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”:
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”…
“Probably?”
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.
Lady!
It
explains the whole thing!
Making
the presented commentary a retrospectively big
“Duh!”
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?
Okay.
Try
forgeting I said that.
Or,
alternatively,
Goodbye.
No comments:
Post a Comment