Sunday, July 5, 2015

Islamic State Christans ... et al.

On a grey and cool morning, with the neighborhood ground hog wiggle-waddling unafraid and undisturbed across the macadam street, I wonder who confected the phrase "dead to rights."

It's not the meaning that eludes me -- all sorts of Internet parsings and definitions more or less agree ... but what inspired the chosen words initially? I suppose it's unanswerable, but it was wiggle-waddling around in my mind.

And with it, the mind also returned to Montana, a state that, as far as I can figure out, is the only one to seriously challenge the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision that allows corporations to support politicians with unlimited ("free speech") donations. If Montana persists, as it has despite being slapped down, why is it (or is it?) the only state to do so? It's a losing battle that only Montana has taken up. (Is that true?)

A fight worth losing ... now there's an interesting principle. Where else is this sort of backbone to be found? Why has Montana collectively taken up this challenge where, in the sissified East where I live, the only liberal or democracy-prone whimpering is done over white wine ...

Who would rather lose for the right reasons than win for the wrong ones? Who, these days, plays to win but takes the responsibility for losing? Everyone seems to want to win, but if that doesn't work out, they back-pedal swiftly in an effort to look good nonetheless.

Feather merchants.

It's all just wiggle-waddling around in my mind. I hate the idea of doing a newspaper column about Montana -- it requires an explanation that Twitter-ites might find less than engaging -- but I love Montana enough so that I may end up doing it.

And ... as one last component of the wiggle-waddles: I kind of like the phrase "Islamic State Christians." What's Qur'an for one is Bible for the other.

1 comment:

  1. I theorize that it's easier to get an intelligent idea through to a smaller population. So Montana, having a smaller population, might be more intelligently governed. At least it seems that the smaller countries of Europe have to take better care of their people, for that reason.

    I saw a story where, i think it was Ted Cruz, declared it was wrong to open an embassy in Cuba before we opened one in Israel. A quick look at Wikipedia shows we've had and have an embassy in Israel ever since they were recognized. Is Ted stupid? Or does he make stuff up just to inflame his base into action? And why is his base that stupid?

    I guess it's a numbers game possible in a larger population. A small percentage will declare him an idiot or dangerous or both. But a larger percentage will leap into action in support of his campaign because of the misinformation his provided them.

    And apparently his base are the fundamentalist Christians i consider to be the American Taliban. All three of the Abrahamic religions want theocracies. And those who aspire to have and keep power know that a population bows to god before politicians. The lamb/sheeples of the almighty crackdown on liberties will be too busy reporting on their neighbors and defending themselves against their neighbors reports to regret their part in putting god first. Maybe i'm full of crap. I find these to be interesting times though.