Thursday, June 24, 2010
Take today for instance.
On the way to The Lad's swimming lesson, I noticed a car up ahead sporting a sticker that said "Jesus Is a Liberal". You can imagine my first response. And you'd be wrong. Because my first response was not, "No, He wasn't".
Oh, don't get me wrong. I utterly reject the assertion made by many, particularly amongst Christians of certain old mainline denominations, that the teachings of Christ and the early Church most closely jive with the modern philosophies of the left. But that's an argument to take up in another thread, another post, because despite the fact that I most certainly do assert that no, He wasn't, it wasn't my first response. My first response was, "Pfft. So?"
Let me explain.
It's obvious that the assertion implied by said bumper sticker was "So you should be too". And, given my own beliefs about applying my faith to my life, if I agreed with the first sentence, yes, I'd accept the assertion of the second. In fact, therre was a time when I was a young, impressionable Christian when I did just that. I advocated socialism and the "Justice" movement as being Christ-like. However, as I've said before, I outgrew that line of thinking. I reject the latter assertion because I reject the former.
But I find the whole argument particularly unpalatable coming from the majority of the left, because even if the former were proven to them to NOT be true, they would NOT discard the latter. These are the same people that scream "Separation of Church and State!" anytime Christians oppose abortion, or gay marriage, or sex ed in schools, or try to have a Prayer at the flagpole day or promote the teaching of Intelligent Design or any other of a myriad of issues that happen to be spiritually or religiously informed to one degree or another.
Again, I don't want to misrepresent myself or be misrepresented regarding my OWN stances on such subjects. I'm not saying if I agree or disagree with fellow Christians on such topics. My views tend to get me in trouble equally with both the religious and the secular alike, and those views would take up more time and words than the scope of this blog entry.
My point is that like most such issues with the left, they're really less concerned about the actual principal of the thing and more with the issue of whose ox it is that is being gored. They're quick to tell you that you can't legislate morality, but they're just as quick to tell you that you're immoral if you reject their legislation. They're all for the Separation of Church and State, but they tell you, thinking it should change your politics, that... Jesus is a Liberal.
Which is why my response was "so?" Why should the teachings of a religious leader (no matter how much reverence I personally have for said leader) affect my political positions, if religion has no place in politics? And if it DOES have a place in politics, if individuals have a right to let their personal beliefs inform their public policies, can you PLEASE hold ALL beliefs to that standard, not just your OWN?
Because only then am I willing to move on and discuss with you whether or not Jesus really IS a Liberal.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Before you agree with me about the losing my mind bit, go read this post by Moron Pundit over at Doubleplusundead. It really does sum up my exact thoughts on the issue, and does it so well I really can't improve on or add to it.
Remember back during the presidential campaign, BHO promised that if elected, he wouldn't raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000? Never mind that the new federal tobacco taxes hit the lower and middle class hardest. Now, Congressional Democrats themselves are about to make a liar out of 0bama directly, saying of his 250k cap, Not So Fast.
The majority party on Capitol Hill does not feel bound by that pledge, saying the threshold for tax hikes will depend on several factors, such as the revenue differences between setting the threshold at $200,000 and setting it at $250,000.
“You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.”
Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, concurred, saying, “I don’t think there’s any magic in the number, whether it’s $250,000, $200,000 or $225,000.
“I’m not hard and fast on $250,000,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “Quite frankly, it could be somewhat lower than that. $250,000 — is that the top 1 percent of Americans, or half a percent? I mean, come on!”
Household income data compiled by the Census Bureau in 2008 shows that families earning over $250,000 fall into the top 2 percent.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) hinted in a speech Tuesday that House Democrats do not consider family incomes of $250,000 an inviolable threshold, despite Obama’s pledge.
Isn't that just special? And if congress does set the limit lower than $250k (and I suspect we'll see it go much lower, well bewlow even 200), what are the odds that The One will oppose them beyond mere lip service? Not that I am a bit surprised -- I knew when he said it that he was speaking through his teeth.
Rome is burning, and the Dems keep tuning up their instruments.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
You can still see the mark.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
One of the advantages of being a bachelor is that I can serve myself dinner in ay order I want, and combine dishes the combination of which other people might be taken aback. Tonight I chose for my late dinner a starter of flatbread and hummus, to be followed later bt barbecued babyback ribs and a simple salad of baby lettuces, paired with an Argenmtinian Malbec. All of the ingredients came premade from Trader Joes, since I finish work just before they close and didn't have time or the money to buy everything raw and from scratch -- amazing how little one gets to cook for ones self when one spends all day cooking for others.
