. Being elected largely on “fiscal responsibily” then spending big is hardly inspiring—it's not quite such a big vote-winner to campaign, “yes, we love spending, but we're a lesser evil than the Dems”, even though it's right.


The following is edited from my recent comment in response to the why-did-Republicans-lose question, along with other Rush-related myth-conceptions and the Biblical basis of capitalism.




Attacking apologetics activists: uncouth, unloving, sometimes unwise

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 03:50 PM ET , Tuesday, Feb 24, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Science, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Evangelism, Life Applications



How come some Christians, supposedly enlightened and set free from legalistic constructs, react more strongly to strong words from someone like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or even Ann Coulter than they would do to those who enjoy strong language or drinks?

How come many Christians want to do better at very good things such as Showing Grace, Caring for the Poor, Being Authentic, Loving Liberals and Avoiding Legalism — but as soon as other Christ-followers come along with a different or harsher (even arguably un-Biblical) zeal or rhetorical style, they’re ready to give up and not show the same grace and caring to them?

I want to do better at tolerating my homosexual friends than Christians have in the past. I’m more enlightened, tolerant and Christlike. But you — ? Oh no, you’re a Legalist or a Mean Christian. I don’t want to be around you; you make us look bad, so get out of my face.

Methinks I see inconsistency.

These questions have arisen after my On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm and Dr. Sarfati column, slightly altered to post as a comment, brought responses and agreements on the Boundless blog — some incidental, some direct. Another comment of mine is now up over there, some of which I’ll adapt for the below material.

But my response here is not to those who questioned Dr. Sarfati’s seeming contention that because Jesus was sarcastic and even “mean” sometimes, then we’re allowed to be that way in all interactions with evolutionists or compromising Christians. I was among them myself.

Rather, I’m directly rebutting folks such as Nathan Zamprogno, who wrote a reply to me earlier today. He clearly spent a lot time on it, and I want to respond more directly and carefully.

I read all of what Nathan wrote. But I suspect he didn’t quite read all of what I wrote.

While he and I seem to agree on some of my points, he seemed to assume a false either/or dichotomy: that my questioning Sarfati’s style would mean I would also detest all them mean young-earth creationists. But actually, with this issue, I’m a both/and kind of man.

My reasons are threefold. By deciding that the often-harsher rhetoric of apologist activists such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is in effect intolerable, worse than putting up with secular sins, Christians are:

1. Sucking up to secularists,
2. Alienating our apologist brothers, and
3. Risking rejection of real truth.




On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm, and Dr. Sarfati

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 12:01 PM ET , Monday, Feb 23, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings, Life Applications



More controversy is brewing on the Boundless webzine, the site for young adults that covers all manner of discipleship, worldview and lifestyle issues. Debate over there is nothing new. What is new is that it involves a true apologetics hero whose arguments, though sparkling with light and truth, also carry static shock that’s even rubbing fellow Christ-followers the wrong way.

Sarcastro, superhero-in-training who combats evil with “the razor-sharp sting of sarcasm”(from The Tick)
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Biblical apologetics whizard extraordinaire, is a New Zealand native, chemist and spectroscopist. His Refuting books — two against Evolution and one against religious Compromise — are among the best to be found in any Biblical-creation library. For years he wrote great web-articles and especially rebuttals for the Answers in Genesis global ministry and website. Now — for reasons too complex and difficult to get into here — he’s part of Creation Ministries International, with most of his material imported over there.

More recently, Boundless has been publishing columns by him and other CMI staff. And Sarfati has also been getting into several blog discussions — and riling reactionary responses.

That’s not surprising. Skepticism will always assail someone who believes, and much more so proclaims, such ideas as: God created the world 6,000 years ago; science has limitations in proving origins beliefs and is never “objective”; the global flood of Genesis, not millions of years, is responsible for almost all fossils; evidence fits better with creationist presuppositions.

But Sarfati likes to get into politics, too, and as one friend of mine once said, he seems to know American politics and the Constitution better than most Americans. His style and criticisms are very reminiscent of Ann Coulter, another favorite conservative writer of mine (I’ll admit it).

