Some statements

After more than two months of blog silence, here are some statements I'd like to express publicly (to both of you).

I am young.
I am well educated.
I am intelligent.
I am a Christian.
I am not a pacifist.
I believe in helping the poor and disadvantaged.
I am unlikely to vote for President Obama in November.
I am not racist.
I can and do think logically.
I do not despise the notion of church or denominations.
I oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.
I am not a bigot (nor am I Bigfoot).
I believe in absolute truth.
I believe all people are sinful.
I believe abortion should be illegal.
I believe Americans should be free to own guns.
I believe that the U.S. Constitution is important.
I believe in both heaven and hell, and I do not believe that everyone ends up in heaven.
I love Jesus Christ and seek to serve him in all I do.
I fear for the future of religious freedom in America.

I understand that many people don't believe all of these statements can be true... but they are.

Stephen Colbert Occupies Wall Street

My friend Leah sent me this video. I watched it at work and laughed until I had tears. Then I had to explain to my co-workers why I was crying. It was sort of awkward.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Probably the most political I've ever been on this blog

I know almost nothing about these "Occupy Wall Street" protests that are going on. What I think I've gathered is that this movement is made up of mostly left-side-of-the-aisle people who think companies and Tea Partiers are bad, and taxing the rich (and everyone else who's not one of them) is good. I haven't really figured out exactly what they're protesting or what they wish to accomplish.

Anyway, I came across THIS site yesterday where people who support this movement are encouraged to write down their woeful tales of debt and unemployment, and then take a picture of themselves holding up their handwritten story. Together, these people consider themselves the 99% of our population who are apparently the "have-nots" who are sick of being trampled on by the "haves."

Here are some copied-and-pasted examples (in italics), with a few of the responses that ran through my head as I read them (forgive my snarkiness):


“I was kicked out of my parent’s house when I turned 18. I lived with a friend for a year or so while I could get my feet under me. I joined our nation’s Navy, but they kicked me out too. Now I live in my best friend’s mother’s basement because I can’t afford to survive on my own  I have a job and go to school full time, but my job pays less than I need and school causes me to miss out on hours I so desperately need. I have a mountain of debt, no credit, and no one cares.”
It's not cruel for parents to expect their 18-year olds to move out, move on, get a job, and begin their own life. The Navy, to my knowledge, doesn't kick people out willy-nilly. If it had been an unfair discharge, you surely would have noted that (which leads me to believe you did something to deserve it). I'm sorry that "no one cares." I truly am. I think it's terribly sad that not everyone has a network of friends and family upon whom they can count when times are tough. But if you (or this movement you're so in love with) think it's the fault of Republicans, or capitalism, or really any other idea you don't happen to like, I'd say you've got a tough case to make.


"I have anorexia. Pretty soon I will be unable to work. My husband has an amazing job and luckily my health issues will be covered. The only problem is he hates working there. He is unhappy and unable to change anything because of my mental condition. I wish I could help. I wish everyone wasn't so scared. Why is it so hard for humanity to help each other?"
I'm sorry you have anorexia. What's the connection between having anorexia and not being able to work "pretty soon" (or is there one)? Your husband, frankly, sounds kind of picky to me. An "amazing job" that he doesn't enjoy is better than no job at all. Millions of people would, I'm sure, be happy to trade you places.


“my 27 year old brother was laid off from his job in construction, and was promised that they would let him come back. They lied. he sat at home all day, every day, because he was sure they would let him come back. he went on unemployment for the time being (about a year), and then got a call saying that he wasnt going to be let back in to the company. now he works at my county’s fairgrounds getting paid $12.00 an hour, and he lives with my parents and myself because he can’t afford to live on his own and my parents cant afford to live without him."
Sounds like kind of a jerk of a company. However, let me point out that it's not terribly responsible of your brother to sit "at home all day, every day" on the hope that the company he used to work for was honest and upright. And $12.00 an hour? Wow, that's less than $5/hour more than minimum wage! You're brother's getting so screwed. I can't believe he's not living on the streets at that wage. We should definitely raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour (oh wait... if we did that, the fairgrounds wouldn't hire him at all because they couldn't justify paying him that much... if only there weren't consequences for our actions!).


