"I didn't anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny."
This recent Obama quote caught my attention. How is black liberation theology in any way conventional? If Trinity UCC was his first and only taste of Christianity, I guess I could understand and cut him some slack. But even then, if he had never taken a moment to look at other denominations, or even other UCC congregations, where does he get off using that term "fairly conventional"? How would he know? And if he did examine others, how could he not see the unique qualities of his chosen church? As insignificant as this is, and I'm sure certain left-leaning visitors would categorize it as such, it seems like he's either trying to convince the listener that his faith is like any other, or he is ignorant of how it differs from truly conventional Christianity.
Or perhaps he just doesn't realize that most people are concerned about the goofball that has preached to him for the last twenty years, and why he'd consider such a dude a mentor. It has really been about his judgement in continuing to support Wright's ministry, with all his hysterical anti-Amercian and race-baiting rhetoric. Now he thinks it's time to leave Trinity. Uh, uh, pal. It was time a long time ago. And you ain't foolin' nobody about why you're leavin'.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Obscene Profits?
It dawned on me Monday morning as I read the reports of the top earners for movies over the holiday weekend, and now I've remembered it and wondered. What will Hillary or Barry do about the obscene profits of film makers? "Indiana Jones", "Iron Man", "Prince Caspian" and others did rather well, I'd say. Let's take those profits and...
Stark Difference
I offer this essay not as a direct answer to the question Dan asks at Eric's blog, but in answer to the sentiment that motivates it. Tell me this ain't Thinkin'.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Almost, But No Cigar, IMHO
I recently agreed to review a few of Vinny's posts wherein he believes he has victoriously pointed out blatant falsehoods or mistakes of local radio hostess Sandy Rios. She is also president of Culture Campaign, a Fox news contributor, and a sometime columnist at Townhall.com. The thread in question concerned the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 2, and whether it states that blacks are three-fifths of a person.
Now before I go on, it is on purpose that I have chosen not to reprint the section. It is a good idea for anyone to go and look it up, and better yet, review on occasion our founding documents.
So anyhoo, the complaint was that Rios stated to a caller that the Constitution didn't say that, and that it was in a later court decision. Well, I didn't review the decisions in question and will hereby concede that point to Vinny, that though I feel for the purpose of the discussion Rios was in with the caller, her blunder is a minor point. (Vinny disagrees.)
But as to the Constitution piece, I have to say that I don't believe it does condemn blacks to only 3/5 of a person. Rather, I believe, based on reviewing Federalist 54, that it states they are at least 3/5 of a person. The distinction is important.
At the time of the crafting of the Constitution, the slave owning states (SOS) had a habit of flipping on blacks being either people or property. If it served them to do so, blacks were people. If it served them to do so, they were property. The section in question had to do with apportioning representatives to the states. The SOS decided that they would get more representation if they were to consider blacks as persons equal to anyone else. The non-SOS said, "Whoa, dudes!" (ala Spicoli) "Which is it? Are they people or property?" As Alexander Hamilton put it, to some extent they were both. They were often treated legally as the law treats everyone else, but they were at the same time, owned as property was. For the most part it was totally based on the whim of the slave owner.
But Hamilton argues that they could not be totally on par with free men because they were not free. That's not to say that Hamilton thought they weren't people, but that the law of the states in question treated them as property at least a portion of the time. So the non-SOS insisted that the SOS couldn't have it both ways. The result, as I see it, is that it was decided that blacks were at least 3/5 of a person if not entirely so, and it was then written in the Constitution as such. This guaranteed that they could not be treated as less. Not much consolation if you're a black person, but a sight better than being akin to a chair, and a whole lot better than being whatever the slave owner says you are based on his whim at the moment. A slim distinction to be sure, but what if you were a slave?
Now before I go on, it is on purpose that I have chosen not to reprint the section. It is a good idea for anyone to go and look it up, and better yet, review on occasion our founding documents.
So anyhoo, the complaint was that Rios stated to a caller that the Constitution didn't say that, and that it was in a later court decision. Well, I didn't review the decisions in question and will hereby concede that point to Vinny, that though I feel for the purpose of the discussion Rios was in with the caller, her blunder is a minor point. (Vinny disagrees.)
