Skip to main content
Well, I took a test today in pursuit of gainful employment. It was the same test I failed on the 13th. I can't do any better. If I didn't pass, then the work is beyond me. You do what you can. That's all we can ask of ourselves.
I'm trying to do this because I need money, and I need to feel useful. It seems like a good opportunity. What doesn't seem like a good choice for me is politics. It makes me angry. It's not that I feel like I am completely devoid of the patience and good humor needed, but what I do lack is patience for stupid people. The sort of people who can opine for 20 minutes about how much they like the president, how he's getting a raw deal, etc. but can't actually tell you one policy they favor or why. I don't despise liberals; it's "default liberals" that annoy me. More than that, some of these people hate their opponents with a fervor only matched by their complete ignorance. Yes, I believe that most people commonly associated with "the Left" in our country are stupid. Maybe not intentionally so, but true nonetheless. That's still better than being called backward, evil, and racist, which just comes with the territory if you are not a leftist. If you're a Christian, just forget it. You might as well report to the re-education camps now. Unless you are confirmed as the sort who won't raise an inconvenient fuss about human dignity, freedom, and proper constitutional processes, among other outmoded ideas.
You might be thinking to yourself, "Oh, boy, another partisan rant from a Republican lackey" and you'd be wrong. I believe in many things old "progressives" used to fight for: No stupid wars, no death penalty, no corruption and waste in our government. Senator Paul Simon and other Democrats used to shame public officials for wasting our money. What happened to that? Super-liberal types could be counted on to automatically oppose capital punishment, rightly arguing that it was unfairly applied. In short, there used to be anti-authoritarian reasons to believe these things, and they made common cause with right-leaning Americans naturally distrustful of government power.
Well, let me be blunt: I forgive anyone the opinion that our Republican Party exists to make war, and to enforce the cultural prerogatives of a privileged race, because it may well be true. Not that the party of Jefferson fares any better; they exist to make war on our own people, to advocate foreign adventures that never actually occur, and to reflexively oppose those begun by a Republican, though undertaken for the very humanitarian justifications they proferred previously. Their belief in personal autonomy is absolute, unless of course you desire it to extend to the wealth that, by hard work, you have been made a steward. (Or to the defenseless.) As I said, they may permit you to be a "Christian," provided that you don't actually believe it, or you don't oppose any of the State's grand goals on principle. If you had to sum up what the Democratic Party stands for, you might be able to do it in two ideas: social democracy (or worse) and sexual deviance. That's barely worse than the GOP main ideas: empty rhetoric and symbolism. As long as we appear OK, then we are.
You might be thinking to yourself: "Ah, another facile retreat to the 'Pox on both your houses' defense." And I might be guilty of that, it's true. But if I just said that our political class was equal parts corrupt and stupid, I'd bet a lot of folks would agree. But maybe some of my friends are right; I take politics too seriously; I'm too passionate, too immoderate. Sorry; it's just that public affairs has become a talent show with no talent, and I feel like I should say so. I'm neither inclined nor allowed to sacrifice truth or life on the twin altars of politeness or diplomacy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...