Yesterday I commented favorably on Representative Joel Dykstra's sponsorship of HB 1184, a measure that would create a new tax incentive for a wide range of renewable energy projects. Lest anyone think the fundagelicals slipped a mickey in my hot chocolate, I made clear that, props on this particular piece of legislation notwithstanding, "There's still no way I'm voting for an Oral Roberts University graduate for Senate, and I remain suspicious of anyone who has made a living working for Big Oil."
My reader offer this gentle chastisement:
"There's still no way I'm voting for an Oral Roberts University graduate for Senate," seems pretty harsh and arbitrary. We Augie grads, and probably some Presentation and USF grads would want to know how far that brush paints??? Heck, DSU grads would probably want to know if they are ok?
I realize blogs are for entertaining and cutting edge discourse, but the problem with those attack comments are that they encourage the mean spirited posts like the second one, and it kind of rolls down hill from there [reader e-mail, 2008.01.22].
I'll admit, for all my talk about civil discourse, I'm prone to throw elbows too. And yes, I am a lot harder on certain Republicans (Rep. Dykstra, Gov. Rounds, Bob Ellis...) than on my fellow Dems (although Herseth-Sandlin's wimpy statement on eminent domain still bugs me).
Even though I don't feel an apology welling up, I would like to at least clarify my anti-ORU comment. First off, Augie, USF, and Presentation grads, fear not: The Madville Times never has and never will go on a crusade against Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics or any other Christians for being Christians. I agree with the Founding Fathers that there should be no religious test for public office (see Article 6 -- funny that in the only instance of the word "religious" in the entire Constitution has the word "no" in front of it).
However, in his support for unworkable and unconstitutional abortion legislation, not to mention his well-known comment about rape, Dykstra has demonstrated the sort of bad thinking that comes from a narrow fundamentalist education. I disagree less with Dykstra's religion and more with his theology, his interpretation of what his religion tells him to do. What I hear coming out Dykstra and Oral Roberts University is a fundamentalism that threatens good government and the Constitution as I understand them, not to mention misses the true message of Christianity as my in-house theologian understands it. They represent the folks who claim to be Christians but seem more concerned with material wealth than spiritual consistency.
My beef isn't with Christianity; it's with Christians who get Christianity wrong.
"What I hear coming out Dykstra and Oral Roberts University is a fundamentalism that threatens good government and the Constitution as I understand them"
ReplyDeleteHow exactly do you understand good government and the Constitution? I've been curious about that since you started this blog and the it's something we're wondering again in the comments on this other post.
I'd love to hear, just once, your complete articulate and reasoned political philosophy.
Kind regards,
David
I agree that an apology is due for your all-encompassing comment about Oral Roberts University grads. I believe we have two local MHS grads attending ORU right now. After all, every grad from ORU is not fundamentalist, and even if they are, aren't Christians about tolerance? If you stick to attacking Dykstra's positions, not his school, you'll be just fine.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't vote for an Oral Roberts University grad either.
ReplyDeleteGeez, David, cut the guy some slack. This is a blog, not a master's thesis. He does spend time on other things, like say, a research job that's paying his way through a doctoral program. Oh, and there's this other little person in the house who happens to demand a lot of diaper-changing, bath-giving, story-reading attention. So, you might not get that complete political philosophy real soon.
ReplyDelete"After all, every grad from ORU is not fundamentalist"
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, and add that some people who aren't 'fundamentalist' (whatever that means) might attend there just because you get a better education when in an environment opposite to what you are used to. It doesn't help anyone to hear pandering to things they already believe, and Dykstra could have gone simply to sharpen his faith against a polar opposite worldview.
Heck, that's why I hang out here. It would be pretty lame for someone to cast aspersions on my character because I frequently comment on the blog of a Kucinich supporter. (It wouldn't be lame if I were an actual Kucinich supporter, though.)
"Geez, David, cut the guy some slack."
ReplyDeleteAhh Erin. I don't mean to be hard on your husband... he certainly does have priorities. But considering he averages about 2 posts a day on this site (with well researched and thoroughly linked articles), I think he could fit in at least an outline of his political philosophy instead of another post about the same old stuff regarding TransCanada or the Zaniya project.
I mean, I'm not asking for him to take time already allocated to his job or family. Since he's already spending time writing blog posts, I'm just making a suggestion for the post I keep looking for.