But as to the Constitution piece, I have to say that I don't believe it does condemn blacks to only 3/5 of a person. Rather, I believe, based on reviewing Federalist 54, that it states they are at least 3/5 of a person. The distinction is important.
At the time of the crafting of the Constitution, the slave owning states (SOS) had a habit of flipping on blacks being either people or property. If it served them to do so, blacks were people. If it served them to do so, they were property. The section in question had to do with apportioning representatives to the states. The SOS decided that they would get more representation if they were to consider blacks as persons equal to anyone else. The non-SOS said, "Whoa, dudes!" (ala Spicoli) "Which is it? Are they people or property?" As Alexander Hamilton put it, to some extent they were both. They were often treated legally as the law treats everyone else, but they were at the same time, owned as property was. For the most part it was totally based on the whim of the slave owner.
But Hamilton argues that they could not be totally on par with free men because they were not free. That's not to say that Hamilton thought they weren't people, but that the law of the states in question treated them as property at least a portion of the time. So the non-SOS insisted that the SOS couldn't have it both ways. The result, as I see it, is that it was decided that blacks were at least 3/5 of a person if not entirely so, and it was then written in the Constitution as such. This guaranteed that they could not be treated as less. Not much consolation if you're a black person, but a sight better than being akin to a chair, and a whole lot better than being whatever the slave owner says you are based on his whim at the moment. A slim distinction to be sure, but what if you were a slave?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
It’s A Wonderment!
The title of this post comes from a phrase often used by Cole Younger, as played by Cliff Robertson in “The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid”. It applies here to the returning visitor Geoffrey Kruse-Safford (and really, Dan Trabue as well). Here’s a guy that posts on topics that just make my head swim. Philosophy, science, the philosophy of science (or perhaps, the science of philosophy) are often topics into which he dives deeply. There’s no doubt that he is sincerely and totally fascinated with these topics, and he uses his blog to, among other things, explore and discuss these weighty things with his visitors. It’s all very impressive, if you’re into that sort of thing.
But, in a shocking twist, Geoffrey, like Dan, can’t seem to avoid missing obvious points in the opinion pieces of others. It’s really a wonderment!
Case in point: Geoffrey, like Dan, feign confusion in understanding the simple terms of my challenge, which was, once again, to visit AmericanThinker.com, select one of the many Obama related articles there, and defend BARRY against the critiques the author makes. What could be so hard to fathom in this challenge? Three simple steps. Cretins could do it.
But then he makes an attempt. You can read it and his response here. (In the comments section, you’ll find more examples of the difficulty liberals have understanding conservative commentary. Dan attacks the prose of the many fine writers there, as if he’s a journalism professor, rather than stiffening the spine and engaging in substantive rebuttal.)
Geoffrey begins by presenting the article he had chosen and immediately shows he missed the point. He thinks the article was about the religion of Obama’s father. It was not. Bear in mind, I read both the article and Geoffrey’s response to verify what I thought I saw and sure enough, he totally blew it. The article was about the left’s reaction to concerns about Muslim influence in Obama’s life. That’s the main point of the article.
In fact, there are a number of points Geoffrey made that show his lack of understanding in what I found to be an easy to read and understand piece. Here’s a few:
-He wonders as to the relevance of the faith of Obama’s father and compares it to, among other things, Nixon’s mother’s obsessive-compulsive disorder. Yet in the piece, the author shows examples of what relevance there might be. Geoffrey’s confusion is answered right in the article. To wit, what would be the perception of the Muslim world to Obama considering his Muslim connection? Yeah, to us it would seem there should be nothing about which to worry, but we are not devoted Muslims who are coming from an entirely different place.
-He accuses the author of “subtle racism” for mentioning the common practice of
omitting the race of a non-white crime suspect. Is Geoffrey saying that this doesn’t happen? Is he saying that it would never make a difference to a story? It’s certainly happened at least a few times since 9/11 that is, not mentioning that the suspect is Muslim.
Geoffrey then speaks of the middle of the article and that which has been disproved: Barry in a madrassa (perhaps not, but a Muslim school where he learned the religion), that he’s an apostate facing death (perhaps to some radicals, but this is covered in the Robert Spencer quote in the article), Barry’s Islamic middle name (Geoffrey’s right. It’s clearly Swedish), that we’re at war with Islam (Nobody says this. It’s radical Islam we fight. Big difference.)
