Thursday, June 24, 2010


I have an odd little habit... well, ok, I have quite a few odd little habits, but this one in particular: When driving, I tend to actually pay attention to peoples bumper stickers. I like to read them, both for content and style. I almost always have an opinion on them, but I like to give each one a moments consideration before passing judgement.

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

McChrystal Clear

I may be losing my mind, but I have to say this: I agree with President Obama's decision to fire General McChrystal.

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.

Democrats Lie (AGAIN) in 3... 2... 1...

Via Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ:

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

Quote of the Day

"I'm not surprised we have an oil spill czar. What I find surprising, given Obama's previous track record of choosing czars, is that it's not Joseph Hazelwood."

-- Alice H at Doubleplusundead

Sunday, June 20, 2010

That's Gotta Sting

Mark Steyn, showing Conor Friedersdorf his rhetorical pimp hand regarding Friedersdorf's case of the vapors over an earlier Steyn piece, turned the verbal pinky ring with this summation: "Even being a snippy dweeb requires a certain amount of finesse."

You can still see the mark.

Monday, June 7, 2010


The wine department huy at the local Trader Joes is surprisingly knowledgeable. I was looking for a Malbec tonight, and was thinking Chile, from whence the first Malbec I ever tried originated, but he steered me to an Argentinian vintage, Bodega Septima (2007), and damned if it wasn't eminently drinkable. Not quite as dry as I expected, even by Malbec standards, and a surprising hint of strawberries among the stonefruit, a mild shock in a wine with so much body and so little a miniscus, but still not a wine to be dismissed lightly, especially for only $10. I paired it with pork, but I daresay it would stand up to some beef dishes (the more casual ones) quite nicely.