You know how it feels when you follow your favorite team all season with the hopes they’ll make the playoffs? They make the playoffs and may even go deep. They hang in there game after game, round after round through mounting injuries, sometimes just barely winning. Now they’re in the final round tied 3-3 with the other team. Through the bad calls and all the time outs, you wait and hope. In the blink of an eye, time runs out and your team has fewer points than the other guys. They’ve lost. Losers. Eliminated. Post-season is over.
Heartbreaking! I used to be a New York Knicks fan in the 1990s (I adored John Starks), so I know what heartbreak is.
Liberals in the media and across the blogosphere are going through similar heartbreak, struggling to define (or redefine) and explain who they are and what they stand for. It’s kind of sad. Some are even trying to shed the liberal label. It’s like an epithet. They prefer “progressive” or something similar.
One of the measures of a man is knowing what he believes and why he believes it. The rest is child’s play. Here’s a simple test. Can you look yourself in the mirror, in the eyes, and say what you believe without laughing or feeling stupid? If so, you’re on the right track, even if you believe Martians walk among us. It’s about conviction.
Conservatives aren’t confused. We know who we are and what we believe, and we embrace the label “conservative.” If George Bush had lost on Tuesday night, I’d still be a Christian and a conservative. I’d still believe conservative policies and principles are better than liberal ones, even if the results had turned out to be Kerry 51 and Bush 48. The only soul searching I’d be doing right now is how I can have more of an impact in the blogosphere. I’d have no need to redefine who I am and re-think my message.
Have you seen the “purple” voter map floating around the blogosphere? To minimize the impact of the “red sea” across our country, liberals are latching on to the purple map. Understandable, of course. If you were a liberal, would you want to look at this?
My advice to liberals: Stand tall and be men and women of conviction, if you believe you’re right. I think you’re wrong, but you have the freedom to express your viewpoint. You do not have the freedom to impose your will on me, though.
While you’re refining, repackaging and analyzing your message, consider this: truth is truth and decency is decency. If your “product” doesn’t contain both of these elements, your next advertising campaign won’t appeal to us, either.
Update: See Joe Carter’s post on evangelicals in America. More from Blogs for Bush.
Today is the 15th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
David Limbaugh asks, “Is America Lost Or Just Liberals?”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 58 comments }
Purple America Thanks to LaShawn Barber for the link.
The map still looks red, with some blue shading.
liberals are…..you left me hanging….
The label progressive is such a joke considering that Democrats recycle the same populists ideas every 4 years and nominate a presidential candidate trying to be the next Harry Truman with their “people vs the powerful” jazz.
I can totally relate to this analogy. After watching the Eagles go 7-0 this season, and then go to Pitt and CHOKE…
That’s how the lefties must have felt as Bush won and their seats in the legislature suffer more attrition…
Esp. the rabid Michael More types, who thought the whole thing was a lock for Kerry.
I liked the purple map.
Taking a person and placing them in a hole or a color, stereotyping or type casting is wrong.
I voted for Bush but I don’t agree with everything that he does or stands for. I like to think that I can think for myself and not need to stand behind a red or a blue. Does a label define me? I hope not.
I also liked the purple map because it shows a blend of thinking and not the severe division that people tend to claim. It is not them against us. It is all of us in this together.
The purple shows that this election was not metros vs retros. It was not region against region. Was it even conservative against liberal?
Please hold onto your values. But, please don’t let a label tell you what those values are. Only God and your heart can do that.
Take Care
Michael
Liberals down, but not out
In an article written in the Boston Globe by Eileen McNamara entitled,”Inoffensive, Ineffective”(http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/07/inoffensive_ineffective/)
She suggests that liberals via John Kerry lost the election because he just wasn’t passionate enough concerning the “moral” aspects of their philosophies. She states:
“Democrats lose because they are unwilling to embrace the principles of their own party. Poverty is a moral issue, too. So is the right to basic medical care, a job, decent housing, safe streets, and a clean environment. If Kerry had projected half the passion about those issues that Bush did about abortion and homosexuality, this race might have been about big ideas, instead of a protracted series of skirmishes in a culture war that Democrats cannot win.”
Later, she concludes that John Kerry lost because he was not understood.
She and other liberals just don’t get it.