David,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should let the political philosophy emerge from the blog posts, rather then pine for a Heidelberger Disputation.
Logic tells me that you have more free time. Perhaps you could tell us what Cory's philosophy is, and he can tell us which parts are accurate?
"Just as a person does not use the evil of passion well unless he is a married man, so no person philosophizes well unless he is a fool, that is, a Christian." - Martin Luther
Cory... repeat after me.
ReplyDelete"I (your name) apologize for ripping on the fine institute that is Oral Roberts University. Although their former president is a crook that nearly robbed the school blind so he could have a solid gold toilet." LOL
It's like we tell our classes, "Do not judge the actions of a whole group based on the actions of a few."
Oh, and I guess you'll be rooting on SDSU anytime they play ORU... they're both in the Summit League, you know.
The reason I don't support Joel Dykstra has nothing to do with him being an ORU graduate (though it might explain a couple things). The reason I don't support him is because I think he's a bad legislator.
ReplyDeleteHe's one of the guys responsible for transforming the state Senate's great education funding increase last year into more useless one-time-money funding. He seems to think that if the one-time-money extends over a couple years, it will become permanent eventually. But how can schools count on that? No wonder they stick that money into reserves.
I don't want to turn this into a Dykstra-bashing post, but he just makes me angry. I'm constantly ashamed that he represents my district.
"Perhaps you could tell us what Cory's philosophy is, and he can tell us which parts are accurate?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a great idea!
*assumes Cory's tone of voice*
My dear readers, the Madville Times has decided to quit hiding behind slogans, ad hominem, and half-baked criticism. As much as I enjoy looking up people's alma maters and throwing around terms like "fundagelicals" "athletic supporters" and "HUH crowd" that doesn't help anyone find the truth. It all stops here. Now we will have a serious discussion about how the world ought to be.
Part 1. Everyone needs to recognize what I want. If I want it, then it stands to reason that everyone wants it. If I don't want it, then only morons would want it.
The things I want the most are either free or very expensive. I want long bike rides on the frozen lake, perfect sunsets, and head-to-toe health care. I don't want any mildly expensive things like an XBox 360 or high-def cable TV... just really expensive things like Internet 3. The government exists so that it can buy these expensive things that I want and give them to all of us (you get them to, so it's all fair). We shouldn't have to work to get these things, simply being born in America privileges us to live better than kings.
If there's something expensive that you want, and I don't want it (like a new gym), tough. We're not going to waste my tax dollars on things you like.
Part 2. Don't ask me where the majority of the money ultimately comes from for these expensive things. It's too hard a question. We are the government, which means that if you have a lot of capital, we get to share it. (On the expensive things that I want, not the things you want.) If you think you have a right to spend your own money, I'm going to call you selfish, a free-market theologian, and make comments suggesting your ideas about freedom are stuck in the Cold War.
Part 3. I'm not a Christian, but my friends and family are, so I can legitimately appeal to Jesus's sayings and Christian values without being a hypocrite. And let me tell you, I am an authority on the figure of Christ. Christ said "love your neighbor" so that means you Christians have to, by law, give me free health care, free bike paths (biking off the lake is expensive), higher teacher salaries, and quit polluting.
Part 4. When are you people going to learn that charity isn't enough? We can't rely on people to put their money toward altruistic things (or things I want), so we have to take the money from them and give it where I think it should go. This is the essence of Christ's teaching, rob those rich scumbags and give it to the poor (that will always be with you).
Just because you earned your money doesn't mean you have a right to spend it. We are the government, so we spend our (mostly your) money on what I want.
Part 5. Freedom is great, but it's also a nuisance. If someone's encroaching on my freedom, I'm going to howl. But that doesn't mean you get to have your freedom. Well, maybe if someone wants to put a pipeline through your land, then yeah, you get some freedom. But if you work for a corporation or make a more-than-adequate salary, I'm going to tell you exactly how you're going to live. First off, you're going to buy health care. Doesn't matter how healthy you are, or if you want to save that money elsewhere, you're going to buy it. And if you're really rich, you're going to buy it for your whole town (including, nay especially, those deadbeats who do no exercise, snarf BigMacs, smoke, drink, and take no thought of their own health).