"In 2008, I had a job that paid $50,000/year and had great benefits -- even a pension. For the next three years, I was mostly unemployed; getting short-term temporary positions. Now, I've got a 'permanent' position: $10/hour, no benefits and only three days a week."
So... how did you go from making $50k a year to unemployed? Surely it was an unfair move by your employer. But, why didn't you tell us about that? Now I'm left to wonder whether or not you had your own hand in it. And why didn't you save anything when you were doing so well? Carpe Diem, eh?


"I am 3 months from a BA in global management. But, it won't be enough. I have to go into more debt to get a Masters, & pray I find a job then."
Stupid country. Forcing you to attend more school and go into more debt. You've practically got a gun to your head, haven't you? And what happens when you've got your Masters, more debt, and still can't get a job? Man, if only we made President Obama into a dictator. Surely he would help you reach your dream of becoming a... global manager?


"30k in debt for student loans for a degree I will never use."
Again, I feel terrible that the "system" pointed an AK-47 at your head and forced you to go to school, and forced you into a major that you either didn't want or wasn't useful. How is this someone else's fault? What if I complained that Toyota sold me a perfectly good Camry that I'll never drive. Is that Toyota's fault, or am I just stupid?


"College (check) Job (check) Grad School (check) Marriage (check) House (check) Kids (no check) I made responsible decisions, but that only led to debt. How will my husband and I ever afford children, when we already live check to check??"
And here we go again. How do you define "responsible?" If you're so far in debt, what are you doing buying a house? Is it responsible for me to buy a yacht because that's what all my friends are doing, or because I think it'll be nice to have, if I don't have the money to pay for it?


"Us? Three years of wedded bliss. Me? Laid off from a job I loved in a voicemail with no explanation? (Unemployment never came through either). Now I work 50 hours a week and barely make $25,000. Oh, and I drive 35 min to get there. Him? Working full time and going to school full time. I came from a rags to riches family, but my parents make $350,000 more than I do at least. Luxuries include a home, birth control and heat. Not to mention the ability to barely pay off our student loans (which are still accumulating). Welcome to the American Dream. BUT, I AM STILL LUCKY!"
Your parents seem to have plenty of money with which they can help you. But you'd rather require the rest of the country to help you instead with their tax dollars, right?

I think I could be friends with this guy

Confounded Logic

Over the last month I've come across a number of stories and articles related to the issue of abortion. All of them made me scratch my head a little bit regarding the logic of our culture (especially the "pro-choice" political position). I thought I'd mention each article and then make some of my own comments.

In January I learned of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his filthy, disgusting, horrific abortion operation that he had been running in Philadelphia since 1979.

Also last month a Christian friend of mine linked to some of his top blog posts of 2010. His #1 post of the year had to do with his views on abortion. While my friend considers himself "pro-life," he believes that the practice of abortion should remain legal. In reference to Roe v. Wade he writes, "...we have forgotten that one of the primary reasons for legalizing abortion was to put an end to the then common and extremely dangerous practice of 'back-ally' abortions. In other words, abortion was legalized so that it could be closely and safely regulated. In effect, legalizing abortion did not create the practice but instead served to wrangle it in."

A few days ago I read of a pregnant woman here in Colorado who was given an incorrect prescription from her pharmacist - an abortion pill - by mistake. Last I'd heard, the devastated woman didn't yet know whether the fetus inside her was still alive or not. If it is, it will likely have severe birth defects that will almost certainly take its life shortly after birth.

Yesterday I read of a survey that was done in which babies with the disease spina bifida were surgically treated. In some cases, the surgery was performed on fetuses in utero (between 19-26 weeks old), and for other babies, the operation took place shortly after birth. The study found that the surgeries performed on the unborn fetuses were more effective than those on the already-born babies. In other words, having the operation done before birth made it more likely that the child would be able to walk, and have fewer neurological problems.

Everyone (regardless of political persuasion) seems to agree that Dr. Gosnell (from the first story) is a disgusting creep. I don't quite understand, however, why "pro-choice" people are at all outraged. Is it because his clinic was dirtier than others? It certainly can't be the fact that he killed babies - that's the very foundation of their position! Maybe it's that he used scissors. Barbaric? Perhaps. But if I were given the choice between being murdered by a scissors-wielding doctor and being murdered by a doctor with a giant vacuum that would crush me to death, it wouldn't really matter which one I chose, would it?

