This will probably be the only post for the day because I’ll be traveling. Time for another road trip.
Some of my long-time readers may remember a controversial post I wrote called A Christian or a Liberal? It generated a lot of comments and some not-so-nice e-mail. A high-profile liberal blogger linked to it, and his minions crawled out of the woodwork to serve their master. It was a hoot.
I’d linked to a column written by Doug Giles on the topic. He’s a much edgier writer than I am, so I can only imagine the kind of mail he receives. Doug is no stranger to controversy (see his archives).
He liked my latest column on Townhall.com, Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians, and I’ll be on his radio show tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. EST to talk about it. I only recently came out of the closet as a fan of the books, and now I’m doing radio interviews about the boy wizard. 
I’m also doing a BBC radio interview (TBA) about the Narnia books. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe will hit theaters in December.
This post will be open to whatever you want to discuss. Leave links in comments and/or trackback to one of your posts. For readers who e-mail links to posts, I haven’t been ignoring you. I get too many requests, and I’m usually too busy to post many of them. Whether you’ve sent links or not, I encourage you to let readers know about your latest and/or greatest post.
Discuss Harry Potter theories, the new Supreme Court nominee, or whatever else is going on in the world.
See you tomorrow.
Update (11/2): Tune in to Clash Radio tonight at 8:00 p.m. EST to hear me and Doug Giles talk about Harry Potter and Christians.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 20 comments }
La Shawn:
Sam Alito’s nomination has caused untold distress to Chuckie Schumer, Harry Reid, and Teddy Kennedy. It just doesnlt get any better than this.
And Schumer has revealed his “true colors” (pun intended) in his shameful comparison of Sam Alito to Rosa Parks. Some just don’t respect the dead.
Doug’s bio contains twisted statements, such as: “Giles earned the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Texas Tech University and the Master of Arts in Christianity and Culture [pending] from Knox Theological Seminary.”
He says “earned,” implying that he has already earned a master’s degree, but then he sticks “pending” in there. That’s creepily misleading.
I agree in spirit with the idea that a Christian who is a “Liberal” is often at odds with many of the so-called ideals put forth by their platform.
I also would like to applaud your writings on the subject of Potter and Narnia. Previously, before reading your posts, I considered Harry Potter a guilty pleasure. But now I see it as an opportunity to discuss my faith in addition to the nature of good and evil as well as the ideal of sacrifice.
Thank You
And I agree Frank, Mr. Schumer has done her a disservice. It is odd, that those who wish to secure freedoms are considered conservative, while those most intolerant of the freedom of expression are called liberal.
For a bit of vicarious entertainment on the Alito nomination, I suggest peeking in on the KOS Kids periodically. They have gone straight through apoplectic to a new and as yet unnamed zone of emancipation from all reason.
On another note, I hope the MSM give Schumer an open mike and 24/7 access to spew his doxology. We could not ask for a better ally in making our case for Alito and judicial restraint.
Any media organization that is so affixed on the occult and has been before the HUAC is up to absolutely no good. From an American/Christian POV.
Proceed!
In your Townhall.com piece on Harry Potter, you seriously undermine your credibility in the first paragraph by misspelling “lightning” as “lightening”. The former is a great sky show and the bane of golfers, the latter enthralls Michael Jackson.
I haven’t yet read any of the Potter books, although I hear the writing’s excellent. It was either Doug Wilson or Douglas Jones that insightfully stated that if we’ve done such a poor job of raising Christian children that they can’t withstand reading a Harry Potter novel, then we’ve done a poor job, indeed!
La Shawn, dont worry about those typos, I dont think God cares. Maybe you should deliberately
put one in the next 10 posts to see if you can get over it.
Ok, here is the deal. One of my pet peeves is all these people advocating drug legalization. Its not just left wing kooks doing it anymore. Joseph Farah of Worldnetdaily,someone I otherwise respect, has come out for drug legalization. There are a host of others. Those with a libertarian bent have always been somewhat inclined towards legalization. Its a seductive idea and a lot of people seem confused about it.
The LA times did a commentary by the former police chief of Seattle last week who has come out in favor of it.Just the fact that the Times is promoting it should give you pause to think. Now, I did 14 years of some pretty painful field research on the subject, and I know what Im talking about.So check out the recent article on my site about it.
http://www.christianrecovery.blogspot.com
Its not my best article but its good.
Frank & Heliotrope,
In the post I tracked back to this thread with, I talk about Schumer a bit. This is repeated in the post, but it’s worth mentioning here:
The only thing surprising about Chuck Schumer’s comments yesterday, in which he exploited the death of Rosa Parks to advance his liberal talking points, was that he did not deliver them while literally standing atop her casket in the Capitol Rotunda.
The man knows no shame, and I agree with Heliotrope: give him a mic 24/7. Anyone who is as incapable as he is when it comes to knowing when to shut up is an asset to OUR side.
La Shawn:
Sorry, my correction may have come off as a little harsh. It’s just that I know you well enough from e-mail and reading your blog to know a mispelling in an article would bother you. Lord knows I have enough typos of my own – I spell well, but can’t type worth a flip. I should have let you know about it in an e-mail, not a comment, though – my apologies – I sincerely meant to help, not criticize, hence working in a weak joke in the process…
Alex
You stated that “anyone who is as incapable as he is when it comes to knowing when to shut up is an asset to OUR side.”
What is our side? Who is “our?” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect, you are referring to conservatives. But what does conservative really mean? What or who is a conservative? For that matter, what or who is a liberal? And, what or who is a moderate?
Antonio, thoughtful question. I need to run out for a bit, but I promise to give you my views on that later tonight.