In a recent comment, Sarfati generalized Leftists as “elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others,” and employed the use of amusing names for Liberals such as “Debtocrats” or “celebutards.” Other Boundless commentators blasted him back — some of them are left-leaning professing Christians — yet a few others, such as myself here, agreed with the content, yet questioned Sarfati’s style:

Just a few changes [. . .] to remove the name-calling and over-generalizing, would go a long way toward making the truth of the arguments even more poignant.

Dr. Sarfati, I would agree with you that in some situations, even Coulter-esque invective can be entertaining. But coming from a Christ-follower, the juvenile verbiage seems unnecessary. And I would even more strongly suggest that it is also un-Christlike.

Sir, I greatly respect your work for the apologetics and Scripture defense cause, but is [it] a more-powerful argument, and furthermore Scriptural, to “speak the truth in love”?

To that, and other objections, Sarfati noted,

How can following Christ's own challenge-riposte be “un-Christlike”? Have these critics actually even read what Christ said? There is nothing in the Bible demanding that we should be like [C]hrist only when He was gentle, but not when He used riposte.

It seems Sarfati’s response bears a more-direct and comprehensive answer. Dare I go up against one of my apologetics heroes and suggest he’s wrong? No, I dare not. Rather, I prefer coming alongside him as a Christian brother, and admirer, and hope only to suggest graciously a more balanced approach to dealing with folks, and especially professing Christians.




Krauthammer: Why so urgent?

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 10:22 AM ET , Friday, Feb 06, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics



So where now is all that fine-sounding campaign rhetoric about rejecting fearmongering and Partisan Business As Usual? asks Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post. It's gone, apparently, just as soon as it's time to give back to the special interests who helped get you elected:

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”

-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared “we have chosen hope over fear.” Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

For a bit the conservative columnist also mentions details about the Daschle debacle and a Treasury secretary who “doesn't understand” basic income-tax deduction himself. “An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position,” Krauthammer says, in an almost too-mild manner compared to the grandstanding and political pomposity of the new administration.

But then he gets back to the “stimulus” bill (a bill that carries the goal of “stimulating” not the U.S. economy, but Democrat party interest groups and government growth).

[M]ore damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus — and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Such bait-and-switch games and fearmongering mark the new administration's automatic lurch to the left in matters more than just Social or Moral Issues.“ This is a moral issue, too. People's jobs and lives are at stake. And rather than letting the American economy mostly self-correct while ”stimulating“ business and consumer spending, bigger-government advocates are rewarding those who've spent money they don't have, and punishing those who have followed the rules and conserved their resources.

This punditry has been brought to you by one of those oft-stereotyped ”single issue" voters, who sees this administration leading the charge not only toward overtly anti-Christian causes such as Abortion, but accompanying agendas that oppose personal responsibility and the natural consequences of wastefulness.



Rush vs. Obama: heading into week 2

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 01:15 AM ET , Saturday, Jan 31, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics: The Left Wing



Radio host Mark Levin recently interviewed Rush Limbaugh about the ongoing, Democrat-spearheaded, “I Hope He Fails” spin cycle yesterday.

The full video is definitely worth viewing for simple perspective on Limbaugh's true comments and context, and why the Liberals are opposing him so hard now.



The audacity of all this hype is hilarious, it's comically, it's so helpfully and blessedly honest! And if it continues, it will only backfire — and galvanize the conservative movement a lot sooner than even the next wave of national elections in 2010.



Freedom of choice not to act?

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 01:53 PM ET , Friday, Jan 30, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics: The Left Wing, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Divergent Church



In response to Suzanne Hadley's post on Boundless today about abortion, Obama and the “Freedom of Choice Act,” I have written a comment I hope will prove enlightening. It especially regards the constant complaints to the Boundless writers — and, I assume, the pro-life cause at large — by those who think concern about the issue automatically means either a “single voter” mindset or a failure to embrace All These Other Issues, Too.

That comment is reproduced (ha, ha) below. But please read through to the very end!

Please, please, can we just move on past all the political posts on Boundless, especially those ones about abortion?

We have so many other important things to talk about. These include issues that are just as important or even more vital than the issue of abortion, such as climate change, or taking care of the poor.

Yes, I know the climate has always been changing, and even if it's changing worse, “the” Christian response is debatable at best. And I know taking care of the poor has always been a Christian concern, though we know from Scripture that the poor will always be around and that we cannot build a utopian Kingdom before Christ returns.

