Mostly Right

Congrats to President Obama

2008-11-05T10:19:00.002-07:00

I'm short on time, but my thoughts this morning are pretty much summed up by Ed Morrissey here.

Debate this year happened on blogs, not on T.V.

2008-10-31T13:30:00.004-07:00

I've been absent from blogging lately but loved this video which perfectly sums up my feelings on the uselessness of the Presidential "debates" this election. John McCain's proposed weekly town halls would have been so much better than what Obama eventually agreed to.

I would propose us lowly citizens get our legislators to create a law within the next 4 years requiring debates in Presidential elections to include at least 1) One main stream media moderated debate. 2) One moderated town hall. 3) One town in front of citizens holding pitch forks and rotten tomatoes. 4) One town hall in which all candidates blood alcohol level is maintained at at least 0.15.

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

Throughout this campaign I had several friends and family members tell me they were at least somewhat "undecided" about the election, and would probably make their decisions based on the televised debates. This answer always frustrated me, as the debates, especially at the end stages of the Presidential campaign, rarely if ever tell you anything new about the candidates. It's true that twists such as Joe the Plumber pop up, but even those don't tell the informed observer anything new.

It's our right to vote, and along with that right comes the responsibility to be informed and take an individual and highly personal position. Is it too much to expect voters to begin with a thought out and informed ideology, before we even know who the candidates might be? As the primaries evolve, is it too much to ask voters to be responsible enough to begin familiarizing themselves with the specific policy positions that are developing between opposing parties? As each parties candidates eventually emerge is it too much to ask a voter to take responsibility to swing by the candidate's web sites and read their specific policy positions? To do a bit of reading about the personal policy the candidates took before they decided to go populist and run for President? To Google for a few hours and examine the personal and political histories of each candidate, to review their experience, to evaluate how the candidate performed before he or she had party speech writers developing sound bites for them?

It's not rocket science, and it is a responsibility. If you just want to enjoy the right but abstain from the responsibility, you're abusing the right. And then our leaders get chosen by people who think they won't need to worry about their car or mortgage payments anymore if they vote for a particular candidate.

Compare and contrast to my man machosauce...you may or may not agree with his ideology, but he's thought it. Who would you rather have picking your leaders?

Inspiring!

2008-10-04T10:24:00.003-07:00

Aww, the Sing for Change kids all grown up! All the words they are chanting are very positive. Fine young lads. LOVE the choreography and the snappy uniforms. Still, something tells me it's just not right...I wonder what it is?

Dear Leader Barack Obama is the People's Inspiration

2008-09-30T09:20:00.009-07:00

It's just like all those crazy Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianist Neo-conservative children's songs about Bush that you've seen all over the place the last 8 years as he's built his Fascist military state that we all suffer under now.

Click and enjoy. Or be afraid. Whatever.

Reminded me of this:

and this.

Hope and Change. Is this the kind of alternative learning Ayers and Obama had in mind during 1995-2001 through community organizing and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? Why, I think it is. Where can I sign my kids up?!

UPDATE: Looks like blue(shirt) is the new brown(shirt), and President and CEO of NBC Universal Jeff Zucker and other Hollywood liberal elites are behind it. Shocking.

UPDATE 2: And now the link above has mysteriously been scrubbed from the net faster than China could scrub Tibet protesters from the Olympics. If I can find a new link to the video I'll link it. Apparently this video has followed Obama's Pre-Presidential Seal down the history hole as well. For now, watch this and pretend the Brady kids are all wearing Change shirts and mindlessly singing Sunday school songs replacing Jesus' name with Obama's.

UPDATE 3: Fixed, for now.

I Tawt I Taw a Paradigm Shift!

