One foot on the banana peel, the other foot clinging to sanity...

(NOTE: UPDATE at the end of this article re: lunacy and Babs Streisand)

Now that I have removed my jaw from the floor, and I have regained a semblance of normalcy, I ask you to take a moment to check out the rant of a Stanford Law Professor at Slate today - yes, the author really is teaching young men and women at an elite university - we can only hope his influence is minimal and any damage he inflicts is reparable. The author, Richard Thompson Ford, is attempting to analyze why the Democrats lost - and his conclusions are mind-boggling.  Here's just a taste:

"If, as Laura Kipnis suggests, political debate in United States takes place at a junior-high-school level of sophistication, let's put it in Nickelodeon Channel terms: The Democrats are goody-goody student government types. They're earnest, studious, well-manned, talented debaters. (ed: are you KIDDING me? The party of hate spewing Teddy Kennedy? The party that embraces Hollywood stars waving wine bottles and making crude jokes about the President's last name - then calling those comments "the heart and soul of America?") And after working so hard on their speeches and staying up all night making election posters with fluorescent paint and stencils, they just can't understand why the jock with a C-minus GPA and a permanent smirk on his face won the election. (ed: the President that sports a higher IQ than John Kerry, and better college GPA than Al Gore. Humph.) It's just not fair. Why does everyone hate us so much?

This reaction to Kerry's defeat speaks volumes about why the Democrats lost."

and:

"The emergent conventional wisdom is that moral values cost the Democrats the election. This proves what many have suspected for some time: Democrats can't connect with the heartland because they don't attend church regularly. If they did, they would realize that there's a big difference between expressing a commitment to moral values (say to your pastor, to fellow congregants, or in an exit poll) and actually wanting to live by them. The bad news for Democrats is that evangelical religious moralism is quite broad. The good news for Democrats is that often, it is not very deep. Many of the relatively new evangelical churches are a hybrid of entertainment, business networking, and free child care. True, there's a hard core of true religious zealots—people who speak in tongues, kiss venomous snakes, or eschew indoor plumbing based on their faith. The Democrats will never reach those people. And from the distance of my hometown of San Francisco, where a typical Sunday morning ritual includes use of the name "Mary" only when it is immediately preceded by the word "Bloody," all of the heartland evangelicals sound like zealots. But the key to the appeal of suburban evangelism is that it doesn't require much in the way of sacrifice or risk.

This is potentially good news for Democrats because it means these "morals voters" may be almost as scared of the real religious zealots as we are. They'll support symbolic reforms like prayer in school. They'll vote against gay marriage. They'll say they categorically oppose abortion. But despite (because of?) their superficial religious piety, their teenage daughters are getting knocked up at alarming rates and a lot of them are getting safe legal abortions. They can afford to rail against abortion rights, safe in the knowledge that the people they vote for can't actually take them away. At least not yet."

What? No "sacrifice or risk?" Doesn't sound like Christianity to me - after all, a Christian must actually live according to God's commandments as outlined in the bible - and be held accountable if they stray.  Isn't taking the high road, when the low road can be so inviting, considered a sacrifice?

The fact that the author says a person that is religious and actually adheres to the principles of that religion is a zealot, whereas one who stumbles regularly is, essentially, normal or "one of us" defines the risk in revealing one's Christian beliefs. George Bush took a huge risk when he laid his beliefs on the table, in a public forum - in fact, he routinely offers prayers to the public and defends his beliefs. When he was asked in 2000 to name his favorite philosopher, without hesitation he answered "Jesus Christ". He was inviting criticism and disdain - yet he took the risk because he wanted to let the world know that this Christian was not afraid to reveal the source of his strength, which is God.

And to accuse Christians of "superficial religious piety" - what is that? I didn't realize he was a fly on my living room wall, or perched at kitchen tables across the country - finding out the supposed 'secret lives' of Christian Americans. Did you know that most Christians (with exception of the serpent kissers) secretly think abortion is really ok, and if our teenage daughters got pregnant that we would covertly escort them to the nearest Planned Parenthood to take care of that dirty little secret, then be the first ones seated at mass on Sunday? As the mother of two daughters myself (and two sons who could find themselves on the other side of the same situation, with far less control over the outcome) I can hardly contain my fury at the audacity of this elitist leftist snob who presumes to know the beliefs that lurk within the hearts of the "religious right." He knows no such thing, and is exposing himself as a fool for pretending to.

How is it unbelievable that we might actually hold our Christian beliefs close to our hearts - that we may actually practice what we preach (with full consideration for the human condition - c'mon, we all make mistakes, it's whether we can actually acknowledge and atone for those mistakes that discerns us from secular impostors).   

The fact that the author of this hate-piece could not see these simple truths is astounding.  He is a college professor - although I suppose that could be his excuse for such ignorance of the beliefs of so many Americans today.

Truly, I hate to link my site to such a vicious expression of leftist vitriol, but I am so disgusted by Mr. Thompson-Ford's point of view, I felt it necessary to illuminate readers to such articles that are making the rounds. God help us all, these rants are likely making some sort of impression on uninformed college students (this man is in a position of power and influence with students) and encouraging the rage of the already angry left.

Who would have thought that articles such as this (and the NYT article posted earlier today) could be available to a worldwide audience, yet make nary a ripple in the nightly news - what would it take for this article to qualify as hate speech in the minds of the liberal media? In my mind, they already do.

Impossibly, unbelievably awful stuff.

UPDATE:  Along this vein of bizarre rantings, yesterday Drudge reported Barbra Streisand's latest leftist blather posted to her website (ht: my fabulous husband) - naturally, she comforts the concerned masses a quote by Thomas Jefferson (remember, the white slaveowner?) - trying to ease the minds of the "frustrated" 48% of the country that voted for the guy who LOST the election.  Apparently the "reign of witches" (those awful Republicans - and Christians to boot..egads) will end and everyone will eventually head left to keep Babs and her ilk company - and all will be right, er, left, with the world.  We'll just put the tab for all of those leftover New Deal social programs on Babs' Visa.   Michelle Malkin's got more on Babs and the blogosphere, check it out.

Comments

[YFA]

All Mr. T-Ford is doing is spreading hate! He doesn't want to know the truth because he is afraid. A brilliant mind will have wisdom and integrity and will want to express all sides of a situation. You will teach students to think and look for all the facts. Some people just do not have a clue!

[Bill S.]

College professors have an obligation to present ideas for students to disect. However, professors should not "color" their presentations in an effort to "sway" student's opinions. That is defeating the purpose of education and instead of having students develop ideas on their own, this guy is basically telling them what and how they should think and injecting his own personal hatred. Not good and not professional. A rote education in college? Maybe good for elementary grades, but not college.

[Teri]

Truly, I would expect no less from someone who's hometown is San Francisco AND is a college professor. The saddest part of all is that his article will only be debated via email and not plastered on the evening news. Of course, most of the talking heads would probably just report on what a wonderful and brave article it is and that it should be up for some elitist award.