The last two stories I mentioned (the incorrect prescription to the pregnant woman, and the study about fetal surgery) are discussed well in THIS blog post by Joel Lindsey. Joel points out the "moral schizophrenia" of America's response to these stories. We're outraged because a pregnant woman has (most likely) lost her baby, but the only difference between her baby and the million that are legally aborted each year is that she wants hers. Similarly, in the story about fetal surgery 19-week old fetuses are treated as patients, given the very best of medical care... but again, the only difference between these fetuses and those that are aborted is that the mothers want them.

So we come to my friend's view on abortion, which frankly has so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. I guess first of all I'll point out that facts are facts. Estimates are that perhaps 50-60,000 abortions took place the year before Roe. Since the practice became legal, the numbers have climbed dramatically to more than a million per year today. If my friend is "pro-life" as he claims, I take that to mean that he believes abortion is the killing of an innocent life. How can you possibly believe that the killing of one million lives is preferable to the killing of 60,000? I'll agree that 60,000 is still a shocking and horrific number, but it's 94% better than a million, right? Or is it because the 60,000 were killed in private homes and not culturally- and government-sanctioned medical centers (like the lovely one run by Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia)? That's quite a job the government seems to have done "wrangling in" the "dangerous" practice of abortion. The words "safely regulated," when used in reference to a practice that is, by definition, murder, sound pretty silly to me. That's like saying we ought to make genocide safely regulated. A lot of good that will do, I'm sure.

"Back-ally" or not, abortion is every bit as dangerous to the fetus today as it was then. Now there's just a whole lot more of it.

Really?

A woman in Michigan is being sued because she posted an ad (in a church) seeking a "Christian roommate." Apparently it's somehow illegal to want to have a say in who you LIVE WITH.

I have the hardest time figuring out how people get elevated to positions of authority in this country when they're this stupid. How are we so offended at everything? What a rotten bunch of people we are.

For simply putting up with us, Lord, you are most merciful.

Catastrophe! (and crispy treats)

I just read an article about how this huge oil spill thing has completely hijacked President Obama's agenda, and now he's really going to struggle to get things done he wants to get done, and how this might end up defining his presidency and all that kind of stuff.

I wonder when along the way everyone started believing that a given president's 4- or 8-years in office were going to be hassle-free. People act all surprised and disappointed when difficult things come along. "Man, it's too bad this oil spill happened. Now President Obama can't fulfill all of his other goals." "Gee whiz, that hurricane Katrina really sucks. Now President Bush has been knocked completely off his game plan."

Of course, similar problems/disasters/disruptions have happened during just about every U.S. president's tenure. We act like it's some big shocker that bad things happen and presidents have to deal with them, but shouldn't that be one of the more important factors we weigh when deciding for whom we are going to vote? It just seems silly to me that so many otherwise intelligent people seem completely blindsided when something doesn't go as perfectly as their original plan intended.

In other news, guess who just made rice krispies treats...

Bumper Stickers

I once heard Demetri Martin say, "I love bumper stickers because they allow me to spot a jerk from a distance." I think that's both funny and true. The vast majority of bumper stickers I see are extremely polarizing. They're almost always either eye-rollingly liberal, or make-me-wanna-puke ultra-conservative.

"Trees are the answer" (Maybe, but what's the question?)
"War is not the answer" (What if the question is, "What did congress declare after Pearl Harbor?")
"Love is the answer" (Especially if you attended Woodstock)
"Jesus is the answer" (to every Sunday school question EVER)
"Coexist" (Translation: I'm a pluralist who thinks all roads lead to nirvana)
"Support Our Troops" (often a conservative's choice, as opposed to...)
"Support Our Troops by bringing them home" (often a liberal's choice)
"Don't blame me, I voted for [opponent of the most recent president for whichever party they hate]" (Most commonly inserted names: Gore, Kerry, McCain)
"Native" (I think this example is unique to Colorado? This sticker is similar to the condescension of natives from Hawaii who say, "I grew here, you flew here")
"I navigate using NOAA charts" (Yes, I actually saw this one [NOAA stands for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. I really have no idea what it means)
"God is dead -- Nietzsche" (The athiest's choice)
"Nietzsche is dead -- God" (The evangelical-who-thinks-he's-funny's choice - but at least this one's true, and sort of humorous)
"Jesus was NOT a republican" (Which is true, but makes me think about how stating other anachronistic fallacies don't work as bumper stickers: "Julius Caesar did NOT own a wristwatch!" or "I could beat Einstein at halo")

I also hate bumper stickers that make sense ONLY to the person who owns them. A sticker on your car that says "RD" or "J.A.Z." doesn't promote anything, it just takes up space on your otherwise nice car. People have to know what you're referring to for it to be promotional.