John Kerry lost because he was completely understood and rejected. We understand about a woman’s right to choose. We just question the logic of why a human being must die because of an act of wonton irresponsiblity. Where is the morally in that? We understand the physical needs of the poor must be met. But we also understand that treating the people like “pets” instead of human beings with the potiential to excel and grow is equally immoral. Their spritual and intellectual needs must be nutured in order for this to be accomplished.
I predict that liberals will slap a “moral” sticker on every proposal or platform they promote in the future. We will see through that as well.
Well La Shawn, I have no trouble doing that mirror trick.
As a Liberal I believe that government has an obligation to be PROACTIVE to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”
I further believe that the way to govern justly, fairly, and effectively is to consider ALL the relevant facts relating to “promoting the general welfare” and not just the ones to which I am emotionally attached due to my beliefs about religion.
I also believe that we need to do so without “establishing” the Nicene Creed and its followers as the official religion of this country.
I finally believe that no one should be “deprived of life, liberty, without due process of law” nor should anyone be denied “the equal protection of the law”, that arrest and seizure shall ONLY take place “upon probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed and that the right of “heabus corpus” shall not be abridged and the government shall not be permitted to hold anyone indefinitely without fair trial.
I believe in all this. And you can distill what I believe into the following formula: Liberty, Justice, Tolerance, and Respect for Fact.
Now just what do you belive in?
Either I haven’t been doing a sufficient job of explaining what I believe in (many but not all the things you mention) or you haven’t been paying attention or we’re speaking different languages or…take your pick.
Your assumption is that we conservative Christians want to establish a theocracy. Far from it. In the same manner libertines want to be left alone, I want to be left alone. I don’t want their perversion in my face. I don’t want them suppressing my right to express disgust. I don’t want them making a mockery of the foundation of marriage or bulldozing the values I hold dear.
Beyond that, you and I are in agreement. Sort of.
LSB: Indeed (on your last comment). I believe I found a post about Mark Kleiman (sp?) where he makes it clear that it’s not a matter of the right alone trying to enact their morals on the rest of the country, but that the lefties are trying to impose their own morals on the rest of the country. Pretending there’s some value-neutral politics out there is sheer folly.
Here in NYC, I’m glad that they’ve put some restrictions as to where sex shops can go – I don’t particularly wish to see an erotic display on the path my children walk to school. However, the smoking ban in bars makes no sense to me. Why can’t there be smoking and non-smoking bars? Only those who decide to go inside are affected – those who patronize the place or work there have chosen to be there. It’s not a matter of innocent passersby being assaulted with cigarette smoke.
Still — you’ve got the anti-porn people imposing their values and the anti-smoking people imposing their values. The root of these values may be religious, or they may not be. It makes little difference. There were plenty of people against slavery for religious reasons, and others opposed it for economic reasons. Likewise, there are people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons and others who are opposed for non-religious reasons (check out godlessprolifers.org). Why is one set of values allowed in the public square and the others not?
I say free-for-all in the marketplace of ideas! It’s the American way! And if you find your point of view is extremely unpopular – you are still free to promote it. But you can’t expect that everyone will come around to your way of thinking, and it may be your ideas are perennial losers. After a while, people may not listen to you at all — that’s their right, too. At some point, one may want to understand why your ideas are rejected, and to do that, you have to realize they’ve honestly been rejected. Saying “the people are too dumb!” is not a good way to come to the truth. If you’ve already judged the reason, you may never find out the real reason.
Yes, La Shawn, we are speaking a different language. And I indulged in a little bit of unfairly exaggerated literary rhetoric to make that clear.
Since YOUR literary rhetoric in the first post was used to imply that Liberals have no stable beliefs, I thought you might benefit from a dose of your own medicine.
That difference of language centers around the last “blue state value” I just defined: Respect for Fact.
I once watched Bill O’Riley tell an opponent who was presenting the facts for his views to shut up because what he was presenting were “liberal facts”.
That is the best summary of the Conservative position on the real world that I have ever heard: no facts are relevant unless they curry my religous views, support my ideological stance, scratch my back, or make money for me and my friends.
Conservatives certainly have many strongly held beliefs, and they will usually deny categorically as “liberal facts” any real world consideration which contradicts them.
That’s why we folks on the other side call ourselves the “reality based community”. The facts are what we wish our beliefs to address, whether they suppport those beliefs or not. And, we just might “flip-flop”, now and then, to accomodate what the real world is actually doing.