The Hummus is Trader Joes "Smooth and Creamy Classic", a straightforward hummis with no funky ingredients (like their eggplant hummus). While it's palatable, I have a few quibbles:
For one thing, when it comes to being smooth and creamy, it's too much of one and not enough of the other. I prefer my hummus with a little chumkiness to it. And creamy? Well, I expect something a bit thicker be associated with the word "creamy". This is about as thick as yogurt -- I like it closer to sour cream in consistency. Finally, they need to cut back just a wee bit on the lemon juice -- I have no need to fear contracting scurvy any time soon.
All in all, as I said, edible, but if you have the knowledge and means to make it from scratch instead, do.
Friday, June 4, 2010
I can enjoy alcoholic beverages or not, depending on my mood. I'll go days or even weeks without it.I enjoy it, I don't need it.
But ask me to go a whole day without soda pop, and things get ugly. I seriously go through withdrawals. And the problem with hard liquor is that I drink almost none of it straight -- I'm a mixed drink fan, and guess what my mixer of choice is: You guessed it, pop.
So for now, I'm giving up hard drink until I no longer have a problem with soft drinks.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Apparently I come by my libertarian-tinged conservatism genetically.
His sister, my grandmother, married a man with similar beliefs. Granddad used to say "I'm not a Republican, I've just never met a Democrat I'd vote for".
He's still my hero.
I plan to keep my editorializing to a minimum, and my opinions to the comment section. I may help with some of the formatting, but the words are all hers. So without further ado:
Yesterday, I stumbled upon a couple of articles that again challenge my belief in our economy. This quaint article about a poor woman who blew through 100k in pursuit of a BA in (wait for it…) Women’s Studies and Religion. Shockingly, there aren’t a lot of jobs requiring a theologically inclined woman studier, so, she now works for a photographer.
The article suggests all kinds of boogie men who are at fault for this woman’s financial stupidity. Shockingly, the concept that she’s just flat stupid and flaky are never explored. A quote from the article “It is utterly depressing that there are so many people like her facing decades of payments, limited capacity to buy a home and a debt burden that can repel potential life partners. For starters, it’s a shared failure of parenting and loan underwriting.” Uuuummmm....she can’t pay her debts, and I’m supposed to be concerned about her ability to find a life partner? Dude, she needs to find a second job. Let’s try and prevent this dipstick from multiplying if we can until she pays her debts. And how is this even potentially her parent’s (single parent, grammar cops) fault? The woman is 26 years old.
The reporter also breathlessly suggests that someone in the financial aid office or someone at the bank should have warned her that she was getting into trouble. I enthusiastically endorse this. Let’s make people who work in the banking industry tell prospective students the TRUTH about the education they are seeking! Something like this…
Student trying for a generic liberal arts degree: “Hi, I’d like to apply for additional funding so that I can finish my degree in Swedish Sexual Habitat Encouragement.”
Amused phone rep from Citicorp, laughing breathlessly, “Is this some kind of joke? I mean, they really offer a degree in something that completely useless?”
Student, “No, it isn’t a joke. I’m twenty-three and I’m within four semesters of graduating and…” Interrupted by phone rep laughing, “So, it only took you five short years to complete that all important Associate’s Degree? How’s that working out for you?”
Student, “It seems apparent that you aren’t taking me seriously…”
Phone rep, “Look, you’re twenty three, and you apparently can’t do a single thing and you’ve paid a great deal of money for the privilege of one futile degree. I suppose we all make mistakes. I am currently legally required to fully disclose what I think of your educational goals. Have you ever HIRED someone to come to your home to encourage Swedish Sexual Habitats?”
Student, “Well, errr…no, but I’m convinced it’s an important field of study…”
Phone rep, “…perhaps to Hugh Hefner, but I hear he isn’t requiring BA’s at this time…”
Student, “It’s not THAT kind of a field of study…”
Phone rep, “Too bad, because that would be the only way I could picture you being able to pay back a single dime of what you’ve already borrowed. Let’s cut to the chase, you shouldn’t be calling a bank, you should be calling a fairy godmother or a long lost rich relative. Call me back when you have an associate in engineering.” CLICK
Oooh, even the dream of it puts a smile on my face. Why is it that I can’t imagine anyone in New York actually advocating the bill that requires student loan type folk (remember, we OWN the industry now, thanks to healthcare…) telling the whole truth to potential loan applicants? Because even if they did, people like this reporter would bend over backwards to find someone else to blame other than the student. As for the woman herself, she candidly tells the reporter that she doesn’t think she’s going to pay for the loans because “it just doesn’t feel right”. Sounds to me like this women’s studies grad has learned how to rape helpless taxpayers. So, maybe that education is only useless to greater society.