The bumper stickers I love are funny ones that make absolutely no moral or political statements at all. I saw a Jeep the other day with a sticker that was upside down and backwards that said, "If you can read this, flip me over!" I thought it was funny.

The unfortunate thing is that I am drawn very strongly to bumper stickers and I want to read every one I see. This usually causes me to judge a person (because they're usually of the polarizing variety listed above). But sometimes, like in the case of the upside down and backwards sticker, it simply ends up being dangerous, because I have to get close enough to read it, and I have to take my eyes off the road to read it. I swear the closest I ever come to getting into an accident is when I'm trying to read bumper stickers (not that I come close to getting in accidents very often -- don't worry).

WARNING: CHANGE OF TOPIC

Why are drivers so awful? I'm a pretty good driver, and it takes almost NO real effort on my part for that to be true. Yet rarely does a day go by that I don't encounter a driver doing something stupid and unsafe.

We love to pass laws about driving to make things safer, but I think the roads would be safest if we just required people to demonstrate some basic safe-driving ability before giving them a license! It'd probably take 70% of Denverites off the road instantly, which has the further advantages of reducing pollution and shortening commute times!

(That was my high-horse. Stepping down now...)

Census

I have no problem with the census. I'm happy to fill out my little form and mail it in so the government can make sure Colorado has the right number of congressmen.

But today in the mail I got a letter from the Census Bureau. It wasn't the Census. It was a one-page letter that said, essentially, "Keep a look out for the actual Census which you'll receive in about a week."

How much do you think it cost our government to send these out? How necessary are they? Do you really need to prepare yourself a week in advance to check your mail? Or to answer a few questions on a form? Isn't it insulting that the government thinks so lowly of its citizens? Bah!

Violence against women?

You should read THIS quickly (it's quite brief). Then come back here and leave a comment answering the following question:

How does the National Organization for Women expect to be taken seriously when they do things like this?

Thank you.

An article you should read

If you haven't heard, (former) Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow will star in a pro-life Super Bowl ad this weekend. Apparently this is a really controversial and somewhat offensive idea to some people.

I just read THIS article in the Washington Post from a woman who is pro-choice, but who calls out ultra-liberal feminist groups for what they are: not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. She also talks more generally about how we could use more athletes (and young men!) like Tebow. I liked it.

A couple of things for your perusal

If you CLICK HERE you can read a very good blog post from Kevin DeYoung about gambling. It's kind of long (he quotes extensively from a Christian-perspective article about gambling), but it's well worth the read. It makes me want to blow up Las Vegas (okay, not really).

This video is hilarious. You will think so too if you've ever read or heard about President Obama's reliance on teleprompters for speaking engagements. The Onion is definitely one of my favorite news outlets.

Dear President Obama,

Watch this video, and then explain to me why you're pro-choice. Then watch an ultrasound during an abortion and explain to me why you're still pro-choice. After watching a baby in the womb try to escape from the instrument of its death, this former Planned Parenthood clinic director quit her job and began speaking out against abortion. Perhaps you, Mr. President, ought to do the same.

This Just In: Hate Crimes Legislation is Stupid

I hate Redskins fans. And guys who wear mullets. And annoying people who used to come into the store where I worked and say, do, or ask really stupid things. Fortunately, I can attack any of these groups of people without worrying about whether I'll be given a stiffer penalty, because none of those groups of people are mentioned in the hate crimes legislation that President Obama signed the other day. Lucky me! Of course, if I attacked a Redskins fan and then later found out he was gay (or had a mental disability, or was from Djibouti) then I'd be in big trouble, apparently.

