They also believe they will be exempt from the laws that they push for. They are super duper special. They are the ONLY one not abusing the system that all those "others" are.

Look at Santorum, for example. He and his wife experienced a pregnancy that went horribly wrong. They eventually chose treatment that would save his wife's life over that of the fetus. Yet he is in favor of laws that would prevent every other woman from having the same option. Their predicament was special and they are the only one's to ever have experienced it.

Some learn, some don't.

Same with the Duggers. Their son raped his sisters, yet should not be punished. Because you know...Jesus. But let a daughter get pregnant out of wedlock, disowned. They made big money condemning others, yet don't pass judgment on them, they are special.

they cannot put themselves in someone else's shoes, until some personal tragedy strikes, they just don't, or cannot, get it.

You certainly understand most of the right's mind function. One admirable human trait is being able to put yourself in another's life/mind. Great actors do it all the time. That's most likely why most actors are left-leaning. They have the ability to (at least) try to understand what others are thinking and feeling.
Most republicans I've known seem to lack that part of human emotion. They tend to only see the surface of another's reality.
"He drives a crummy car" "His clothes are old" "Her house is in disrepair"
They lack the thought process to finish the above lines (in quotation marks)
Perhaps they were struck with an expensive illness.
Perhaps they had to take care of there elder parents
Perhaps an in-law took advantage of them. (I've got this great stock-tip)
Perhaps they have a mental affliction.
..and the list goes on.

Again, some people wonder why republicans are shallow. It's the same reason some dogs are brown.
They-just-are.

Personality-types are fairly critical in determining politics, IMO, as well.

An interesting and insightful post.

I knew a lot of people who thought that tithing was a great idea when they were recipients of aid.

Then they got jobs and, you know, giving that 10% just didn't fit their lifestyle.

One preacher had it in for adulterers, wife-beaters, guys who hung out at strip-clubs, sabbath-breakers. People who did these things so that others found out about them were usually politely asked to leave and come back when they repented. If they remained, they were told to stay away and blocked at the door by "ushers." Then one week he suddenly he stopped worrying about such details and focused on gossip and rumor-mongers. Why? Because word got out that his oldest (surviving) son, married for 5 years, had beat his wife, had a string of affairs, and worked on the sabbath. Somebody noticed his car at a strip club Friday night, and from there this guy's facade unravelled. And his father had to choose between "empathy" and "righteousness," and picked "partiality" instead.

One old minister refused to marry mixed race couples. Given the demographics of the various congregations, this wasn't a problem for over a decade--one of those doctrines that are trivial and on paper until some action is requirement. That action came around in the form of two of his personal friends who wanted to marry. He quickly found a way around the doctrine, and discovered that it really had never been a doctrine.

Even my mother hated taxes. She loathed giving the government all that money every month. (She was a staunch (D) voter and had never, she claimed, missed a presidential election, seldom missed a federal off-year election, and had never, ever voted anything but straight (D) ticket.) Until she collected social security. Then it was obvious that taxes had to be raised because social security just didn't pay enough. With her pension and investments, her net retirement income was only $35k/year! (Not counting her husband's, of course.)

I've seen firm anti-racists who quickly sold their houses when the "wrong sort" moved onto their block. Those who adored having some industry regulated, but pitched a fit when suddenly they were affected by the regulations. People who worshipped at the altar of academic freedom, but then insisted that some (conservative) thoughts were too dangerous to allow on their campus. Members of search committees who said they'd never discriminate against people for their views--but they'd never, ever hire a Republican in their department.

A local school district has a huge anti-bullying campaign going on. They've pushed to establish gay-straight alliance clubs and make gay students feel comfortable. Now, this district has a kind of pipeline for high-school principals and higher-level administrators. They start as assistant principals wherever, then become associate principal at a specific high school. They move to being principal at a specific middle school. From there, they go to being high school principals. If they're tracked for higher administrative office, there's they pass back through the same high school again en route.

One man was associate principal, became that middle school principal, and word was out that he'd be going to the really good high school in district. He'd be groomed to become principal at the "flagship" high school--the high-achieving, newest school. That was announced 3 weeks ago. Then he came out as gay two weeks, an open secret until then. Oops. Last week it was announced his promotion was changed: they had to promote him, to do anything less would get their asses sued, but now he's going to the one failing high school in district, the one that is majority black and Latino with piss-poor teacher retention. Turns out there's an immediate need there for a new principal. A white, gay principal. Did I mention that his boyfriend's a policeman?