Next, you're going to pay for bike trails, state parks, campgrounds, and give the teachers a 75% raise. (Which all happen to be activities I enjoy, and a career I am/was in.) It doesn't matter if you don't bike, hike, camp, or have kids in school... this is for the good of all of us! It's our social responsibility to fund my favorite activities. What's that? You want to buy a gym? Ha ha ha ha... don't be silly. We're promoting healthy exercise on this blog, so a new gym is out. Instead we're going to buy a new drama theater and maybe an art house.
Privacy is sacred, so nobody had better tap my phones when I'm telling secrets. But if you're a pipeline company, a school board, a county commission, or a city commission, there's no way I'm going to let you have an executive session and tell secrets amongst yourselves.
Part 6. Amendment 14 to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that abortion is unequivocally legal (and it does this without even mentioning the words abortion, pregnancy, fetus, or mother). Yes, I agree that the embryo/fetus is a human being in development and in no way less human or less alive than an infant. But still, if you're going to try to protect that child's life, I'm going scurry about changing the subject. First, I'll accuse you of chauvinism, then liken you to the Taliban, refer to a work of fiction like it's prophesy, ridicule the sponsors of the bill, suggest you are really in favor of slavery, and ignore the possibility that one could use sex-ed and an abortion ban concurrently. We'll take nice long tangents and patiently discuss all kinds of minutia, but in the end I'm going to quit the conversation before addressing the one piece of relevant information... that there is no ontological difference between the aborted fetus and Katarzyna.
Part 7. Dennis Kucinich is always right... even, nay especially, when he says he saw a UFO.
*end Cory voice*
Whew! That was hard work. It's like writing the Screwtape Letters... you pull you mind inside out trying to understand your adversary's point of view. Obviously I wasn't able to write out a complete political philosophy, since Cory wrote 643 posts in 2007 alone. But for the most part these 7 points pretty much cover his main positions.
Looking forward to any corrections, clarifications, and extrapolations to come. But I have to admit, I did a fine job on this, and we'll probably see Cory just copy and paste it into a post of his own. (I grant you legal permission, Cory, to take the above in its entirety as your own philosophy. It wouldn't be plagiarism.)
Your friend,
David
Haggs -- it's not bashing to give good reasons not to vote for a political candidate. Some people whine about "negative campaigning"; I call it conducting a rational analysis and comparison. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" cannot apply to political discourse: we have to talk about the good and the bad. Dykstra might have some good ideas about energy policy, but he also clearly has some bad ideas about education funding, women's rights, and... well, readers, keep the examples coming (from both sides!).
ReplyDeleteWOW David. You took Cory to the woodshed and switched his backside. I think much of what you wrote is accurate, but I will say that I've seen changes in Cory as he's evolving from a professed single atheist to someone who is now a husband, father and has grown in his religious tolerance and views (thank you Erin). I think all of us go through that maturing process and having children is a huge equalizer. It challenges everything we may have once believed. I'm not saying you were wrong, I'm just saying we can expect more tolerance in Cory's views as he matures and grows as an adult.
ReplyDelete"WOW David. You took Cory to the woodshed and switched his backside."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Cory would do the same for me if he thought my philosophy had gone awry. At least I hope he would... I wouldn't want to be stuck believing in unreasoned or hypocritical positions.
Oh and I almost forgot an important one...
*assumes Cory's tone of voice*
Part 8. Rather than ever admit to being wrong or my position needing correction, I'll just leave your argument unaddressed and start posting about other things.
*end Cory's voice*
Kind regards,
David
David's never been anywhere near a woodshed.
ReplyDeleteFunny we go from Oral Roberts to my philosophy. And funny I keep getting this demand -- from one reader -- for a political philosophy. Joe understands: I've been offering that political philosophy all along: it's called the Madville Times, an ongoing work in progress. It's long, complicated, still probably with some contradictions, open to discussion, amendment, and hoghousing.
Any political philosophy that matters is bigger than one blog post. And I won't exert myself too hard addressing a philosophy of pointless abstractions that will never see the light of practical policy (or at least let's hope not, or goodbye, 14th Amendment). So keep your seat cushions -- I'm able to sit down just fine.
And tolerance, Anon? Hey, I'm not the one saying that a candidate can only come from one religion. I'm not the one saying a candidate has to share my religion (or lack thereof). It's the fundagelicals who need the tolerance and maturity (and a lot of them are older than my 36 years). I oppose Dykstra for Senate not because he is a Christian, because he supports bad policies and would infringe on my wife and daughter's human rights. Thank you, Erin, indeed, for helping me see that some Christians get politics flat wrong.