Geoffrey ends by slamming AmericanThinker.com, which doesn’t surprise. For all his well-read background, he doesn’t display much in the way of understanding what he reads. He attacks it as a source of race baiting and religion knocking and accuses them of school yard tactics. Ironic. Typical.
But, in a shocking twist, Geoffrey, like Dan, can’t seem to avoid missing obvious points in the opinion pieces of others. It’s really a wonderment!
Case in point: Geoffrey, like Dan, feign confusion in understanding the simple terms of my challenge, which was, once again, to visit AmericanThinker.com, select one of the many Obama related articles there, and defend BARRY against the critiques the author makes. What could be so hard to fathom in this challenge? Three simple steps. Cretins could do it.
But then he makes an attempt. You can read it and his response here. (In the comments section, you’ll find more examples of the difficulty liberals have understanding conservative commentary. Dan attacks the prose of the many fine writers there, as if he’s a journalism professor, rather than stiffening the spine and engaging in substantive rebuttal.)
Geoffrey begins by presenting the article he had chosen and immediately shows he missed the point. He thinks the article was about the religion of Obama’s father. It was not. Bear in mind, I read both the article and Geoffrey’s response to verify what I thought I saw and sure enough, he totally blew it. The article was about the left’s reaction to concerns about Muslim influence in Obama’s life. That’s the main point of the article.
In fact, there are a number of points Geoffrey made that show his lack of understanding in what I found to be an easy to read and understand piece. Here’s a few:
-He wonders as to the relevance of the faith of Obama’s father and compares it to, among other things, Nixon’s mother’s obsessive-compulsive disorder. Yet in the piece, the author shows examples of what relevance there might be. Geoffrey’s confusion is answered right in the article. To wit, what would be the perception of the Muslim world to Obama considering his Muslim connection? Yeah, to us it would seem there should be nothing about which to worry, but we are not devoted Muslims who are coming from an entirely different place.
-He accuses the author of “subtle racism” for mentioning the common practice of
omitting the race of a non-white crime suspect. Is Geoffrey saying that this doesn’t happen? Is he saying that it would never make a difference to a story? It’s certainly happened at least a few times since 9/11 that is, not mentioning that the suspect is Muslim.
Geoffrey then speaks of the middle of the article and that which has been disproved: Barry in a madrassa (perhaps not, but a Muslim school where he learned the religion), that he’s an apostate facing death (perhaps to some radicals, but this is covered in the Robert Spencer quote in the article), Barry’s Islamic middle name (Geoffrey’s right. It’s clearly Swedish), that we’re at war with Islam (Nobody says this. It’s radical Islam we fight. Big difference.)
Geoffrey ends by slamming AmericanThinker.com, which doesn’t surprise. For all his well-read background, he doesn’t display much in the way of understanding what he reads. He attacks it as a source of race baiting and religion knocking and accuses them of school yard tactics. Ironic. Typical.
Friday, May 23, 2008
From McCain's Own State
Geoffrey took up my challenge, but posted it at his own blog "What's Left in the Church". I've been working on my response, which I will post here. There's so much to mock, I mean, to refute, so it's taking some time to compose it without being incredibly long. I tend to glaze over when new threads are too long. I spend too much time visiting blogs as it is without reading book-length posts. (Sorry to all who write them---feel free to carry on as you see fit.)
In the meantime, with a stomach full of Japanese food and saki, I chose to simply relax, do a little light reading and came across this. I had heard of this before and it suggests that the cries that we can't deport all 12-20 million illegals are simply shrill whines. And, surprise, surprise, it's a matter of enforcing laws, as well as passing a few initiatives. Get on the horn with your reps and turn up the heat. If Arizona can have success with this, why not everyone else?
In the meantime, with a stomach full of Japanese food and saki, I chose to simply relax, do a little light reading and came across this. I had heard of this before and it suggests that the cries that we can't deport all 12-20 million illegals are simply shrill whines. And, surprise, surprise, it's a matter of enforcing laws, as well as passing a few initiatives. Get on the horn with your reps and turn up the heat. If Arizona can have success with this, why not everyone else?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Blog Roll Addition
Note under "Left Ones" that I have added Vinny's blog, "You Call This Culture?" Give him a read. It's all in the name of fairness and balance and equal time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)