The current Republican “mandate” will not be destroyed by what we Liberals do or don’t do. It will not be destroyed by what we Liberals say or don’t say. It will be destroyed by confrontation with the facts that won’t just go away.
Like global warming, like growing poverty, like ballooning health insurance costs, like the inevitable downturn of the business cycle (look for it in 2006-7), and, yes, like Iranian nuclear weapons and Osama Bin Laden, both of which we had a chance to make go away and flubbed because of our government’s chronic Conservative disrespect for facts.
When the facts finally accumulate to the point that they MUST be acknowledged, only those that respect them will be left standing.
Joseph – You’re wrong about what I wrote. Not only do I STATE that liberals have beliefs, I assert they need to stand by those beliefs. The “medicine” you tried to pour down my throat would better serve some other blogger.
Throw around the word “facts” if you like (and Bill O’Reilly doesn’t speak for me), but without an idea of which “facts” you believe conservatives are denying, we’re talking in circles.
La Shawn, I find the ‘purple’ map interesting. What was the purpose of this map being made and why are they even more interested in where the majority of the people ‘live’? Who are these people who made this map and why should we trust them? Yes, they are still trying to find themselves relevant. lol
Joseph, Sounds like you believe all the stereotypes about Christians that lefties have come up with. So sad. Don’t hate a politician’s religion. It helps to make them who they are and helps to define their politics, but no Christian will ever pass a law making Christianity this country’s official religion. To say such a thing is rather shrill, IMO. I guess you would think that Christians should have no voice in politics, then? Wouldn’t that be a little… bigoted?
La Shawn, you hit the nail on the head. Joseph offers an “opinion” about how Liberals and Conservatives view facts without citing any “facts” to support that opinion, other than Bill O’Reilly’s alleged statements to someone unnamed. It seems his interpretation of the “facts” must be filtered through his own judgment and experience, as is the case with all of the rest of the human race. Because someone is convinced of the correctness of his interpretation of facts does not mean that he or she ignores facts. He or she merely has confidence in his interpretation of the meaning of those facts.
“but no Christian will ever pass a law making Christianity this country’s official religion”
I would point out that it has been reported in the news that the Texas Republican Party put a plank in their platform which stated explicitly that the United States was “a Christian nation”.
I personally am not inclined one way or the other to speculate about what Christians might or might not do in the future. But I do note very carefully what Republicans say and do in the present. Some more of that pernicious Liberal reality testing, I guess.
I don’t think we Liberals are particularly confused about our beliefs, or likely to abandon them, La Shawn, and calling us “libertines” is a prime example of willful ignorance of the facts about us.
Kevin, this IS La Shawn’s bandwidth, after all. You will find my own blog quite fact dense, if you bother to read the posts there carefully.
Libertine: 1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person; 2. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.
Hmmm, I thought the “libertines” comment was more toward Libertarians due to the context . . . oh, well.
Ah, Dear Joseph, What part of “due process” is the ultimate innocent, the unborn, acorded when they are “deprived of life?” Equally protected?? How is that done these days? And why the strong opposition to laws attempting to afford protection from violence under the law to the unborn?
Quoting Joseph: “I finally believe that no one should be “deprived of life, liberty, without due process of law” nor should anyone be denied “the equal protection of the law”, that arrest and seizure shall ONLY take place “upon probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed and that the right of “heabus corpus” shall not be abridged and the government shall not be permitted to hold anyone indefinitely without fair trial.”
I observe that the Liberal resorts to the courts in order to force down my throat things which would never become law if they traveled through the Legislative Branch of government. I find it reprehensible that all of the “facts” of a case like “Roe vs. Wade” were completely bogus. In fact *no* rape occurred, there was *no* lack of means to get an abortion. In fact, abortions have been performed for years before “Roe vs. Wade.” And *not* “coat hanger” abortions either, another “fact” in dispute. “Fact dense” does not equate with “truth dense.”
John Starks! Here and I thought you were perfect. Reggie Miller used to eat his lunch.
ATTENTION EVERYONE!
Did that work? Good. For some reason the last two paragraphs of my post were cut off this morning. I tried to re-create from memory. I call your attention to the update because it may address some your questions.
Rob – Is old man Miller still playing? He and I have had some heated discussions. Well, the TV and I have had some heated discussions.
“Libertine: 1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person; 2. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.”