My apologies to the parents of Matthew Shepherd, but the idea that we can legislate more severe penalties depending on what a criminal is thinking when he or she commits the crime couldn't be more ludicrous to me. The new hate crimes bill defines hate crimes as attacks which are "based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability." That's great, but doesn't that list seem a little arbitrary? Who decided where the list ends and how did they decide it? What about a person's personality? Or clothing? Or favorite sports team? And how do you enforce it? I mean, if I attack a Hindu because he's Hindu, can't I just say that I did it because he cut me off in traffic? What if "hate" as defined in this bill is one of five reasons someone gets attacked? "I killed that guy because he's obnoxious, he smells funny, he only wears two different shirts in any given week, he's smarter than me... and he's hispanic." Is that a hate crime or not? Can it be counted as 1/5th of a hate crime? Let's say Joe Schmo gets tied to a fence post, has bottles and rocks thrown at his head, gets stripped naked and left for dead. Two weeks later the same thing happens to my brother. Should the criminals in case #2 be punished less than those in case #1 because Joe Schmo is gay? And isn't crime #2 a hate crime too, because after all, my brother has a race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, AND gender identity (and maybe a mental disability... but HAHA, you don't know which brother I'm talking about!)?

If anyone is or would be willing to pretend to be a liberal, I'd appreciate hearing an argument in favor of such a ridiculous notion.

The right NOT to be offended?

Sorry if you're offended by multiple short posts within a few minutes of each other, but I just read a very interesting article by Al Mohler on the culture of offendedness. You ought to check it out and then comment here with your thoughts. I like conversation.

McLaren and me (not quite as catchy as McGee & Me)

I'm nearing the end of reading A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. I've never really written a book review before, and you're kidding yourself if that's what you think this is... but I thought I'd share some first impressions and thoughts about what I've read so far.

I chose to read this particular book on the emergent church because a) I already own it & it's just been sitting on my shelf for more than a year now, and 2) from what I've heard and read it's been touted as the definitive manifesto for today's emergent church (can "definitive" and "emergent church" be together in one sentence and not be an oxymoron?), and so I figured that if I'm going to graduate from an evangelical seminary there might be some people I come across in whatever ministry God points me to who assume I know something about the emergent church and I'd like not to disappoint them. So here we go.

First of all let me say that McLaren is an engaging writer, and it's not at all hard for me to see how he's published a dozen+ books, most of which sell quite well. He has a clear passion to move Christianity beyond liberal vs. conservative bickering, and his viewpoint largely seems to have grown out of a reaction to ultra-right wing conservative fundamentalist Christians who you're likely to see on television a lot (not often being painted in a positive light at all).

As is made clear in McLaren's subtitle (visible in the above picture), his desire is to essentially take the best from all of the pockets of Christianity and mold them into a kind of open-minded, tolerant community of believers who follow the teachings of Jesus. In multiple places throughout the book McLaren tells his audience that it's important to stick to the fundamentals of the faith, which he clearly defines as loving God, and loving your neighbor (with everyone on the planet falling to the "neighbor" category). One of the big problems he has with many Christians today is that they've expanded the fundamentals to include things like the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, and penal substitutionary atonement. McLaren, however, seems to believe that if we simply love God and love other people then Christianity is much more likely to connect to our postmodern culture, and we will be able to take the world for Christ.

If I were to summarize McLaren's position as I understand it (I'm about 80% of the way through the book) I would say that he believes that following the teachings of Jesus is what's most important (and primarily the love God & others command), and therefore we need to love everyone, be in community with everyone, let the Holy Spirit guide our direction through experience, and be pacifists (or at least pacifist sympathizers with the hope and goal of bringing the world to a place where everyone is a pacifist). On the flip side he would argue that we need to grow out of our in/out theology where there are some who are "in" or "born again" who are going to heaven and everyone else is "out" and therefore going to hell. McLaren relates a story in which his college-age son admits that he's struggling spiritually. He goes on, "Dad, if Christianity is true then nearly everyone I love is going to be tortured in the fires of hell forever. And if it's not true, then life has no meaning. I just wish there were a better option." McLaren tells us that when he heard his son say those things his heart broke as he realized that that is the picture of Christianity his son, and probably most Christians, have. It seems that the goal of this book is largely to correct such thinking.

From what I've learned about the emergent church before and outside of reading this book, McLaren's theology and teachings in A Generous Orthodoxy are very much represtentative of them.

And it's too bad.

