The current political atmosphere in Iowa recently plunged me into despair I’ve never known. Transported in time to the movie theater in little Fonda, Iowa, I cringe at the memory of my first viewing of the 1953 Hollywood film, “War of the Worlds.” Am I dreaming?
A nine-year old farm girl with a vast imagination, I relished the weekly family trips “to town” where I could eagerly spend my meager allowance on either popcorn or pop (soda) and a ticket carrying me to times and places beyond our simple existence. Sometimes a film’s subject matter would cause me to experience nightmares for weeks. Haunted by the then-popular newsreels (“The Eyes and Ears of the World”) I occasionally dreamed of our thriving farm being overrun by Nazis. So, sitting in the dark with my little brother Mike gazing up at the big screen, I was overcome with terror the night we saw “War of the Worlds.”
It wasn’t the flying saucer that the young boy observed landing on a hilltop close to his house that frightened me. Nor was it the people being sucked into the ground. It was the behavior of the victims who ended up below, which included his parents and other trusted individuals. Marks on the back of their necks told the poor lad that something awful happened to them. They acted like zombies, and were no longer their reasonable, kindly selves.
Late in the film, an omnipotent talking head in the sunken spaceship proves to be the brains behind it all, controlling everything his victims say and do.
Today, it seems that so many pragmatic, honest people who populate the state where I grew up have been stricken by an orange-haired, mind-consuming talking head. One Donald Trump. Notice how when interviewed, most Iowa Republicans mimic the exact words spoken on Fox News, no matter how absurd. Not only that, there is now an aura of intolerance for anyone or anything considered an “other.” What’s unimaginable, is that it’s all done in the pretext of being “Christians.” Not the Christianity I was taught.
This relatively new development has created so much animosity, that it’s become nearly impossible to hold a thoughtful conversation about anything. It’s truly a war on rational discourse. Many of my trusted childhood friends and family members have bought into the big lie. I find myself looking to see if they have a mark on the back of their necks.
Like in the movie, I keep hoping to awake and find that it was all just a bad dream. But alas, that will not happen. I know I’m in the minority here, and floundering to figure out just what I can do to stop the madness. Perhaps if there are more like me, together we can find a solution.
JOAN M. THOMAS, Le Mars, Iowa
Re: “A Prayer to Toribio” (by Art Cullen, 2/1/24 TPP), Most folks agree that impoverished people, more than others, need the consolation of religion to lighten the burden of their suffering. Nevertheless, I regret that the Catholic Church prevented the masses in Mexico from learning more than from their catechism, which could have elevated their self-worth and improved their standard of living.
The Church’s practice of indoctrinating millions of Mexicans with religious myths have, in my opinion, only given them hope for a blissful afterlife, but nothing more.
To better understand our Lady of Guadalupe, let’s consider two stories which explain her existence: The official Catholic version, based on church dogma which gives comfort to millions of the faithful — and the less well-known version, based on methodical scholastic investigation, which debunks the supernatural.
In colonial Mexico the name “Juan Diego” was the equivalent of today’s “John Doe.” Thus, historians, some of whom are also Catholic priests, have concluded that he belongs exclusively to Mexican religious folklore.
Also, the events that culminated in Bishop Francisco Juan de Zumarraga’s viewing of the miraculous image imprinted on Juan Diego’s cape, supposedly took place in 1531. Yet, the first recorded reference to the “miracle” didn’t appear until 1556 – 25 years later! Can you imagine the miraculous appearance of the Virgin Mary happening today – and Church authorities not entering an official record of such an extraordinary event until 2049?
Another fact that contradicts the official Church record of the event is that Zumarraga wasn’t yet a bishop in 1531, when he was supposed to have witnessed the miracle. Another three years passed before he became a bishop in 1534.
Moreover, there is no record of Zumarraga ever having mentioned that miracle, nor did he ever write about it. He didn’t even believe in miracles! This what he wrote in a catechism in 1547:
“The Redeemer of the world doesn’t want any more miracles because they are no longer necessary.”
To finally unravel the mystery which surrounds the Virgin of Guadalupe, the “miraculous” image has been historically and scientifically proven to have been painted on glazed linen by a human artist. His name is recorded as Marcos Cipec de Aquino, an Aztec Indian painter who was commissioned by Alonzo de Montefur (the succeeding bishop of Mexico City after the death of Zumarraga), to paint the image.
Competent historians, including Catholic clerical historians (Miguel Olimon, for example) are convinced that the Virgin of Guadalupe is a fabrication on a grand scale. They reasoned that after Spain’s conquest of Mexico, the Church needed an appealing and familiar Indian myth to convert the millions of pagan Mexican Indians.
Thus, the Church invented the Virgin of Guadalupe to replace Tonatzin, an Aztec goddess whom the Indians had worshipped for centuries. And, in a maneuver to aid the Indians’ conversion from paganism to Catholicism, the Church built our Lady of Guadalupe’s Basilica at Tepeyac, the very center of Tonantzin’s popular cult.
The ploy worked beyond the Church’s wildest dreams! Even now, centuries later, the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe is firmly entrenched in the Mexican culture.
DAVID QUINTERO, Monrovia, California
The Democrats bypassed Iowa and New Hampshire in 2024, positioning South Carolina as the launchpad for his re-election bid. As expected, Mr. Biden won going away with 96.2% of the South Carolina vote. But wait — let’s look at some other numbers to emerge from South Carolina:
• 512,418 vs. 131,286: the number of votes cast in S.C., 2020 & 2024. In this key test of Mr. Biden’s ability to “get the vote out,” IT DROPPED BY 74% (and it wasn’t 10 below zero in S.C.).
• 262,336 vs. 126,321: Mr. Biden’s vote totals in 2020 and 2024. Mr. Biden’s personal support DROPPED BY MORE THAN HALF (52%).
These numbers tell a clear story: the Biden-Harris II rallying cry — “Choose Mush, Not Madness!” — will not carry the day in 2024. If South Carolina is any indication, BHII faces the dubious distinction of being only the second Democratic ticket to since 1988 to lose the popular vote (Kerry 2004).
We New Yorkers have always been a tad jealous of Iowa. You Hawkeyes meet every candidate in person; the last presidential candidate to visit Upstate NY was Robert Kennedy in 1968. This week—nearly half a century after seeing RFK—I’m going to an organizational meeting for his son. But don’t worry; no matter how I vote, Biden will carry New York by over a million votes. And nationwide, Madness will likely “trump” Mush in 2024.
JEFF HOFFMAN, Waterloo, N.Y.
A political primary is a preliminary election in which the registered voters of a political party nominate candidates for office. The key word here is preliminary. The current system allows small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire {assisted by the media} to award front-runner status to the victorious candidate.
From there the candidates travel a path determined by which states wants to “leap frog” the other by moving up their primary dates. Candidates are whisked across the country without any real ability to distinguish regional issues from national issues. Consequently, party platforms are determined by a make-it-up-as-you-go approach. If the primary process were organized on a regional basis, candidates would be able to study the regional issues, campaign to confirm those issues and then receive votes based on the solutions they propose. A regional approach would also prevent a premature selection of a front runner because success in one region certainly would not guarantee success in the next region. This would also further validate the process because each state would still have a say all the way down to the end. Finally, the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate. And yes, convert the caucuses to primaries.
Accordingly, the political primaries should occur between January and June of each presidential election year. Each of the six regions would be assigned a particular month. A lottery held in June of the previous year would determine which month each region holds its primaries.
JOE BIALEK, Cleveland, Ohio
From The Progressive Populist, March 1, 2024
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us