I believe I recall Barack Obama quoting Otto Von Bismarck’s edict that “politics is the art of the possible,” and evidence of that optimism abounds everywhere I look in Denver today. The two words we seem to be hearing more than any others are “hope” and “change,” and we saw a wonderfully eloquent articulation of this enthusiasm last night in Wendy Redal’s post on starstruck idealism.
There’s no question (among rational people, anyway) that change is sorely needed, and after the last eight years hope is a precious and endangered commodity. Hope is the fuel of change, and sadly a lot of our traditional reserves are running dry.
I want to hope, and I’m being implored to hope, but really, should I? Read more
In a bit of satire over on the Daedalnexus, Brian Angliss tries desperately to make the case that “Rather than fight[ing] faith-based programs for the poor just because they’re faith-based, we should all be signing up!” Which is all in good fun, and makes a good point. But if you really wanted to have some fun with the faith-based bozos running the country, here’s what you’d do.
First, you have to understand that the Framers of the Constitution set all this in motion by being too damned vague. I mean, separation of Church and State 96 what the hell does that really mean, anyway? We have these problems before us today because Jefferson, Madison and Co. didn’t have the basic good sense to insist on specificity, which is odd, given that all the Founding Fathers were all pretty clearly fundamentalists. As, one assumes, were the Founding Mothers. They just toss terms like “God” and “Church” and “separation” around like we all know what they mean, when clearly we don’t. Read more