PNH, TNH, I don't see any recent surge in religious belief in this country that would merit the word 'revival', which to my mind has the connotations of something that has been revived. Are we, as a country, more observant, more devout than we were in 1954 or 1964? I doubt it.
I'm not even sure the kind of observance has changed all that much, at least since the days Billy Graham had primetime specials on network TV and Hal Lindsey was on the bestseller lists. A shift away from mainline Protestantism, towards personal experience, and a political rapprochement between some conservative Catholic and Protestant groups; been there, done that. We elected a born-again president in 1976. He had lust in his heart.
It really bothers me to see this treated as a new thing, since this is the America I've lived my whole life in. It's nothing new, and it shouldn't be surprising.
What I do see as new is a trend towards using bigotry framed in religious themes as a political tactic, in exactly the same way that Nixon used race in his Southern Strategy, and for much the same reason. It's not meant to sway people with deeply held religious convictions, though I suppose it might. It's meant to skim off the bigot vote, by providing it with a socially acceptable, in fact nearly unimpeachable cover for much less acceptable motives.
So I question the usefulness of this entire concept of religious revival, especially as used in post mortem analyses of the recent election. It strikes me as political self-flagellation of the worst sort. Is this a swing group you really want on your side? I am with/against the Medium Lobster on this.
And while I respect Schmitt's inquiry, I don't think Fogel is very good on his supposed Fourth Great Awakening.
Patrick, if you're going to call a trend that began over three decades ago -- and hence encompasses the entire lives of about forty percent of all Americans -- a 'revival', that's your privilege as an editor and professional word guy. For many of us, though, it's the status quo.
But wow, I really don't have it in me to categorically redefine a word like that.
C.
Patrick, chill. Why do you think the religious feelings of those millions are a _revival_? What's new is the way they're being used, by people with little religious feeling, who now form a block in their own right.
Jeez. Sometimes I think you're too much in love with your own indignation.
This isn't a religious revival. It's a desire to appear to be doing the religious thing, but at the lowest personal cost possible. That's why you don't see justice, but its opposite.
Why has this _appearance_ of religiosity become so important in recent years? I suspect it has something to do with the Baby Boom generation coming to terms with its mortality, but I really don't know.
I've let my homes from Richland Center know, and man, is he pissed. I sent him the Kos link.
If anyone knows Lynda Barry's address, she's a daughter of the RC too.
C.
The technical term for this is "double-blind what-if", usually abbreviated DBWI. Of course the scenario as initially given is rather implausible; after Tippergate on the one hand, and the cocaine allegations and drunk driving record on the other, there's no way either Gore or G.W. Bush would have been viable candidates in 2000.
But, given the quality and depth of the group effort, the scenario has achieved a certain dark magnificence all of its own. Kinda similar to Chet Arthur's masterpiece, For All Time (though some people feel that FAT jumped the shark with the state-sponsored cannibalism. Incidentally, PNH, I'm really glad that Tor is publishing it. Between Chet and Jo Walton, Usenet rules!).
Also, even though I usually don't like SFnal in-jokes, I really liked the cute Greg Bear reference about the Naderites.
C.
You know what Kitty and Tom are doing?
Retconning.
Meet Dubya fandom, folks.
C.
I really wonder who Rall thought he was pandering to. Not only does he come across as an ignorant elitist anti-jock snob in his hateful little cartoon, but he seems to think his audience should share his prejudices.
"Complicated". That's exactly right. Rall took the complexity of a human life, and turned it into something less than an object. A stereotype, with no connection to reality at all. A lie.
(And of course there are no Arab football players in Rall's world, and no football player ever went into harm's way and tackled the assassin of a left-wing presidential candidate, and they're all idiots anyway because their profession doesn't require them to be very articulate. Feh.)
A lot has made me very angry over the past few days, but this... well, it's the same rot, but in a different place.
C.
Here's a question: when _can_ we blame someone for holding on to the grim end in a foolish belief? 'Cause, you know, I have a little list.
Has anyone written any software for automatically tabulating and analyzing IP addresses etc. for this sort of attack? I've net.copped a little -- Holocaust deniers, pedophiles, and sporgers on Usenet -- and I found the compilation to be incredibly tedious work. I'd guess it would work like a spam filter, but in reverse.
Moral support: it _is_ possible to take these sociopaths down. I know. I've done it myself. Still, there is some institutional catch-up involved. Why some people think that threatening someone through their comment boards is different from making obscene phone calls is a mystery to me; but the loopholes are tightening, and the institutional cultures of ISPs are changing.
I look forward to seeing the people threatening Ms. Cramer wearing the orange jumpsuit. Hard time.
C.
PS y'all might want to see if these fellows have been charged with other sorts of bad behavior in the past. This sort of thing doesn't exist in a vacuum. And they have the classic repeat offender profile.
One year later: Electrolite has changed its name to TiVoBlog.
Found this amusing:
In Rem Koolhaas’s epoch-marking manifesto “Delirious New York” (1978), the buzz, confusion, danger, and weirdness of New York were no longer things to worry about. In fact, they were pretty much all we had to boast of. To an increasing bias in favor of small-scale streetscapes and “organic” growth was added a neon zip of pop glamour. The new ideology was Jane Jacobs dressed in latex and leather.
The Street found its own use for Jane Jacobs. (Wall Street.)
C.
David Goldfarb, I am so tempted to say it was Virgin Queen #32, Gloriana vs. Bobadilla, guest-starring the Incredible Fulke Greville.
But yeah, you got it.
C.
... does he think the Internet has lost its subculture roots?
And Salon readers tended to be early adopters. (Though who knows what Salon's demographics are now. Besides falling.)
The last comic book I bought was $3.50. It had Elizabeth I as a character. Some precise language, too.
Lackwit.
C.
I wonder: if you play the Minnesota Vikings horn-call in the same situation, can you summon owls?
It's because of the cooties, you see. Flaming gay cooties marching down our streets, grabbing our children and climbing up the Empire State Building, only to fall and die and be turned into a Tom Hanks movie. And really, wasn't Castaway enough? Wasn't it?
C.
Let's see. Since one can't claim that a more comprehensive social safety net will decrease this country's wealth or growth -- well, one can, but it goes against all the comparative evidence -- the argument shifts to social engineering, something Gareth here is no stranger to contemplating.
Why, if it causes no damage to the economic health of the state, should the state be concerned if some people use the benefits it provides to drop out? Because it *looks* bad? Because it's the duty of the state to keep its citizens anxious and cheap? A *pimp* does that.
If both Paris Hilton and Gareth Welfare choose to sit flashing thigh at the pub all day, what does it matter to me? None of my business either way.
C.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 25 |
| 2003 | 27 |
| 2002 | 2 |
Total: 55 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Carlos:
Show all comments by Carlos.