Well, La Shawn, the word certainly doesn’t describe me and it doesn’t describe most Liberals whom I know personally. And to apply it to us is a direct and studied personal insult, the same as if I were to apply to you the term “fool”.
I, personally, am a Buddhist upaska, or lay follower, which means that I have made the first seven vows (in the Mahayana tradition) of the several hundred vows of Buddhist monastic life: to take Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha; to bring benefit to others until I reach the Heart of Perfect Enlightenment; to not kill; to not steal; to not lie; to not commit sexual misconduct (this is not a vow of “celibacy”, by the way, and there is no Buddhist equivalent to “holy matrimony”); and not to take intoxicants.
Under the circumstances, I hardly see how either definition of the word “libertine” (except insofar as it REALLY used merely to mean “non-Christian”) would apply to me.
It doesn’t apply to most other Liberals, either.
This is a great blog. 1st time posting! La Shawn reminds me of one of my SIX sisters. The one that has the IQ of a genius and sharp as a whip.
“Libertine: 1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person; 2. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.”
Well, La Shawn, I am a Buddhist upasaka, or lay practioner, who has taken the first seven (in the Mahayana tradition) vows of Buddhist monastic life.
As such I hardly think that either definition would apply to me, and your use of it in this context is a deliberate and studied personal insult, which, I hope, results only from ignorance of the facts.
Thanks, JMW.
Joseph – Why are you taking this personally? If you’re not a libertine, then I’m not referring to you. Besides, it’s just used as an example of the people trying to impose their will on me.
Now they know how conservatives have felt for the past several years, sans whining.
Liberals are not necessarily libertine themselves, but they do embrace a libertine public policy in regard to many social issues like abortion and same sex marriage. If advocating these particular values is not libertine, then I don’t know what is.
And the cycle begins anew… come to visit, take things out of context, get offended. Read the replies too quickly, get offended. Take everything personally, get offended.
The names change, but pattern remains.
I see the same pattern over at lefty blogs too. Just more profanity and insults get tossed around
“Kevin, this IS La Shawn’s bandwidth, after all. You will find my own blog quite fact dense, if you bother to read the posts there carefully.”
La Shawn, did I miss your memo telling us that some guy named Joseph Marshall determines who can and cannot use your bandwidth by posting comments on your blog?
Everyone’s worldview is based on some moral code or belief system. The question is whether it is based on subjective or absolute truth.
For instance, Joseph stated:
I finally believe that no one should be “deprived of life, liberty, without due process of law..”
Joseph, I noticed that one of the tenets of your faith is that it is wrong to kill. I am assuming that you define “kill” to mean the unlawful, premeditated killing of a human being. I am also assuming that a violation of this tenet would be considered immoral according to your faith.
In regards to the issue of abortion, is it moral or immoral?
Excuse me, but since when did a party platform equal Congress making a law? BTW, I found the Texas Republican platform and I see no mention of what you claim is there. This is about as close as it gets…
“We believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God. Life begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at the point of natural death. All innocent human life must be protected.”
I know it’ll take a few minutes for La Shawn to get to it {{{HUGS}}}, but here’s the website.
http://www.texasgop.org/library/platform.php
BTW, you should like the very first one on the page.
“We respect and cherish the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our Founders’ intent to restrict the power of the federal government over the states and the people. We believe self-government, based on personal integrity of a proper moral foundation, is the best government. This is best balanced with limited civil government, coupled with public trust, to provide collectively for the people those services not efficiently achieved individually.”
“In the same manner libertines want to be left alone, I want to be left alone. I don’t want their perversion in my face. I don’t want them suppressing my right to express disgust. I don’t want them making a mockery of the foundation of marriage or bulldozing the values I hold dear.”
Oh, but LaShawn, you can’t have it both ways. There’s an old saying that your freedom to swing your arms around ends at the tip of my nose. All of our freedoms potentially come at the expense of others. You want to be left alone, and so do same sex couples. You want to express disgust (wow that’s aggressive) and you don’t want them to bulldoze YOUR values, institutions, etc. So many questions come to mind. I’ll just raise a few.
First, whose values should prevail? Why yours?
Second, in history, weren’t similar statements (disgust, mockery, values held dear) made regarding women’s suffrage, school desegregation, miscegenation, etc.? BTW, as a fellow African -American, I’m sure you know there was a time (not SO long ago) in America when WE were not allowed to marry. How quickly it has become your institution to protect from others.