But really, how is the concept of protecting human life more important than these other things? And please, let's not get into all those details about how when human life begins is much more provable and Biblically supportable than what to do about “climate change.”

And I'm just tired of all the pro-life rhetoric, too. Some people who are pro-life are nuts, and they make Christianity look bad. Yes, I know, a lot of the people talking about global warming and helping with poverty and AIDS are nuts, too. But those causes are just so much more popular and worthwhile than fighting to support life itself. I would prefer to stereotype the pro-life people as well single-issue activists who would step over homeless people on the street so that they won't be late for a rally where they can yell and spew spittle in the King James Version and shove giant posters in someone's face.

Also, I don't want to be a “single issue voter.” So I would much rather we make nice with the “pro choice” people and not be so hardline on this issue. After all, doesn't it stand to reason that if we be nice to them, they'll realize the error of their ways, so that they will apologize and moderate their views? I'm sure this will work. Why, it has always worked when going through other political issues, and doctrine struggles, and world wars and things like that.

I hope we can also stop posting about other controversial things, such as birth control, or Obama's religious beliefs, or the best ways to solve economic recessions. These are all such “partisan” issues anyway. And everybody knows that “partisanship” is always bad, except for when other people are doing it, and only then is it “nonpartisan.”

Thank you for considering my imploringly well-thought-out, Biblically defensible and earnest plea.

(I'm Dr. Ransom, and I approved this gentle parody.)




The New Progressivism: A Call to Arms

Avatar by Roccondil at 11:26 AM ET , Saturday, Jan 24, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics, Columns



Well, it's four days into President Obama's administration and (thankfully) there has been no push by his party on abortion. This brings up a topic which I have been pondering all this week, due (among other things) to the inauguration, Martin Luther King Jr Day, and a talk given by Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College. This topic is that of conservative narrowness.

Abortion has rightfully been compared to slavery by its opponents and so I think it would be good to look at how slavery ended in Britain to see how we should go about defeating abortion. In studying the life of William Wilberforce, I discovered that not only did he focus his energies on ending slavery, but he connected the issue with others such as the war with France, social justice in Britain, and liberal reforms to the government. In short, William Wilberforce was not a single-issue politician as many have made him out to be.

This, then is what we who oppose abortion ought to be doing: connecting our stance against abortion with other issues. What I would like to call for is a comprehensive social agenda that would address, among other things, abortion, social justice, racism, particularly against blacks and hispanics, environmental issues, prison reform, AIDS, and sex trafficking. These are all issues that the Bible speaks to and therefore Christians ought to care about them.

Now, many of my conservative friends will say about, say, social justice, “But that should be up to private charities.” That's well and good--but before you say it, put your money where your mouth is. I don't want to hear how unnecessary government involvement is until I see how many deductions you have for charitable causes. It's good and right for the church to have this responsibility, but frankly we've done a poor job of late.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, a new form of conservatism arose under Theodore Roosevelt called progressivism. Progressivism called for social and political reform with solid moral foundations as opposed to the pragmatic populism of politicians like Woodrow Wilson. If we as Christians want to bring our faith into the political arena, we have to bring it to bear on all areas and not just abortion. Is abortion crucial? Absolutely, but until we make it a critical and connected part of a wider set of policies in society like AIDS, sex trafficking, and racism, our pleas for life will go unheard.

In short I am calling for radical conservatism: a new progressive conservatism rooted in faith that God does care about more issues than just abortion and gay marriage. With a new administration, the time is now. It's time for change, yes: change in the right direction.



So who has a 'presidential mandate' now?

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 09:09 PM ET , Friday, Jan 23, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics: The Left Wing



So now there's a presidential mandate to get things done. I can't help but wonder, why does it seem that according to some, only liberal presidents are “permitted” those?

Two presidential elections ago, when George W. Bush won the White House by a hair, the popular media's collective cry was this: You must govern from the center; it wouldn't be fair to push only your agenda; you don't really have a mandate.

Interestingly enough, when Bush was re-elected much more easily in 2004, the popular media's collective cry was this:

You must govern from the center; it wouldn't be fair to push only your agenda; you don't really have a mandate.

Now that President Obama has been elected somewhat easily, I wonder how the media will react to his hubris?

From The New York Post today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

“There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats,” the official said. “We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

Quite a smashing bit of arrogance, eh wot?