"David's never been anywhere near a woodshed."
ReplyDeleteOooo... ad hominem.
"Funny we go from Oral Roberts to my philosophy. And funny I keep getting this demand -- from one reader -- for a political philosophy."
Funny that a debate coach can't summarize his arguments into one coherent message. Funny that Cory (in the original post) alludes to understanding good government and the Constitution, yet won't share that understanding with us.
"Any political philosophy that matters is bigger than one blog post."
The golden rule is one sentence... length has nothing to do with it.
Any argument can be compressed into a thesis statement (I'm not talking about a master's thesis, Erin, but merely one or more thesis statements). So either Cory doesn't have thesis statements or he is embarrassed/unwilling to share them with us.
"I've been offering that political philosophy all along: it's called the Madville Times, an ongoing work in progress."
If he's going to rest on the posts of this blog, then I submit that my writings above aren't satire, but his actual beliefs. Click the links, fellow reader, and see that I am in no way distorting Cory's message or rhetorical tactics. The substance to his political musings is nothing deeper than "this is expensive, I want it, and I feel ok making you pay for it." And if you stand in his way of getting what he wants, be prepared to endure some creative name calling.
He doesn't want to muddle things up with abstract ideals like respecting citizens' liberty. Referring to ideals isn't "practical". What's practical is acting like a 2-year-old and wanting things you can't have... and begging Daddy Government to buy it for you (who then charges other citizens for the cost).
Kind regards,
David
PS Was that last sentence of mine ad hominem? Nah... I said his belief is like a two-year-old's. I didn't slander Cory as a person or call him names, just told him what I thought of his (apparent) political belief.
Now he might reply that through this whole thread I'm attacking a straw man, but I have nothing else to address. He won't give me a thesis statement or outline, he won't correct my observations of his positions, and it's impossible to evaluate a "work in progress." So if indeed I am woodshedding a straw man, it's because there was no man to begin with. His individual posts do have purpose to them, but he's made it quite clear that he's incapable or unwilling to synthesize them himself.
Therefore I should be praised for being able to do the job that Cory himself cannot do. I'm like Georges Lemaître, who was able to understand Einstein's theories better than Einstein himself and come to the conclusion Einstein couldn't comprehend.
"Therefore I should be praised for being able to do the job that Cory himself cannot do."
ReplyDeleteDid I say I can't play David's game? Ha. I can play that game; I just don't find it appealing any more. Judging high school debate is my weekend job; the blog is not a formal, abstract debate round. Distilling the growing number of posts into a snapshot political philosophy is apparently an amusing game for one reader... but not for me, not any more. My "political philosophy" just isn't news. I'm not news (not usually). Dykstra vs. Kephart, the state legislature, rural economic development, the trimester system, property tax, the Lake Herman Sanitary District -- there are so many things happening in our state that are so much more interesting than I or David or any of our games.
By the way, what college did Kephart go to?
"Did I say I can't play David's game? Ha. I can play that game; I just don't find it appealing any more."
ReplyDeleteHoly cow, a new low! Cory just called discussing values like personal liberty, justice, and protecting unborn children a game.
" . . . I will say that I've seen changes in Cory as he's evolving from a professed single atheist to someone who is now a husband, father and has grown in his religious tolerance and views (thank you Erin)."
ReplyDeleteAnon, I'm afraid you give me too much credit. Cory's always been a rather tolerant atheist. I'd say he's just as religiously tolerant now as he was when I met him.
Having spent the last half hour reading this very interesting thread, I have come to the conclusion that of the two major contributors, Corey and David, only one seems to know Corey's worldview – and it's not Corey. Socrates told us "the unexamined life is not worth living." Corey should be thankful to have a guy like David to do the examining for him, lest he take Socrates' maxim to its morbid conclusion.
ReplyDeletepb -- If all you have read is this thread, you jump to conclusions based on only one source. The only thing I have not examined is David's version of my worldview. I can recall gazing at my worldview-navel as far back as grade school. I played Socrates regularly and vigorously at least 25 years, then found my interests growing away from myself to broader issues. I still perform regular check-ups of the worldview -- I just don't feel the need to do so in detail on this blog. I find South Dakota offers many more interesting and important topics to discuss than myself.
