Reminds me of a letter to the editor that appeared in today's News Sentinel (scroll to the bottom at the link):

My thoughts on that which will destroy us: Politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morals; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.

I read that this morning and it struck me as pretty profound, especially coming from "Vivian in Alcoa".

(I googled it, and got over one million hits. It's not exactly the "my thoughs" of Vivian. It was Mahatma Ghandi who said this. As usual, tne KNS's google is broken. But thought provoking and relevant today nonetheless.

The fact that someone passed it off as "my thoughts", and that the KNS printed it without checking, make me ponder the humorous irony of "wealth without work" and "knowledge without character". These are the days, I guess. But regardless of the irony it is something worthwhile to think about.)

Jeez, I guess I should own up to pinching my hed from The Unbearable Lightness of Being: “Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch.”

I think there's a powerful statement to be made about cynicism and assuming bad faith on the part of fellow Americans. But man, did Obama miss the mark. He could use a few Ghandi-isms.

Maybe I'm assuming bad faith, but I think this has been proven true over the last several decades:

Treacle may get their attention, but it's vitriol that closes the sale.

--Socialist With A Gold Card

I dunno; to me the vitriol is as gormless as the kumbaya these days. It may well be that it's the same as it ever was, but the presidential rhetoric this time around seems to be especially vacuous. Hillary, for example, wants to have a conversation. About what? Who the frick knows? The important thing is that we all converse.

I think I'd even prefer deceitful (missle gap!) or emotionally manipulative (morning in 'Merica!) to this weird...nothingness.

pinching my hed

Seems like a pretty big difference between a literary reference in a headline to claiming a famous writing as your own in a letter to the editor.

Did not mean to detract from your original post, which is very relevant.

I admit that I am a full-bore supporter of Obama so I'm a bit biased. But I think you're being unfair in taking this paragraph out of context. First, it appeared in an ongoing online discussion about religion. Frankly, I think the Washington Post On Faith series has been one of the more instructive forums for a subject on which few can agree - or agree to disagree. So the spirit of the paragraph was how people of different positions on the abortion question can achieve a modicum of mutual respect.

The second thing you neglect here is the subject itself: abortion. I'm a middle-way person on abortion myself so I can appreciate Obama trying to thread the needle a bit. Admittedly, both he and Hillary have both shifted the discussion to how we can reduce the number of abortions. I think that's important if you want to get moderate evangelicals who loathe Bush's economic and war policies but who feel their views on abortion are caricatured as irrational or mysoginistic.

In isolation, the paragraph you cite is empty rhetoric. But given the context in which it appears, I think it's perfectly appropriate.

It has a hundred glittering eyes to show admirers. They are false eyes and come at a cost. They must be carried around at the ready and stick out of his butt.

Even with all the meaningless flash and glitz...a peacock still has a lot of meat on it.