2008-09-11T11:33:00.004-07:00

During my morning surfing I came across Victor Davis Hanson's "What was Feminism?" and Kathleen Parker's USA Today Op-Ed "Feminist Template Obliterated"

Both articles discuss a historically recent characterization of the Feminist Woman, a character we're all familiar with. For me, a guy in his mid-thirties, the word generates images of black and white photos from history books of leaders of the women's suffrage movement, of grainy 60's t.v. news footage of radicals burning bras, of grad school and aging butch or hippy professors, Gloria Steinem, and more recently even Madonna, Hillary, NOW, and Code Pink. From what (admittedly little) I know of the history of Feminism, these images correlate to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wave definitions of the progression of Feminism. These waves and their stereotypical characterizations of the Feminist Woman have never been more than academic to me. I understand their intent, their goals, their successes, their positives (rights for equality in voting, in education, in the home and in the workplace) and negatives (single issue abortion rights obsessions and, ahem, Madonna). But none, except perhaps some of those old black and white women's suffrage photos, were ever personally recognizable to me as illustrations of the strong, independent women I know.

Then comes Sarah Palin. And I'm thinking about a lot of women I know personally. My late grandmothers. My aunts. My sister and sister-in-laws. My Mom and mother-in-law. My friends. And especially my wife. These women cover the spectrum of political ideology, career choice and family life, but they all have many things in common. They are educated, strong, and independent. They've made choices and worked hard to achieve successes in life. Some have obtained professional college degrees and careers, or taken leadership positions in their churches and with non-profit organizations, or served as staff or Board members of colleges and universities. Some have been published in magazines or professional journals or written books. None strike me as subservient...not to anyone. But all, to different extents, have faced great challenges. All have made sacrifices, too. Sacrifices for family and faith and career and charity. They have done it all, without riding any coattails, just like the men in my lifetime have done. In in all honesty, they've more than often done it better. These are the feminists of my life that I understand on a personal level, that are more than caricatures, more than academic.

The blogs and national media have been a whirlwind and a circus since McCain's announcement of Palin as V.P. 90% of the buzz has been political and entertainment media b.s. that blogs and media find good for ratings and politicians find useful as emotional red-meat offerings to party bases and identity sub-groups. It's been fascinating to watch McCain suddenly energized and unable to wipe a grin off his face, to see the sudden (and worrisome) cult of personality rising around Palin when weeks ago the cult of personality was all about Obama. To see the shock and stumble of Obama, the change in the way he is speaking and even carrying himself. But this will all be temporary, as Palin's newness wears off, and the debates begin, and we refocus again on the records and ideologies and policy proposals of the two candidates at the top of the tickets.

However, 10% of the buzz has the potential, I think, to grow into something beyond the 2008 election. IF McCain/Palin ends up winning in November, or even if they lose but Palin continues to grow in experience and stature in American politics, we may be witnessing an unexpected (as they usually are) paradigm shift in what images the word Feminist calls forth. Of a Feminist who is judged not by her ideology or defined by an issue, but is celebrated for her character, individuality and achievement. Of Feminists set free from litmus tests and rules and labels to be whatever the hell they wanted to be. That would be exciting for some, unacceptable to others. And as paradigm shifts always are, progress to some and a step backwards to others.

As for me? This surfer is hoping the Fourth Wave is a big one.

pwned!!!

2008-09-07T21:29:00.002-07:00

Read and enjoy as this commenter "LPM" takes down commenter "FuzzyMath"

Fuzzy Math Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cannot figure out the average Repub. Earns less
> than 10 Grand a year. Has nothing, no education
> and come November goes out and votes for a
> candidate that does not even think he exists,
> remember Mccain's definiton of middle class i.e.
> one making less than 5 million. Now for the next
> four years this same idiot crys over how expensive
> it is to fill the beat up truck that guzzles gas
> like there is no tomorrow. It is impossible to
> reason with this type of moron and explain
> economics 101 to him/her

Posted by: LPM
Sep 07, 10:32 PM Report Abuse
Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Fuzzy,

Try on these economics. Perhaps this is simple enough for you:

Sometimes politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now the dinner for the ten cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "PAID" to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of$59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth (the richest) and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax deduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up to the table anymore.

There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

- David R. Kamerschen, Ph. D., Distinguished Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.