Let’s get away from values and keep it simple. If you pay taxes, you are entitled to the full protection of the government, and you are fully entitled to use services provided by the government. Let’s limit marriage to one taxpayer marrying another taxpayer.
Please realize that people can put their perversion in your face whether they are married or not. Or do you argue against their right to exist at all?
Last, would same sex marriage make as much mockery of the institution as heterosexuals do? Consider the divorce rate, spousal abuse, drive-thru marriages, celebrity one night marriages, brides for sale on the internet, infidelity rates, etc.
John Kerry is not a liberal. I proudly wear the tag despite his loss, perhaps even more so. The majority of Liberals remain defiant despite Bush’s win. It seems whatever ‘The Liberals’ do, the Conservatives will ridicule. Ive seen Con’s both calling Democrats and Liberals ‘cry babies’ for showing emotion in light of the results, AND calling them cowards for trying to show a willingness for unity. Its a lose lose situation.
Careful La Shawn, these sneaky liberals are trying to “trap” you here. You are much smarter than they, that’s for sure. Lol.
To answer DeJuan: In the Buddhist view killing is killing. Since I have made a vow not to kill, I have made a vow not to have an abortion or encourage others to do so. I have never done so. Nor have I given mental assent or approval to anyone aborting. And I have a clear obligation, if asked, to encourage anyone not to do so who might, as a part of the second vow described above. The issue has not arisen in my case.
My moral responsibility ends precisely there.
My next question Joesph is what “value” do you place your beliefs?
For example, you state:.. Nor have I given mental assent or approval to anyone aborting.
While you do not approve of abortion, are you implying that have no moral culpability to change that in society that which you deem to be immoral? If you say “Yes”, then on the issue of “abortion” at least, you have no argument with conservatives on this issue.
If you say “No”, then I question the “value” you place on your belief system.
Let me address the map, first off. I can tell that this purple is a grasp at straws. They show the West Coast of Florida to be purple, including the county that I used to live in. I guess a county going 2 to 1 in favor of Bush is considered purple in their view? If one person voted in a county for Kerry, then I guess it must be purple.
Joseph,
You take offense to this being considered a “Christian nation” since you are Buddhist, and not a Christian. Well, “Christian nation” refers to the fact that we based the founding of our country and our moral precepts on Christian beliefs, and that a majority of our citizens refer to themselves as Christians. I realize that an awful lot of Liberals are trying to rewrite history, and say that our nation was founded on civil rights, and that most of our founding fathers were Deists, if they practiced any religion at all. That is simply not true, and let me give you a few of their quotes.
James Madison, the father of our Cosntitution: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it! We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the ten commandments of God.” (And yet, Liberals want to remove the ten commandments and any mention of God from society)
Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!” (Hmmm…our founding fathers made this a Christian nation from the beginning)
Benjamin Franklin, who some think to be an agnostic: “And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of men.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” (At least he grew wiser with age)
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson: “I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.”
John Adams: “Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
Roger Sherman: “admiring and thankfully acknowledging the riches of redeeming love, and earnestly imploring that diving assistance which may enable us to live no more to ourselves, but to Him who loved us and gave Himself to die for us.” (Jesus died for sinners. Who did Buddha die for?)
George Washington: “To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian.” (May we all take a lesson from our first President)
I should think that this would be enough examples of what our Founding Fathers thought our nation should be like, not only then but now. We are a Christian nation, and I will not apologize for it. I also will not take my Christianity(not religion) and hide in a closet, so no one ever has to know or hear the word Christian or God. If you don’t like it, too bad! Romans 1:16 says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power unto salvation…”
If anybody doesn’t like living in a Christian nation such as America, they are more than able to move elsewhere, instead of telling me that I can’t speak about God and Christianity. Our Founding Fathers based this country on freedom to practice religion, not the absence of Christianity, Christians and God. The mere presence of these things does NOT force these beliefs of you. Also,because of THEIR beliefs, you have the right to practice Buddhism in this country. Should you not be allowed to do so? That might be forcing your beliefs on me.