My prediction: watch for the popular media reaction to be anything but what it was when Bush merely existed in office and didn't even try to throw around his presidential weight as Obama is blatantly doing:

You must govern from the center; it wouldn't be fair to push only your agenda; you don't really have a mandate.

Another prediction: even in this climate of swooning media support, such “bully pulpit” behavior, this early, could easily backfire. Conservative leaders could become outraged enough to do something about it instead of just swoon along with everyone else. And voters who otherwise wouldn't pay attention would see this prideful, presidential posturing for what it is.



'Imagine the potential'

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 09:33 AM ET , Friday, Jan 23, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics: The Left Wing



WorldNetDaily had this yesterday about a new Catholic pro-life organization's ad.



The conservative webzine summarizes the ad's content:

The commercial begins with an ultrasound image of a baby moving in his mother's womb.

“This child's future is a broken home,” it says.

“He will be abandoned by his father.”

“His single mother will struggle to raise him.”

“Despite the hardships, he will endure,” the ad states. “This child will become the first African American president.”

It features a photo of President Obama and concludes, “Life. Imagine the potential.”

Unfortunately, of course ...

President Obama's agenda regarding “reproductive choice” has been posted on the White House website.

It states, Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration.” [sic]

That last word is a typo currently found on the White House website itself. To be sure, though, that's not the most worrisome of new and sober errors found there.



Why Limbaugh doesn't hope for 'change' alone

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 02:54 PM ET , Thursday, Jan 22, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics: The Left Wing



According to the talk-radio host, it depends on what the country would change into.

If that means policies that will benefit the country, Limbaugh said — yes, of course he would like new U.S. President Barack Obama to succeed. But if the Obama follows his previous policies, leaning toward neo-Socialism, then all the groundbreaking history of Obama's election notwithstanding, that should not be supported, he continued.



More can be found on the Rush Limbaugh website, including a transcript of Limbaugh's interview with Sean Hannity.

[If Obama] does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yeah, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR — if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal — why would I want him to succeed?

Look it. He's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda --

Look it. I think it's already decided: over $2 trillion in stimulus. The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependent Americans as possible, looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care — I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.

Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, “No! I want him to fail.” If his agenda is a far-left collectivism — some people say socialism — as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?




'Man, that cat is deep'

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 03:05 PM ET , Tuesday, Jan 20, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics: The Left Wing, Media: Film and DVD



Yes, I know it's true you can write a poem without rhyming a single word. I shan't be all backward and silly and totally Non-Cultured by criticizing the Obama inauguration's poet on that basis.

At the same time, when I heard the strung-together slogans and platitudes that not only don't rhyme, but that I could make up myself without much thought at all, I can't help but wonder: why was this considered so profound that it was worthy of inclusion at a national presidential inauguration ceremony?

Or for that matter, it was easily exceeded in form and substance and in existence of rhymes by none other than Herman Munster, of the TV show “The Munsters,” as seen in this superb video.



In the story, the Munsters rented their mansion to a 1960s rock band, who brought in a bunch of beatniks for their party. According to IMDB, the “Far Out Munsters” episode's writer(s) were Richard Conway, Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher, none of whom, if I may venture an educated guess, were ever asked to submit a poem for a national presidential inauguration ceremony.

Here's a transcript of Herman's beatnik brilliance:

(Um ...)
Ibbidy bibbidy, sibbidy sab.
Ibbidiy bibbidy, canal boat.
Dictionary,
Down the ferry.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary!
(Ehhm ...)
Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear,
Fuzzy Wuzzy lost his hair.
Scooba-doo and scooba-die —
That's chicken's not too young to fry!
Life is real,
Life is earnest.
If you're cold,
Turn up the furnace!

Uh — I — I thank you.

(Wild applause)




TEOTWAWKI 2009

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 11:20 AM ET , Tuesday, Jan 20, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics: The Left Wing



Today I find myself considering a brief return, perhaps in a few days, to writing in a style reminiscent of my campus columns from some years ago ...

For now, though, and especially for conservative readers, why not join in and jubilantly sing with me?

It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it
... And I feel fine!

From my Facebook update of yesterday:

[I love] the physical, cultural and personal diversity God has built into His creation of the single human race ... but will still be opposing Obama's worldview.