Just Images?

2008-08-27T14:31:00.028-07:00

Much has been written, in both the mainstream media and blog-o-sphere, about the verbal gifts possessed by Barack Obama. With respect to inspirational speech-giving, the promised "Change" will certainly be evident should Obama be the candidate to replace G.W. Bush at the podium for the next Inaugural or State of the Union Address. While off the teleprompter, Obama was, at best, Clinton's equal in the head-to-head debates earlier this year. I believe his ability (and his speech-writer's abilities) to deliver a speech won him the nomination. Hillary certainly bested him in other areas which seem important to Democratic voters...policy, experience, glass ceilings, etc.

Obama himself has expressed his belief in the power of "words", in his speech (heavily "borrowed" from Deval Patrick) given in Wisconsin earlier this year while on the campaign trail. As a response to the growing recognition of emptiness of his heavy rhetoric, Obama asked "Just words?", indicating his deep belief in the importance of what is spoken and heard.

But a picture is worth a thousand words, right? Some reporting has been done on the imagery put forth by the Obama campaign, but it has mostly been found in the blog-o-sphere, and then more often as the butt of a joke than found in an analysis. Perhaps this is because most reporting in the media and blogs is done by writers, with backgrounds in journalism or at least a comfort with the written word. However, historians of art and architecture, graphic designers, advertisers and marketers no doubt understand the language of the Obama campaign throughout the primaries and now entering the general election. My background (a double major in Art and Engineering, a Master's degree in Architecture, and owner of a small design firm) I hope gives me a better than average understanding of the message behind image and form. And what I've seen has increasingly set off warning signs.

Just as "Hope and Change" without specifics causes the acute listener to wonder what that means, just as Rev. Wright's "God damn America!" offends the ear of most Americans, and just as several of Michelle Obama's "pre-convention Michelle" words might make the average Joe reasonably question what she and her husband think of this country, the stylized campaign posters, the Obama website imagery, the infamous Obama Presidential Seal, and now the faux Greek temple/stage at Invesco Field speak volumes.

Now, all politicians use imagery...sometimes successfully and other times, not. To wear a flag pin or not to wear a flag pin? What color pantsuit works best in front of this muted, patriotic without being Republican patriotic reddish, whiteish and blueish motif?

Most Americans, consumer culture savvy as we are, understand and accept this careful consideration for backgrounds and fashion and signage for what it is...marketing. However, art historians recognize the history of political imagery that goes beyond marketing...the history of visual political propaganda.

Now before I go further, I should make clear that I typically despise when either the far Right or Left throw around Bush as Hitler or "fill-in-the-blank Liberal" as Stalin comparisons. Bush is not a fascist bent on world domination through military force. Obama has no manifesto laying out his path to a Socialist utopia that I know of. My point in what follows is not that Obama has the good intentions of classic Marxists or Socialists or Communists that have so often paved the road to terrible moments in our history. I believe he is a quite typical American Left Democrat, with no over-reaching intent. I don't fear for my 3 children's future under an Obama Presidency. I think he's intelligent, practical, and a realist.

However, with both the verbal rhetoric and the visual choices that either he or the people he has chosen to express him visually have made, I have strong questions regarding judgement.

At the beginning of the Democratic campaign, I began taking an interest in some of the graphical choices Obama's campaign was putting out. Highly stylized posters and web images, bumper stickers and t-shirts display Obama as iconography reminiscent of the propaganda posters of the worst regimes in modern history...Nazi Germany, the USSR, and more recently North Korea and Saddam's Iraq. In each, political graphic artists use a simple, cartoonized version of a political leader or populist scene along with simple, bold text meant to raise up and in some ways immortalize the person or idea in a generic form to be digested to the masses. Posters are plastered throughout the country, on walls and billboards and storefronts. Think Saddam paintings, posters and statues in pre-war Bagdad. Think of Chairman Mao's prevalence in China. The psychology and power of this type of imagery has a long and documented history in the arts. A dark history.

These Obama posters have been a home run with the Che t-shirt wearing crowd and the college crowd, who love plastering these images all over my beloved college town of Tempe. They're almost as bad as the Ron Paul nuts. And although the historical bloodlines of the imagery were immediately clear to me, I assumed the young designers in the Obama campaign were simply clueless and at worst had bad taste in their choice of marketing. "Yes, we Can!" couldn't possibly be the grandson of Hitler's "Ja!" posters. Obama gazing off to the distant horizon expressing HOPE could not be a distant cousin to Stalin and Lenin gazing towards utopia. Was Alexander Rodchenko still alive and working? Storefronts plastered with Obama's visage could not be the same thing as Saddam or Mao's visage similarly plastered in their respective cities and towns.

Then came the Great Seal of Obama, advertising Obama's web site and declaring "Vero Possumus!".

The Seal was a visual gaffe equivalent to John Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" verbal gaffe, and it disappeared into political history after I believe one appearance. It was so ridiculous that it actually resulted in a day of pure joy on the conservative side of the blog-o-sphere, as bloggers scoffed at the presumption and ego displayed by such a stunt. The Seal quickly made its way onto the national news media and even late night talk shows. The Obama campaign quickly put the Seal to bed, but not before several bloggers investigated and speculated about the origins of the design. Though I don't believe the Obama campaign has fessed up to who's grand idea the Seal was, or who was hired to design it, solid speculation points to the graphic artist Shepherd Fairey, the creator of the Hope and Change and Progress Obama propaganda posters. A great article on Fairey's work and intent on the Obama posters is here.

Fairey became somewhat famous for his "Obey" posters and stickers that anarchist wanna-be skaters used to slap all over walls and street signs in cities all over the U.S. A viewing of Shepherds work, or a reading of his interviews, demonstrate that while Shepherd is more Anarchist than Communist, he recognizes and uses the power of historical propaganda art. Obama or someone in his campaign recognized Fairey's "talent", and set him to work. From the Washington Post:

When the street artist and guerrilla marketer Shepard Fairey got word from the Obama people that they would welcome his contribution to the campaign, he knew what he wanted to create: a phenomenon. All political art is propaganda (that is the point), but most political posters are bland, forgettable, wallpaper, like Fred Thompson on an off day. Fairey wanted something more iconic -- aspirational, inspirational -- and cool. In other words, he wanted to make posters that the cool cats would want. The 2008 Democratic primary season equivalent of the Che poster (with all that implies). More Mao, more right now.

And more from the WashPo, because it's just so good:

Fairey's artwork follows the style of his predecessors. His Obama posters (and lots of his commercial and fine art work) are reworkings of the techniques of revolutionary propagandists -- the bright colors, bold lettering, geometric simplicity, heroic poses -- the "art with a purpose" created by constructivists in the early Soviet Union, like Alexander Rodchenko and the Stenberg brothers, and by America's own Depression-era Works Projects Administration.

Not only has Fairey done Obama, but works on the walls of his studio and on his Web site include depictions of Sid Vicious, Bobby Seale, Chairman Mao, Noam Chomsky, Emiliano Zapata, Patty Hearst, Vladimir Lenin and Richard Nixon. Though Fairey is quoting revolutionary forms (meaning he is playing with Mao, not endorsing Mao), some observers see his Obama poster and think: reds.

Writers for the Clout column in the Philadelphia Daily News said "the Soviet-style heroic Obama, the use of a single word HOPE" reminded them of George Orwell's "1984" and Big Brother.

"There's an unequivocal sense of idol worship about the image," wrote op-ed columnist Meghan Daum in the Los Angeles Times, "a half-artsy, half-creepy genuflection that suggests the subject is (a) a Third World dictator whose rule is enmeshed in a seductive cult of personality; (b) a controversial American figure who's been assassinated; or (c) one of those people from a Warhol silkscreen that you don't recognize but assume to be important in an abstruse way."

Now, what kind of judgement is shown by Obama and his campaign in hiring a graphic designer whose style eminates from Soviet and populist propaganda? Did they think no one would notice? Did they not understand? Fairey himself knew the risk:

"I didn't want to be an unwelcome distraction," Fairey explains. "I've been arrested," he says, referring to his graffiti work in public places. "I really want him to win, so I didn't want to do anything that would cause him problems." The Obama people, somewhat to his surprise, said go ahead. Who said, exactly? "You can assume this came from the highest levels," Fairey says.

How could Obama, a Harvard grad, be so dim as to not see the problem here. How could he then go on and have the Great Obama Seal commissioned? The explanation? Poor judgement...the kind of judgement that allowed him to sit in the pews listening to the likes of Jeremiah Wright all those years, the kind of judgement that allowed him to fraternize with William Ayers, the kind of judgement that allowed him to associate so closely with Rezko.

After the Seal, I expected we had seen the last of the visual gaffes. Obama was ridiculed so thoroughly, I was sure the graphic artists had been reigned in, the advisors eyes had been opened, and Obama himself would not let such a mistake happen again. Although Obama supporters continued to stray down the foolish path of iconic Obama imagery, nothing backed by the Obama campaign surfaced after the Seal abomination. Unless you count the questionable choice of place and imagery for his famous speech in Berlin.

Until today...

Holy crap! Obama decided to move his Sermon on the (Rocky) Mount(ains) from the Convention Center to Invesco Field, so that 70,000 adoring fans could bathe in his rock star glow. Judgement was questioned. He decided to "suggest" that donors "gift" $1000 each for the free event. Judgement was questioned. And then, he decided to hire some young Albert Speer to create the imagery for the largest televised moment of his political life? Was this his idea? His staffers? Did some young designer propose it, and no one thought, "A faux Greek temple facade? Interesting. It says Washington D.C. to me, but could it be understood as anything else? Hmmm...Greek gods? Mythology? Presumption? Ego? Hmmm....NO! Go back to the drawing board and bring me something with flags in the background!"

While the use of Greek classical architecture does have a valid history in our public buildings, it's history goes back much further than 1776, and Obama and his campaign should have had the simple judgement to take this into consideration. While Jefferson's Montecello and the Capitol and innumerable public monuments use the "neo-Classical" to express our governments connection to Greek democracy, the average Joe sees something else. He sees a temple. Imagery of Zeus tossing lightning bolts from the clouds, images of Hercules, of Mount Olympus. Not so long ago, the Facists and the Nazis recognized the power of the classical Greek forms. Spiro Kostof, in his "A History of Architecture", writes:

But if the Duce and the Fuhrer dreaded the big city for its undisciplined social ferment, they were also in need of it, it's throngs and frame, to stage celebrations of their rule. The object was to claim the old cities in the name of the regime by pruning out of them undesireable elements, carving into them theaters for programmed mass demonstrations and political events, and building on a scale and magnificence that would prove the comparative worth of the present agaisnt the stony testimonials of past glories.

And:

It is in such ceremonial architecture and similar ideologically loaded settings like party headquarters, universities, state museums, and memorials that the official international classicism took over. The Doric mode was preferred by Germany; to Hitler it was "the expression of the New Order". ...And these vast, cold, spartan exteriors drew life from the trappings of a quasi-religious nationalism.

I cannot think of a modern American politician so willing to incorporate such imagery, just because it is effective, without any acknowledgement of the historical iconography and symbolism. Just words? Of course not. Just images? I hope so.

Biden? Really? Biden??

2008-08-22T22:34:00.002-07:00

I can't quite believe it, I don't understand it, and I think it's fantastic. I mean, his name has been in the "short list" hat the whole time, but wow, I think a huge mistake was just made. At 1am Eastern on a Friday night. Weird.