So much for the anti-bullying and "let's make sure gay students feel safe and comfy in our district" campaign.

Russian proverb: Svoya rubashka blizhe k telu, "It's your own shirt that's closest to your body." I.e., when push comes to shove, what affects you is more important than what affects somebody else.

Last edited Sun Jun 7, 2015, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

altar of vain, imperial hubris. I think we need to resist mightily the impulse to gloat that he got his comeuppance or that his epiphany derives from mere 'selfishness.'

Who can chastise a man who loses a child? Not me. I say welcome to the fight.

To call a man selfish when his son sacrifices his life for the country is foolish, counterproductive and cruel.

I am sorry for his loss and wish that it had never happened. I see some good from this though because his friends and other family are probably Republican and the conversion will spread. His attitude is much better than if he saw his chil's death as a noble sacrifice instead of the killing for profits that he has come to understand.
No I don't gloat over this, I have lost a child as well. I just wish they could understand before we get into one of these wars.
Not to negotiate with Iran first is one of these near future issues and we need all of the help we can get. Iran was a Democratically elected governments before the CIA had their Prime Minister accused of treason and hanged. We put a dictator in charge who murdered millions of his own people while we supplied him with weapons and took their oil. Should we really be the ones calling them evil?

And it isn't any nicer to have to deal with this time.

I dislike CottonMouth immensely.

exclusively for demagogues and charlatans. Would need to be large enough to hold today's GOP.

The Eighth Circle, where various types of fraud is dealt with, is subdivided into ten Bolgie -- "ditches". Bolgia Eight is where "evil counselors" are forced to walk around, covered with fire. In the ninth Bolgia, a sword-wielding demon hacks at the "sowers of discord". In the final Bolgia, various sorts of falsifiers (alchemists, counterfeiters, perjurers, and impostors) – who are a "disease" on society – are themselves afflicted with different types of diseases.

I should also mention the Ninth Circle of Dante's hell, where traitors are punished by being buried in ice. Traitors to their countries or political party (Dante was a White Guelph and took his party politics very seriously) are immersed in the ice up to their chins.

associated the Eighth Circle with 'hypocrites,' forgetting the various sub-divisions and strata included therein. Sounds like Dante will not need to do any renovations any time soon!

Much obliged for the annotations and gloss, btw. Between now and Nov. 2016, I should probably re-read Dante.

Their punishment is listlessly walking around wearing gilded lead cloaks, which represent the falsity behind the surface appearance of their actions, falsity that weighs them down and makes spiritual progress impossible for them.

I have re-read Dante about every five years for the last forty years. I'm reminded of something Martin Luther said, that he re-read The Epistle to the Romans almost every day, and almost every time he got something new out of it. Similarly, I read Dante about every five years, and every time I get something new out of it.

I have two and a third translations: Dorothy Sayer's translation (yes, the woman who wrote the Lord Peter Wimsey detective stories), John Ciardi's translation, and Robert Pinsky's translation of the Inferno. Sayer's poetry is not very good, but her notes are brilliant (she was a scholar, not a poet); Ciardi's poetry is pretty good, but his notes aren't great (he was a poet, not a scholar); Pinsky's poetry is better than Ciardi's, his notes are the worst of the lot (Pinsky has said that he is not going to do the Purgatorio or the Paradiso.

some distant memories. IIRC, I studied Dante under him briefly at the U. of Missouri-Kansas City (my alma mater) back in the mid-70s. He was very old at that point (and probably emeritus) but, at least in my memories, was just as sharp as a tack. I can only hope I stay as sharp when I reach his age.

Thanks again for these detailed glosses and I will try to re-read between now and the end of the year. Along those lines, I wonder what Dante would make of Jeb Bush's call that single mothers be publicly 'shamed.' Jeb made this recommendation back in 1995 but I'll bet if you scratch the surface he still believes it, even if he no longer utters the sentiment in public.

Sending our young people in uniform there to kill and be killed does NOT make us safer.

It perpetuates violence & terrorism, and enriches the MIC while keeping the people at home focused on the wrong enemy.

I don't hold grudges against those people and welcome them to the fold, even though it took something personal to open their eyes.