Wednesday, May 3, 2017


I love reading stuff providing confirming evidence of I have already written.  The confirmation of my personal thoughts and opinions makes me feel gloriously in sync with the Spiritual Universe, your humble blogger being merely the messenger.  As it is written:

“‘The Spiritual Universe’ spaketh to Earlo and Earlo spreadeth ’The Word’ to the multitudes.”

If you take a generous perspective concerning “the multitudes”, which… nah, I’m just flattering myself; my following does not rise to the level of “the multitudes.”  Perhaps the CGI version of “the multitudes” – my small but stalwart contingent standing conspicuously in the front – but that’s not really “the multitudes”; it’s a computerized stand-in for “the multitudes.”  

Still, I like the Biblical (or Biblical movie) image and I am passing it along.

I was not going to write this today.  I had something else in mind – which I fear you might have possibly liked better – but this one insisted “Write me!” so I am doing it and leave me alone already!

I spoke yesterday about people being the inescapable products of their environment, positively or negatively, but never indifferently.  You have a history; it goes with you.  And it inevitably “goes the distance”, indelibly influencing what you think.  (And consequently what you do, but this isn’t about that, though they are unquestionably connected.  I mean, would you actually do something you did not previously think through?  I know there is “acting on impulse”, but “acting on impulse” arguably involves pre-thinking the subsequent action incredibly quickly.)

Okay, so there is this commentary in the “Opinion” section of the L.A. Times,
eye-catchingly headlined “Trump and God”.  The commentary’s subtitle reads”:

“Is the president religious?  Who cares?”

When I read that subtitle, “Is the president religious?  Who cares?” I immediately – make that “reflexively” – thought, “Oh, this is about a religious person who doesn’t care if the president is religious and voted for that monstrous irreligious specimen of humanity anyway – This ought to be good”, thus instantly revealing my ideological proclivity, infused with a sniffing, morally superior “How could they!”

It turns out the commentary was nothing like that.

So shame on me.  (“But I couldn’t help it, Your Honor; I am the product of my environment, especially camp.”  Point made.  On my way to making exactly the same point later.  I just couldn’t help myself.  It was staring me in the face.
The L.A. Times commentary was instead written from a decidedly liberal perspective, that being, “Who cares if this or any president is religious?”

Which I wholeheartedly agree with.  (As, for the record, does Thomas Jefferson.)  I offer belated apologies for my impulsive reaction.  Which you have to believe came with premeditated forethought, proving that prejudiced thinking is faster than Mercury.

Two-thirds of the way through, however, the liberal commentator loses me entirely.

Arguing for no religious “litmus test” concerning the presidency, she almost casually includes,

“The fact that I am a “none” myself {a poll-slotting designation referring to “no religion”} probably explains some of my indifference to figuring out Trump’s religious beliefs.”

To which this reader, responds, and appropriates as his “post title”…


It “probably” explains your indifference.

Are you kidding me!

Read it again.  It “probably explains some of my indifference” – she sticks that weasly word “some” in there. 


It explains the whole thing!

Making the presented commentary a retrospectively big


Suspiciously, because knowing where she’s coming from would give away what she is going to say because the two are inextricably connected, any clues to the commentator’s ideological alignment were, uncharacteristically, excluded from the italicized postscriptual biography, identifying her only her as, “… a contributing writer to Opinion.  She lives in Los Angeles.”

Summing up….

If you are aware the writer’s background, there will be few, if any, contentual surprises.  With the content comfortably assumed, all that remains is the stylistic enjoyment of the writing.

Look out!

Who am I talking about here?


Try forgeting I said that.

Or, alternatively,


No comments: