Your Political Profile: |
 Overall: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Classification
Of course the questions were loaded, multipart and philosophically flawed but what do you expect from a simple online quiz? Personally, I am not much surprised at the results as in many ways I am quite difficult to pin down with simple labels.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Dobson, Obama and "The Speech"
Funny how today we hear James Dobson, a man with whom on many issues I agree, attack Senator Obama on a speech he made two years ago at the liberal Christian conference Call to Renewal. In reading the text of this speech I bristled at the comments Dobson made about Senator Obama and his exegetical prowess. Now don't get me wrong, if the Senator and I were to sit down and "talk Bible" I would probably disagree with him on quite a bit, but with regards to this speech there wasn't much I had trouble with.
Obama makes some good points (which obviously are those I agree with *snicker*). In fact, most of what I disagree with is not so much his interpretation but rather his typical liberal way of thinking. I agree with much of what Obama says on the role of personal religion in politics, that the word personal means "private, individual". If you are going to thrust religion into the political spotlight and in a democratic-republic try to declare one of them as "the truth" then Obama is right to ask which one are we going to pick? In truth, if we are going to go with denominational lines, we should embrace some type of Catholicism as that is where the plurality resides. Going protestant causes a lot of headaches, for though non-Catholic Christians are the majority, Episcopal beliefs differ somewhat from Southern Baptist, UCC is in places radically different from Presbyterian. So who do you hold up the as "the standard"? And then there is the messy issue of the existence of agnostics and atheists. I had this discussion with a fellow conservative at work today when I declared I didn't want to know all of the details of a person's personal faith. I kinda like my Christianity minimal but deep and strong, not shallow and public (kinda like prayer, I prefer to pray in my closet rather than on the street corner wearing bells and covered with ashes). And as for Dobson taking Obama to task over his mixing Old Testament with New Testament, while I agree with him as a good Dispensationaist he should know there is a small sect within Christianity that wants us to go back to Old Testament laws even though we are "no longer under Law but Grace" (I would hope that if he considers himself as a spokesman for Christianity Dr. Dobson has heard of these Theonomists, a scary lot).
Now where do I think Obama went off track? Let me put your gray cells to work. Consider this:
First off, it sounds good, but Senator Obama seems to ignore the fact that most conservatives who engage in public debate do try to "translate their concerns into universal... values... amenable to reason". The problem is he disagrees (or seems to) with many of the stronger philosophical arguments against abortion on demand (among other things, but most arguments against abortion do not introduce god into the discussion). Most liberals do this and think they are the rational ones when what they often do is take a knee-jerk reaction to anything that could have some tie back to religion (and seem to turn secularism into its own type of "religion"). In the following example he does it again. Notice how nothing is said of the individual as a possible causative agent in the situation, instead they are always at the whim of external forces around them:
Why are the problems of the uninsured and the unemployed rooted in societal indifference? I hate when people talk about slippery slopes but honestly here I think we are one one... if the roots are societal then what are our options? What must change to kill this weed in the human garden? Like almost everything in his campaign, Senator Obama doesn't tell us, doesn't seem to want to do more than point fingers and if I take this last quote of his along with other things he has said what I see is that he thinks a Socialist/Marxist society would be of the greatest benefit. In this Obama seems to have missed some portions of Scripture too... about the worker deserving his wages (in context of getting what he is given for his work) and the example (and rule) given in 2 Thessalonians 3:9-11 ("... If a man will not work he shall not eat"). No one is owed anything in this life. At some point we have to take some responsibility for what we do. Perhaps the Right take this too far, but if he was honest in his speech Senator Obama should have admitted that the Left tend to veer off track in the own direction just the same.
Obama makes some good points (which obviously are those I agree with *snicker*). In fact, most of what I disagree with is not so much his interpretation but rather his typical liberal way of thinking. I agree with much of what Obama says on the role of personal religion in politics, that the word personal means "private, individual". If you are going to thrust religion into the political spotlight and in a democratic-republic try to declare one of them as "the truth" then Obama is right to ask which one are we going to pick? In truth, if we are going to go with denominational lines, we should embrace some type of Catholicism as that is where the plurality resides. Going protestant causes a lot of headaches, for though non-Catholic Christians are the majority, Episcopal beliefs differ somewhat from Southern Baptist, UCC is in places radically different from Presbyterian. So who do you hold up the as "the standard"? And then there is the messy issue of the existence of agnostics and atheists. I had this discussion with a fellow conservative at work today when I declared I didn't want to know all of the details of a person's personal faith. I kinda like my Christianity minimal but deep and strong, not shallow and public (kinda like prayer, I prefer to pray in my closet rather than on the street corner wearing bells and covered with ashes). And as for Dobson taking Obama to task over his mixing Old Testament with New Testament, while I agree with him as a good Dispensationaist he should know there is a small sect within Christianity that wants us to go back to Old Testament laws even though we are "no longer under Law but Grace" (I would hope that if he considers himself as a spokesman for Christianity Dr. Dobson has heard of these Theonomists, a scary lot).
Now where do I think Obama went off track? Let me put your gray cells to work. Consider this:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
First off, it sounds good, but Senator Obama seems to ignore the fact that most conservatives who engage in public debate do try to "translate their concerns into universal... values... amenable to reason". The problem is he disagrees (or seems to) with many of the stronger philosophical arguments against abortion on demand (among other things, but most arguments against abortion do not introduce god into the discussion). Most liberals do this and think they are the rational ones when what they often do is take a knee-jerk reaction to anything that could have some tie back to religion (and seem to turn secularism into its own type of "religion"). In the following example he does it again. Notice how nothing is said of the individual as a possible causative agent in the situation, instead they are always at the whim of external forces around them:
After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man
Why are the problems of the uninsured and the unemployed rooted in societal indifference? I hate when people talk about slippery slopes but honestly here I think we are one one... if the roots are societal then what are our options? What must change to kill this weed in the human garden? Like almost everything in his campaign, Senator Obama doesn't tell us, doesn't seem to want to do more than point fingers and if I take this last quote of his along with other things he has said what I see is that he thinks a Socialist/Marxist society would be of the greatest benefit. In this Obama seems to have missed some portions of Scripture too... about the worker deserving his wages (in context of getting what he is given for his work) and the example (and rule) given in 2 Thessalonians 3:9-11 ("... If a man will not work he shall not eat"). No one is owed anything in this life. At some point we have to take some responsibility for what we do. Perhaps the Right take this too far, but if he was honest in his speech Senator Obama should have admitted that the Left tend to veer off track in the own direction just the same.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Surprised?
In working on a project in my Leadership and Creativity class for my MBA I took a test to see if I was left brain (logical and analytical) or right brain (artistic and creative). The results:
You are a right brain dominant student!
You probably get bored during long lectures and prefer to take classes with a lot of freedom of movement and thought. You like to write stories and even tell stories about your funny experiences. You might be a little suspicious of other people's motives sometimes, but that's only because you can usually tell whenever someone is lying or when they're up to no good. You are a little on the dreamy side--or a lot. You plan books or movie plots but you don't always follow through on things you think about. You should work on that. You are fun and spontaneous. Your feelings run deep, and it shows. You have strong instincts, and you solve problems on hunches and feelings. You are artistic in some way. You can believe in things based on experience, without seeing scientific proof. You might be a finalist on Survivor some day, since you know how to read people so well, and you have great survival instincts.
You are a right brain dominant student!
You probably get bored during long lectures and prefer to take classes with a lot of freedom of movement and thought. You like to write stories and even tell stories about your funny experiences. You might be a little suspicious of other people's motives sometimes, but that's only because you can usually tell whenever someone is lying or when they're up to no good. You are a little on the dreamy side--or a lot. You plan books or movie plots but you don't always follow through on things you think about. You should work on that. You are fun and spontaneous. Your feelings run deep, and it shows. You have strong instincts, and you solve problems on hunches and feelings. You are artistic in some way. You can believe in things based on experience, without seeing scientific proof. You might be a finalist on Survivor some day, since you know how to read people so well, and you have great survival instincts.
A Gem In Temecula
Mr. Beau has been showing an interest in wines so last Saturday we took a little trip up the 15 to Temecula. In earlier posts you read of my trip with Elbert and some of the places we visited. On this trip I thought I would do two things: introduce Mr. Beau to more wines and find perhaps another place where I could get local wines that I would not be afraid of offering to my friends. As luck would have it I hit the jackpot on both with our first stop, Leonesse Cellars. In fact, I liked it so much I joined their wine club. After a couple of samplings together (a good representative Pinot Grigio, stainless-steel fermented so you get the melon and light green apple notes and their not overly oaked Chardonnay showing some traits of malolactic fermentation) I turned Mr. Beau loose on the whites (his palate tended towards the sweeter white Merlot and their rather good Riesling with very nice fresh fruit aromas) while I went off into red land. Their Melange de Reves is a nice medium bodied Rhone blend of Syrah, Cinsault, and Grenache with good berry tastes and just a hint of smokiness. Their 2004 Syrah is a good representation of a smooth Syrah, almost seductive with layers of black fruit, pepper, and a hit of smokiness. A big surprise was their Zinfandel which, given the current trend of overly alcoholed concotions was very smooth with good blackberry, pepper, and hints of clove with soft tannins. To top it off we had a fantastic lunch at their recently opened Block 5 restaurant. I really do recommend spending the extra time there sipping wine in the outdoor environment and enjoying their wonderfully prepared food.
So, Temecula is showing promise. I look forward to seeing how the area develops over time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)