Completely lacking from McLaren's theology is anything about the harder parts of the Bible. The only time I have come across the word "atonement" in the whole book is when, as I mentioned above, he is pointing out how conservative evangelicals have broadened the definition of "fundamentals" to include it. I do think McLaren's right about a lot of things: The Christianity that most people see on television which says you must vote republican, fight against gun control laws, homosexuality, and abortion, support wars, and tell all your non-Christian friends that they're going to hell is probably not what Jesus meant when he sent his disciples out as witnesses, but McLaren's theology, I believe, could accurately be described as dangerous, bordering on devastating. The Gospel message is NOT, as McLaren would apparently have you believe, that we can all get along in a God-loving community if we stick to the teachings of Jesus. It's that Jesus was crucified in your place on the cross as a sacrifice for sin and that he rose again the third day, conquering death forever. Why doesn't the emergent church ever want to get into the hard stuff? I'm guessing that in all his books, you'll never hear McLaren talk about the reality of sin and its impact on the human race (unless it's the "sin" of intolerance, which creates an unappealing "in vs. out" mentality).

In fact, it seems to me that if Jesus never was crucified or resurrected or if he never ascended to heaven... McLaren's theology would not be threatened at all. Without the atonement Jesus was still a good teacher who gave us good standards to live by, so let's all focus on those and try to get along.

(When I bring my book to work with me, my coworker will ask, "Is McLaren annoying you yet?" For the first almost half of the book my answer was, "Not really." As it's become clearer and clearer that his bottom line is essentially, "Let's all be nice to each other," my answer has changed. There is real truth, Mr. McLaren.)

Green: Probably my third or fourth favorite color.

Not to sound like a planet-hater, but here's a very good article about why you're not necessarily the devil if you think it's okay that there are people who still use fossil fuels.

$100 million: A visualization

I hope you're not sick of videos. I really don't want to be a "post every you-tube video you ever see" kind of guy. But I liked this one. Plus, if you're a visual learner, this will help you tremendously.

Miss California, Perez Hilton, Same-Sex Marriage, and Unbelievable Stupidity

As far as I can tell, these are the facts: In the Miss USA pageant on Sunday night one of the two finalists, Miss California, was asked by gay celebrity/gossip blogger and judge Perez Hilton, "Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think the other states should follow suit? Why or why not?" (that's pretty close to word-for-word)

Miss California responded something similar to, "In my family, the way I was raised, I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anyone, but that's what I believe."

Miss California did not win. She was the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina.

After the competition was over, Hilton posted a video blog on his website where he let out his anger and frustration over Miss California's response. He was "shocked" at her answer. He apparently couldn't believe that she would forget that her job is to inspire women. This morning Julie Chen of the Early Show interviewed Hilton. He said that he thought she should have been better prepared for that question. He pointed out that her job is not to be a politician. When asked how she could have answered differently without lying about her convictions, he said that she could have answered something like, "As Miss USA I would be thrilled to be a role model and an inspiration for women, and I'm glad that the states can decide that issue for themselves."

I'm quite certain that I don't even need to point out the complete and utter stupidity that has come out of Hilton in this case, but I will.

WHAT?!?!?! Are you serious, Mr. Hilton? You asked a yes or no question. Those kinds of questions have two possible answers: "yes," and "no." That's like asking, "Do you like bananas? Why or why not? What?! You don't!? Holy Cow?! How can you be so silly? Don't you realize you represent your state and you're supposed to be an inspiration to people throughout the country?"

He claimed he was upset because she shouldn't have tried to be a politician, yet his proposed answer (the one she should have given) was basically, "I'd like to avoid that question, so I'm glad it's a state issue," which is precisely the answer a politician would give.

Other critics of Miss California have expressed disappointment because she shouldn't have brought religion into her response. Every bit as stupid. Plenty of non-Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage. In fact, a majority of Californians who voted on Proposition 8 are opposed to it. If anything, she should be commended for voicing an unpopular opinion (at least, if you pay attention to the liberal news media) that corresponds to that of the state she represents.

I don't really know anything about Miss California, and this is not really the kind of story that usually comes across my radar, but our local news reported it this morning while we were getting ready to leave, and then the Early Show had the interview I mentioned above... and it got my blood boiling a little bit. I just have the hardest time being okay with rampant stupidity. That's why I wrote about it. Not because I care as much as it might seem.

British dudes can be cool too (French dudes probably cannot)

Here is a clip I found very stimulating. It's of a British dude confronting the Prime Minister on his (mostly economic) policies. I can't say I understand everything in the video, but he's totally laying the smack down. One wishes we had a representative or a senator in our Congress who would give a similar speech to President Obama. Notice the speaker's oratorical brilliance, AND his ability to deliver with such flair without the need for a teleprompter (a device without which our President can hardly do without).