Frank, Heliotrope and Alex, Senator Schumer used to have a perpetually nasty tone in his voice. I notice that it’s gotten better–or at least lower as though he’s on Prozac or something–but at least not as creepy as Daschel’s voice got towards the end of his term. Did you notice the slip when he talked about justices making law?
I just want to say that I’m disappointed that Harriet Miers never got to go through the hearings. She might have held her own. And, there’s no guarantees with Alito. He could be another David Souter, in that once these people get on the Court, they shift to the left. What proof do we have that won’t happen with Alito? Miers, admittedly-an oddball choice, but even so, may have been the one candidate who wouldn’t shift. Ship has sailed, ok— whatever.
With respect to Plamegate: Valerie’s biggest problem seems to be her husband’s inability to keep his mouth shut. In the military, they do not have freedom of speech. And, I believe the CIA is the same. That may also extend to classified CIA employees’ spouses. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion: The minute Joe Wilson spoke out….on issues his wife was directly involved with, (WMDs) …he, and he alone (the husband) was the one who breached, and waived her right to cover.
Their spousal relationship made them both inappropriate for Government. Joe Wilson needs to stop blaming everyone else. He’s turning into another Cindy Sheehan.
Antonio,
I see it breaking down like this: there are two sides: Right and Left.People subscribe to one of those two schools of thought.
On the right, you have, for the most part, a group consisting of conservatives, libertarians, and folks who otherwise classify themselves as “Republicans.” Politically, the GOP is the primary beneficiary when these people go to the ballot box.
In general terms, I see the Right as people who support limited government, business and entrepreneurship, strong national security, the sanctity of life, and the rule of law. Sometimes, these things step on each other (i.e government expansion in the name of national security). It’s not perfect, but it is, to me, the clear-cut winner over the alternative: the Left.
The Left is, for the most part, made up of people who call themselves liberals and progressives. In the current political climate, liberal = progressive = Democrat. They favor extensive government intrusion in our lives through legislation, taxation, and judicial activism. As mainstream America has turned its back on those who support left wing ideology, the people who make up the left have become continually more extreme as they try to compensate for their losses. This further alienates the mainstream/Right, and the cycle continues.
I don’t think that there are any real moderates.
“Moderate” is a term that is used by the left ,particularly those in the media, to damage public perception of the right. Think about it: by tagging someone as being a “moderate republican,” you automatically insinuate that the other Republicans are less than moderate, which can be taken to mean anything from “unreasonable” to “extreme.”
IMHO, people who claim to be moderates are the political equivalent of New Yorkers who claim to like both the Yankees and the Mets. I think it’s phony. Deep down we all know what side we’re on.
No one wants to be caught in the middle.
My two cents. Fire away!
Alex,
I do not consider myself left, right or moderate. I am a Centrist. I believe there are no “right” sides, just differing philosophies and points of view none of which have the perfect or “right” answer. However, I do believe that all the differing philosophies and points of view can provide options and ideas that can be brought together to provide the best answer to a particular problem.
I think it’s called collaboration. Too bad Congress doesn’t know about that word.
Heather,
Thank you for reminding me that not everyone has grown as cynical as I have when it comes to the ideological divide.
Unfortunately, many politicians lack your “glass-half-full” outlook and your mature approach to problem solving.
The idea that there are no moderates is what Rush Limbaugh says. Of course there are moderates! People basically want a job and to have a decent, peaceful life, and they’ll vote for whoever will sustain it. The ideologues are in the minority, and that’s the fight that we see.
Alex,
I appreciated your comments. I, however, have yet to find anyone to fit neatly within any of those labels. For example, there are conservatives who oppose abortion, but who in the same instance support the death penalty. If people were staunchly conservative and protectors of the right to life, then certainly they would protect everyone’s right to law. Liberals also suffer from the same contradictions.
With respect to the size of government, the same duplicity exists. Conservatives say they are in favor of limited government. Liberals are said to be in favor of expansive government. I am reminded of a saying about lawyers: Everyone abhor lawyers until they need one. I think the same is true with respect to the size of government. Conservative are in favor of limited government until they want government to pay for a road or bridge in their district. Liberals want expansion government until government interferes with their life style choices. My point is that no one really fits a label. Agreeing with one policy or one position does not make someone a conservative or liberal.
I really wish people would avoid labels. Too often, we use labels to vilify or demean each other. While the country is great, it can always be better. And the only way that will happen is if we engage in honest, open, and independent dialogue about the issues we face. If we can do so, we will find that most of us are more alike than we are different.
Antonio,
Here! Here!
Ted Wegener wrote: “One of my pet peeves is all these people advocating drug legalization.”
Ted, I see that you were a drug addict for years. I’m glad you are recovering, and I understand that drugs were a problem for you, but I note that you were able to get them when they were illegal. Please don’t restrict drugs from us because you weren’t able to handle them. Some of us can drink or smoke or pop without becoming junkies.
Aside from unduly restricting the freedoms of us who would like to use drugs, the current drug regime has heavy costs and side effects. Half of our prison population (roughly) is there for drug related crime. One supposes that at least some of those wouldn’t be criminals if drugs weren’t illegal. Our attempts at drug prohibition also cost lots of money for enforcement that could be spent elsewhere, and warps our foreign policy in several parts of the world.
Drug abuse is a problem, and a serious one for those affected, but it is and should be treated like a medical problem. Prohibition doesn’t help this, and in fact makes it harder.
Finally, there is an argument that by legalizing drugs the government would somehow signal that drugs are “ok”. I don’t see how anyone who was once a child can buy that. When I was young, drug prohibition didn’t make me reject drugs, it made me disrespect my government. Even then I could see that they were lying in the service of prohibition. It was years before I regained what respect I have for our political leaders. The government isn’t the source of what is good and what is bad; at best, they sometimes reflect good and bad in the laws they pass.
Comments on this entry are closed.