I don’t go to book stores much any more. Primarily, this is because I don’t buy many books (I’m actually trying to thin out my collection) and when I do buy one, it is usually after careful thought, rather than an impulse buy.
So I get it on Amazon.
I finally did take a couple hours to browse in a book store, though. What an eye-opener!
Apparently, a large portion of the book-buying public is completely insane. I say this based on the number of books that fixate on the evil that is bound in George W. Bush. Seriously, these people are acting as though we had paradise on earth until he took office.
Bush Derangement Syndrome is nothing new, but I confess I never fully grasped its scope.
One book in particular caught my attention: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi. Apparently he blames the president for the deaths of our combat troops in Iraq.
Now I assume this is supposed to be a scathing criticism of the president’s failings, but to any rational observer it is an even more damning indictment of Bugliosi’s sanity.
Paging through it, I was reminded of why the Founding Fathers went through the effort of putting the definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution: because previous states used it as a catch-all to get rid of people that suddenly became politically undesirable. Athenian democracy was notorious for praising and then proscribing political figures, depending on the fleeting whims of popular sentiment.
Actually, most of the classical world had problems with “fatal attribution errors.” I recall one instance where a kid was choked on a pear, so the tree he plucked it from was condemned for murder, uprooted and burned.
Ancient Romans blaming trees for people not chewing their pears properly seems very much akin to blaming George W. Bush for the actions of terrorists at war with us.
I guess there really is nothing new under the sun.
This demonstrates how liberals really can’t deal with the real world – far from being “reality-based,” they keep acting as though life has a “rewind” button. Since they don’t like the Iraq war, the notion is that you can impeach the president, pull the troops out, and pretend it didn’t happen. Oh, and say “sorry” a whole lot.
To call this attitude “juvenile” is to insult children all over the world. It’s worse than that, because it is also implicitly chauvinistic.
How? Because it assumes that absent US action, the rest of the world just sits there placidly, waiting for us to give them their next cue. They wait for us to act, because they cannot – not of their own volition. No, the 150+ other countries of the world wake up every day and have to see what AMERICA does. If we don’t give them a positive sign, their day is ruined.
I guess it isn’t chauvinism, it’s narcissism elevated to national policy. Crazy stuff.
If there is a good side of this, it was that Bugliosi’s book was on the discount shelf, so hopefully even the latte-sipping crowd can’t stomach his bilge. At least we can hope.
The Posse is lately doing more God-blogging than gun-blogging. One reason is that ammunition is so expensive that I simply don’t go shooting much. Money is also tight (thanks to high gas prices, food going up), so I optimistically hope to buy my next firearm a year from now.
I think the main reason, however, is that the Anglicans are making such an entertaining target. The Arch-dhimmi of Canterbury is like a one-man full-employment act for religious commentators.
I’m going to leave it to James Lileks to perform the full honors on his latest encyclical. Read it and weep with laughter and frustration. At this rate, his successor will be a practicing Imam. I mean it’s not like there isn’t a precedent.
Anyhow, one of the things that bothers my about the Anglican crack-up is that, from a theological perspective, their changes make absolutely no sense.
I find it amusing that people talk of “liberals,” “progressives,” “traditionalists,” and so forth, as if they were choosing delegates for the county convention.
Religion is, in theory, a revealed, eternal and unchanging truth. If, as Anglicans now apparently believe, women and homosexuals are fully entitled to take holy orders and be priests and bishops, what does that man about the hundreds of years that they could not? Heck, only a half-century ago it was forbidden. Now it’s okay. What happened?
Was there a memo from the Heavenly Father adding a few pages to the New Testament? I’m actually trying to be serious here. My grandfather (God rest his soul) was a Methodist for almost his entire life, until he was driven out by the liberal wing who considered his beliefs – the beliefs of their church, mind you – outdated and non-inclusive.
I spoke with him about it, and he said it was a hard thing to go through – probably the hardest thing of his life.
That is why my heart goes out to the “traditionalists,” the people who believed something was a true, righteous path only to have – and this is the important part – the leadership say “Sorry, that wasn’t true, this NEW version is even more revealed and more truthier.”
And it goes on and on, year after year.
I think one of the big appeals of radical Islam is that it is unapologetic and presents the confident image that many mainline Protestant churches used to have. After 9/11, you saw a lot of the multi-culti types wagging their heads at the “courage” of the hijackers. I’d argue that it wasn’t courage but at least there was some conviction there. They figured if they killed a bunch of unarmed people in a horrific fashion they’d spend eternity having all manner of hot sex. It’s a sick philosophy, but they acted on it.
Liberals – especially Christian liberals – don’t act on much of anything. It’s like the great example of the “Free Tibet” bumper stickers – great sentiment, but it accomplishes nothing. There is no action associated with it.
But they can admire the Iranians, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and the Palestinians because they DO act – sure, blowing up pizza shops, slaughtering children – but such conviction.
Some years ago I rented Zardoz and these guys are just like the immortals – so jaded and sated that even being killed is a kind of thrill.