Also, you will notice that I use Christianity, no religion. They mean different things, so please use them correctly. Christianity is what God has done for us, such as sending His only Son to die on the cross for us. That is what I believe in. Religion is man working to get to God. That is Buddhism, and so many other religions in the world. I don’t believe in that. I know that I can never reach God(or enlightenment as you like to put it). I am incapable of it. I can be as good as I can, and do as many good deeds as I can, and try to be perfect, but as the Bible says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” I fall short. Thankfully, God sent His Son to be the sacrifice for my sins. He didn’t have to. God’s perfect. I’m not. However, His death on the cross is the only way to Heaven and to God. “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father but by me.” I believe that, I have accepted the Lord as my Savior, and I will one day go to Heaven to be with Him. And, I will never, ever be silent about that. I know the key to eternal life in Heaven with the Lord, and I will not hide it from the world, just so you don’t have to be uncomfortable. I wouldn’t hide the cure to cancer from the world, just so I wouldn’t have to make some scientists uncomfortable, so why should I hide the freedom from eternal damnation and death from the world?
Moral relativism.
I thought the purple map was very interesting. We all know that the “red” areas aren’t entirely red and the “blue” areas aren’t entirely blue. The purple map gives a better sense of what’s going on.
I didn’t see much of value in the purple map, and I’ve been looking at maps this week.
I wrote, in the wake of the election, that perhaps the blue states along the great lakes and New England should join Canada. I have to apologise for that, I was feeling a bit “sneery” at the time.
I have since seen a county-by-county breakdown of the vote. That gives the appearance of a red map with just a few splatters of blue. In most cases the blue represents the cities. Perhaps it is true as the comedian Jeff Foxworty says, that when you travel 15-minutes outside the city people are pretty much the same.
I think one of the principal difference is how people view government. City folks need government to regulate their lives much more than do rural folks, and they rely on government to a much greater extent. Outside the cities, people want government to just leave them alone.
Isn’t this, to some extent, the basic difference between liberal and conservative philosophy. The liberal knows what’s best for him or herself, and thinks everyone should be brought into line at any cost. The conservative also knows what’s personally best, and trusts others to know what’s best for themselves. As long as there’s no infringement, others should be left pretty much alone.
Though the purple map is cool,
but I must ask why,
lefties don’t feel more blue.
Rejoice, their purple haze,
is but a reality-based lie.
If the LLL is consoling themselves over the purple map, it is only because they haven’t looked deeper at the realities.
On the link that La Shawn provided, there is another link to a GIF that flips between the 2004 and 2000 purple maps. No doubt about it, you can see subtle shifts that make 2004 is redder than before. Check it out at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/TwoMaps.gif Bwaahahaha
I’ll hazard that trending out to 2008, one won’t even need a hi-resolution screen to see the red shift between 2000 and then. Methinks I’ll download and archive the goods for next time. Should be interesting. Heh
First, on the Knicks: I was a Knicks fan in Chicago in 94 and 95. I wore that Starks jersey every time they played. I know exactly where you’re coming from.
Second, I was about to mention the county-by-county map too. It’s much more telling. I agree with Rick that people who live in the city, many of whom have never spent a substantial amount of time living elsewhere, really have no clue what goes on in the rest of the country.
I think this whole idea of a “purple” map is absolutely ridiculous. In our system, it doesn’t matter if you get 51% of the vote, or 100%, you still win. Obviously, with a tight majority, you want to improve your numbers, but that is for the professionals to figure out. Playing with shades of colours can really be misleading.
As a side comment, I think the state of the Democratic party was shown on that blog that asked what was worse, Bush winning or 9/11. The fact that Bush winning was seen worse by them indicates a party completely out of touch with reality, and only concerned about their own narcissistic, self-centred conceited view of the world
Kiki, your history lesson was music to my ears. Go Kiki, Go Kiki….
The people who don’t like the red map probably don’t like red pens either.
There was an article about how more teachers were switching from red to purple pens for correction because it was “friendlier.”
Give me a break!
Here’s the article link: http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2004/08/23/harshness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple/
*blush* Why thank you, Andy.
Hey La Shawn,
Reggie is injured (broken hand), but still on the roster. Might be time to hang it up and wait for the Hall of Fame induction.
I will never forget the 8 points in 8.9 seconds at MSG in 1995 or the 25 pt 4rd quarter in 1994. Take that Spike Lee!
I will now have to read your blog with a certain degree of skepticism.
“My next question Joesph is what “value” do you place your beliefs?”
