The Beckoning

If blogging is an exercise in egotism, then what's it called when you rent the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of one of the most important speeches in American history, and use the occasion to proclaim that by the force of your personal perfection, it marks the moment when the country turns back to God?

I doubt I have anything to say about the Glenngasm that hasn't already been said, other than it finally occurred to me what the origin was of the calls I kept getting that were ID'd only as 828.

Despite not having a lot to add, I'll say I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: if, out of respect to those who object, the non-mosque at non-ground-zero shouldn't be built, what's the counter argument, vis á vis Beckopalypse and those who considered the day and place sacrosanct?

Okay, I guess I do have to ask: in what way has our honor been lost, and by what means shall it be restored? Did the dishonor start when we let black people live in the White House, or was it when we opened Gitmo? Did it have anything to do with Abu Ghraib, or is it just the attempt to provide health care for all? Will we get it back when we get rid of all Muslims in America, or will outlawing gay marriage once and for all do the trick? As we turn to God, what will he whisper in our collective ear? Is he still into the "love thy neighbor" thing or, like the flock at the 'flecting pool, has he moved on from that namby-pamby liberal crap?

Nor is it exactly as if this country has turned away from God, especially the one to which the Beckofoxians would have us genuflect. There's no country in the West that even approaches our claimed levels of belief or our houses of worship per capita; nor the percent that disbelieve evolution or consider the Bible literally true. So what the hell is he talking about? The fact that so many people eat pork and shellfish, and fail to stone their kids to death? Turn back to God. As opposed to what? The purpose of a self-centered event produced by a egomaniacal lunatic is to get people to do what they've already done. Weird, isn't it? Sort of a microcosm: the anger at what isn't.

What is really on the minds of that virtually all-white crowd? What part of their country do they want back, and, like the dog that chases the car, what will they do with it when they get it? Clearly, they don't want the dirty parts; the ones with Mexicans and gays and Muslims. Shouldn't their signs read "I want certain parts of my country back, preferably without having to pay for them, please. Or govern them."

I did note the comments of one attendee and they were cogent: the federal government, he said, should only be there to protect us, and to help us when we need it. Otherwise, he added, everything should be up to the states. Okay. That's a clear statement of classic states rights and old-school conservatism, and I get it. Arguments can be made, and have been, by intelligent people. It's at the very heart of the debate over our founding documents; where one falls along the spectrum defines (or used to, anyway) the extent to which one is a liberal or a conservative. I'd much rather have that discussion than to abide people whose only position is that they don't like what's happening, and whose only suggestion is to cut taxes, along with other ideas that would actually make things worse. And, in their spare time, to deny marriage rights to gays.

I'd like to hear what that Beckophile thinks constitutes help, and what defines need. And whether he thinks there's a federal interest, say, in food and drug safety, or would rather it be left to the kids who are taught in young-earth creationist schools that science is evil, and grow up to run his state.

__________________________

Update: sticky wicket?