Even CNN is already streaming Biden quotes. Isn't one charming gaffe machine who loves hearing himself talk enough for the Dem ticket? Paul Begala just said Biden is a young 65 while McCain goes to bed at 6pm, wakes up for the early-bird special and then plays some shuffleboard old. McCain should immediately invite Begala and Biden to join him on his next Grand Canyon hike and we'll see who finishes the hike on foot.

Ignorant or Apathetic? I don't know and I don't care.

2008-08-22T11:51:00.003-07:00

Last night I was invited to a showing of the new documentary "I.O.U.S.A.", which examines issues facing our nation such as taxes, unbalanced budgets, national debt and the percentage of that debt which is now owed to foreign investment, and ever-expanding entitlement programs. The film was followed by a nationally broadcast town hall with a panel of some very smart individuals, including Warren Buffet, Peter G. Peterson, who's foundation I believe funded the documentary, and former comptroller general David Walker.

I highly recommend the movie. Despite the highly charged political topics, which could be red meat to partisans on either side of the aisle, the movie and panel of speakers were very careful to be as apolitical as possible regarding blame for our current situation and proposed solutions. The opening of the movie is a collage of speech snippets of Presidents from Kennedy through G.W. Bush giving mostly the same speech...our nation is facing a coming financial crisis and their administration has a plan to make things well again...for the children. Just words. This collage is followed by a series of graphical representations, pie charts, and anecdotes that simply and clearly present the history and present situation of debt, spending, budgets and economic leadership. "Man-on-the-street" interviews demonstrate the frightening (unfortunately, not shocking) ignorance and apathy regarding the statistics presented, such as debt and unfunded yet promised entitlement programs adding up to over $175,000 per U.S. citizen. The end of the movie touches on some potential actions individuals can take to work towards long-term solutions.

The town hall following the movie was just as good. It's powerful to hear a panel of extemely intelligent speakers combine wit and humor with serious knowledge and debate, and the panelists all deliver. Buffet is fast and loose and charismatic, with at least one great zinger every time he opens his mouth. Walker is serious and passionate. Peterson is thoughtful and focused. A transcript of the town hall can be read here.

Regretfully, the premier filled about 1/3 of the seats in the theater, while I imagine Tropic Thunder and Mama Mia did quite a bit better. One of the panelists quipped the line about the professor who asks his class "What is worse, ignorance or apathy?", and a student in the back of the room lifts his head from the desk and replies "I don't know and I don't care". This is the challenge Peterson and Walker face...how to find a large enough audience willing to listen to, understand and care enough about these issues when the story (economics, graphs, numbers) isn't sexy and the actions required involve a lot of bitter medicine. However, the movie is well done and the people behind it are passionate, capable, well financed and are thinking long term.

Definitely take a moment to check out the above links to the movie and town hall transcript, and maybe even pass some of the info along to those in your circle. Then see the movie. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll be shocked and thrilled, and you'll learn.

Jesus was a Liberal

2008-08-20T09:45:00.004-07:00

While driving the kids to school this morning in my glorious SUV, I was stuck in traffic behind an Arizona State University know-it-all...a species of homo sapien commonly spotted in college towns across America. It was driving a crappy, tiny, fuel efficient vehicle held together by stickers proclaiming that a village in Texas was missing its idiot, marketing various failed Democrat Presidential candidates (Kerry, Edwards) and Great Hopes (Obama), "Why can't we just all get along" suggestions that we CoExIsT, and giant Darwin fishys gobbling up little Jesus fishys. The anti-Jesus fishy uber-intellectual also had purchased and applied to his Toyota the popular bumper sticker "Jesus was a Liberal".

Being the good Christian that I am, I was initially offended that my eternal Savior was being referred to in the past tense. But I calmed down, refrained from writing down his plate number and calling in the hate crime, and spent some time pondering the rest of the statement.

I've always assumed it was common knowledge that politically, Jesus is a Libertarian but votes Republican because in our two party system a Libertarian vote is a wasted vote. But maybe this guy was onto something. This college guy surely must have a solid Biblical knowledge of Jesus, the skills of hermeneutics and exegesis obtained from back when the Man forced him to attend Sunday School. "When a guy hits your cheek let him hit you again". "Do not kill". "Give to Obama what is Obama's". "Don't judge me bro, lest you be judged!". Maybe Jesus is a Liberal and I have been voting incorrectly all these years...