If you are truly interested, you can read all about it on my blog, particularly the posts “The Buddhist View of ‘Original Sin’” and “On Being Liberal and Religious”, Parts 1,2,& 3. I’m not going to wear out my welcome here by dragging all that content onto this comment page.
The short version is that Buddhists are not moral merely because a particular religious book said so, they are moral for reasons involving several goals they are trying to accompish with that moral conduct.
In the Buddhist view, personal moral responsibility begins AND ends with one’s own thoughts and actions, and we hold no brief to make everybody else “moral” with the power of the State.
As to the “Christian nation” business, I would suggest that because America has actually been a secular nation from it’s founding, most Americans haven’t a clue what “establishment” really means or what a “Christian nation” really is. Italy, Ireland, and the U.K. are “Christian nations” in law.
They have “established” Christian churches. We do not and are not. Period. The mere fact that we have historically had a lot of Christians running around here from time immemorial is irrelevant to the legal status of religion in this country.
Woo Hoo!!! I live in the reddest county in SC!
Joe M, do you have any citations from the founding fathers that definitively state that ours is a secular nation not founded on Christian, not religious, beliefs?
Otherwise, what’s the point of repeating such a false meme?
How the liberals are lamenting kerry losing the election and how they must be whinning about it all the time for the last week they have been whnning i’ll bet they’re feeling pretty stupid and well they must look it to and how their still bringing up this global warming nonsense what a bunch of jerks
Andy,
Just refer Joseph to my previous post on what our Founding Fathers based this country on. It’s CHRISTIANITY. The Patrick Henry quote defines this quite well. I’m just sorry that there are people out there who will read this, and still don’t get it. Andy, I’m glad you do get it.
Tom B. the old history books are just chock full of such quotes that leave no doubt about our foundation. But like the removal of the 10 commandments from city halls and courthouse, our schools have removed all trace of God from our history. Seems “Dead White Men” is a good secular smokescreen for ranting at God.
Andy,
Oops! That last post was actually from me, Kiki B. Sorry.
“Otherwise, what’s the point of repeating such a false meme?”
The United Kingdom has a legally “established” church. It is called the Anglican Church and the Queen is the titular head of it. This is FACT, not a “meme” (whatever that may be). That is WHY the United Kingdom is a “Christian nation”.
Italy has a legally “established” church. It is called the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope is the head of it. This is a FACT not a “meme”. That is WHY Italy is a “Christian nation”.
Iran has a legally “established” religion. It is called the Shite version of Islam. This is a FACT not a “meme”. That is WHY Iran is a “Muslim nation”.
Saudi Arabia has a legally “established” religion. It is called the Sunni version of Islam. This is a FACT not a “meme”. That is WHY Saudi is a “Muslim nation”.
The United States has an Amendment to its constitution directly prohibiting the “establishment” of ANY religion. This is a FACT not a “meme”. This is WHY the United States is a “secular nation”.
Of course there are some heads around so dense that mere facts will not penetrate them, even with a charge of smokeless cordite behind them.
The nuance that you fail to pick up on is the difference between “Christian” and “religious”. Compared to Europe, we are a more religious country than they are, IIRC, only 10-20% Europeans claim to be religious, while in the US, 60-70% claim to be religious in some form or fashion.
The Anglican State is a religious sect. Secularism is a religion in that secularism is a faith system. We were not founded on secularism, we were founded on the Biblical premise that all men are created equal by the Almighty. Secularist and atheist believe we were’nt created, we just happened, somehow, somewhere.
Rather than a secular nation, I think the term you want is religion-neutral, but even so, it doesn’t take away from the intent that our founding fathers had in that our morality comes from God. Secularist deny that.
The Christian State is a non-denominiational collective. This is the common ground that we here are on. And as long as we remain a democratic republic as proscribed in our articles of federation, the secularist or any other cannot change that. Sorry, go find another country, or go convince 2/3 plus 1 in every State before we will ever accept your premise.
Have you heard cHillary’s latest rant (heard in on Shawn Hannity today)? She is rebuking and encouraging the Dems to develop their talking points from the Bible. And I paraphrase, ‘No one can argue that Jesus had more to say in support of the liberal democratic principles’. Bwaahahahaha. cHillary better bone up on the Bible from cover to cover before she sprouts off about what would Jesus do/say, nevermind about faith in things unseen.
Comments on this entry are closed.