ReplyDeleteBut fear not for my mortal flesh: every self-examination has led me to the unshakeable conclusion that life is worth living. Looking at my wife and baby lead me to the same conclusion.
Good for you Cory! I am sure glad we don't all have a David to pick apart our whole lives. David truly writes like all his ideas and thoughts are pure and he's right and that's all there is to it. Sorry David. Open your eyes to real life and you'll enjoy it more. Does David have to give a reason to everything he does, says and thinks in his life. I don't think so. Thank goodness we all can have our own opinions and not just poke at everyone else who has one you don't ever agree with!
ReplyDeleteDavid has managed to twist the issue of Cory's insensitive labeling all ORU grads into a slug-fest of brainiacs. Am I smarter than you or are you smarter than me?
ReplyDeleteI think the two should get together and have a long cup of coffee because neither is going to change the other's opinion via this blog. The best we can hope for is a keyboard malfunction.
Personally, I'd like to hear Cory's view (and David's) on the Economic Recovery Plan, otherwise known as "China loans the US $150 Billion, who distributes it to Americans at $600 per person, who in turn head to Walmart to spend their cash on faulty, lead-laden Chinese produced goods." Who's economy are we stimulating?
Nicely, nicely said, Anon 3:17! I've been refraining from comment because I can't whip together damning, sarcastic prose anywhere nearly as quickly as others on this thread (plus, I'm pretty sure I have a David-requested response or two of my own due out there somewhere in cyberspace, and I'm not in the mood to take double-barreled philosophical attack for not clearly enough defining my ever-developing self and thoughts). However, you pretty much captured my sentiments. I agree especially with the notion that, with "friends" ready to take joy in belittling a person's thoughts and beliefs from a self-constructed moral high ground, who needs enemies?
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:31 asks about the stimulus package? Try this post, this post, and this post.
ReplyDeleteAnd "Slug-fest between brainiacs"? I suspect David might point out I'm not throwing any punches, at least not in the ring he wants to box in.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe I'm responding to these... oh well...
ReplyDeleteFrom Anon:
"David truly writes like all his ideas and thoughts are pure and he's right and that's all there is to it."
David is exposing what appears to him as selfish, hypocritical, communist, and tyrannical thinking. Words are loaded guns. And Cory uses a lot of them to get his message across... to get his "exasperatingly slow social revolution" (main page, left column) moving... to get his "idears" (right column) across. If someone doesn't stand up to the selfish, hypocritical, communist, and tyrannical thinking of Lenin/Castro/ZeDong, we're all going to be in chains.
From Anon:
"I am sure glad we don't all have a David to pick apart our whole lives. Does David have to give a reason to everything he does, says and thinks in his life. I don't think so."
I dream of the day when I have someone watching my back to make sure that my beliefs are consistent, true, and good. (Until then, I have only my conscience.) Anon, if you're willing, please examine my philosophy and offer your corrections. I could have no greater treasure.
From Toby:
"I'm not in the mood to take double-barreled philosophical attack for not clearly enough defining my ever-developing self and thoughts"
Oh Toby, I wouldn't even open one barrel upon you. We would have a nice peaceful Zen garden discussion with doves flying overhead. I only whip out the 'damning, sarcastic prose' against Cory because, well, he himself prefers it. I used to try to reason with him calmly, and suggested that supercharged language doesn't help us find philosophical clarity, but his reply was that (to him) supercharged language makes issues clearer and errors in thinking easier to spot. He spares no acid for his opponents, so I decided to put wit and subtlety aside to try to get through to him using the kind of language he prefers. And now the aggressive blogger who casts each stone and forgives no sin is trying to play the victim when someone decides to analyze him in the way he analyzes the rest of us.
But, truly, he's probably sat on his side and calculated that pretending to be the victim is the only strategy he has left. With all the evidence out there that his positions are, at the bottom, wholly selfish, he is left with either recanting his beliefs or relying on cheap rhetorical tricks to weather this storm. Discussing rationally is out of the question, and Cory isn't prone to recant (see Part 8 above).
Victim? I must have missed that... along with the wit and subtlety David says he put aside.
ReplyDeleteVictim:
ReplyDelete1/27/2008 7:43 AM - caheidelberger said (paraphrased)...
"David is continually beating on me and I'm not even fighting back."