A visit to the "Jesus is a Liberal" (kudos for the present tense) website nearly confirmed my fears. There opening paragraph states:

We created this website because we believe the historical, Biblically documented teachings of Jesus Christ clearly show that Jesus is a Liberal. His philosophy, based in compassion, equality, inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and - most importantly - love, is 100% Liberal.

100% Liberal! 100%.

But then I thought, I know a LOT of conservatives, and they are some of the most compassionate, forgiving, tolerant and loving people I know. They volunteer, they give gererously to charities, they even don't want poor kids to starve. Either they are all Liberals, or I was missing something.

The website further explains that Jesus went against the Orthodoxy (the Man), the traditional and established ways, so was by definition a Liberal. Now I was beginning to understand...anyone who takes a stand against the Orthodoxy of the time is a Liberal. So Martin Luther was a Liberal when he nailed some papers to a door, and Reagan was a Liberal when he declared "Tear Down this Wall!", and I'm a Liberal because I disagree with Roe vs. Wade. Hmmm...this could not be correct. Besides, if Jesus was a Liberal wouldn't he have had some European, Hispanic and African representation in his group of Disciples? I mean, the God who brought two of every animal from around the world to ride on the Ark could at least bring some diversity to the Gang of 12. And not a woman in the bunch!

And then it hit me. Jesus isn't a Liberal or Democrat. Jesus isn't a Conservative or Republican. Not even a Libertarian. When Jesus said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's", he wasn't putting a political sign in his yard. He was saying something like "Pfffttt...the material things an Earthly king or politician require of you cannot be compared to what my Heavenly Father requires of you." Jesus requires you to make an individual choice, a personal choice that leads to morality, to deeds, to service, to an admittance to and forgiveness from Sin.

Christians aren't Liberal or Conservative (by modern or historical definition). Liberals can believe in a Christian morality, and believe it is a social responsibility, by way of our governments, to impose and enforce that morality. They call it "Social Justice" these days. Consevatives can believe in the very same Christian morality, yet politically feel that it is the individual's, not the government's, job to express it. Liberals can believe that the wealth humankind generates should be largely tossed into a giant Socialist top-hat and trusted to be redistributed by political leaders to those whom Jesus blessed on the Sermon on the Mount. Conservatives can point to the poor track record of Socialist good intentions and believe that the "least of these" should be helped through free choice and individual giving through charities, churches, volunteering and service.

And God's will can be done through either ideology.

Welcome to Mostly Right Blog

2008-08-19T12:23:00.003-07:00

After decades of voracious consumption of information(mostly useless information, in my dear wife's opinion), and years of commenting on the blogs of others (a poor use of precious time, in my dear wife's opinion), I've decided to try out a blog of my own. Welcome to Mostly Right!

Why "Mostly Right"? A few reasons, not difficult to figure out, but hey, I'm a simple guy. Mostly Right has been a handle I've used throughout the blog-o-sphere for some time now, as it describes both my philosophy for success in a complicated world, as well as my deviation off the mean of the political spectrum. That's right, it's a double entendre, and not a very clever one. But for future marketing purposes, I think it will do just fine.

What can you expect to find here? I intend to use this space to expand on my short form comments and discussions on other's blog posts or media articles. I often find myself in stimulating comment section discussions, which I greatly enjoy. But comment sections are for witty one-liners and keeping it simple. At Mostly Right I'll have the space and incentive to be more thoughtful and thorough, and hopefully some of you will appreciate what I write or at least find something to instigate some interesting discussion. I plan on keeping topics fairly focused on the Mostly Right co-themes of right (morally) and Right (politically), but expect wanderings into my personal and professional interests.

Again, thanks for stopping by and I hope you'll find something here that brings you back.

-Joel