The MonT-SteR REPORT

Bible tweets?

2009-04-30T22:14:00.014-04:00

David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.

This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.

For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.

A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:

If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
It's certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not...
Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster's going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God's prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don't know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”

Schuster had more to say, which I will address in another post (it's getting late). But the overarching point here is that the cherry picking Schuster is declaiming against actually isn't cherry picking at all. It's a very reasonable bow to the difference between 21st century America and ancient Israel. Even so, a little detective work reveals that these prohibitions Schuster et al find so silly and superfluous actually have both warrant and wisdom behind them. In any case, the occasional nature of these Levitical proscriptions does not give us license to dismiss or ignore the God-given, trans-cultural absolutes they depend on.

I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Tilapia Po'Boy recipe

2009-04-22T19:32:00.004-04:00

So, my wife buys these breaded tilapia filets from Sam's Club. Usually, she bakes them in the oven until they're crispy on the outside, and I enjoy them with thorough doses of vinegar (I'm not really a seafood person).

Well, she had somewhere to go this evening, and graciously cooked up some of these tilapia filets for me to eat while she's out. This time around, however, the ol' take-it-with-vinegar routine just didn't seem appetizing. So, in the fine Monti tradition of improvisational gastronomy, I experimented with what we had on hand in the kitchen.

The result was (IMHO) delicious, and a welcome change of pace. If you're trying to get more fish in your diet and in a rut, try this for a quick and tasty meal.

Tilapia Po'Boy

Ingredients

1 breaded tilapia filet, baked until exterior is golden brown and crispy
3 slices of onion, coarsely chopped
1/2 long hot chili pepper, coarsely chopped
1 roma tomato, chopped
1-2 t. soy sauce
1 T lemon juice
1/2 t. Tabasco sauce
1 T olive oil
1 small pat of butter
Shredded Monterrey Jack or sharp white cheddar cheese
Salt
Pepper
Crushed red pepper
1 Small Italian sandwich or hoagie roll, or (better yet) some ciabatta bread or about 4"-6" of a Louisiana baguette (whatever you use, be sure to toast it)

Directions

Heat the olive oil and butter in a non-stick skillet.
Over medium heat, add the onion and long hot chili pepper. Stir to make sure the oil/butter covers everything.
Sautee until the onion becomes translucent.
Add soy sauce, Tabasco, and lemon juice. Add salt, pepper, and crushed red pepper to taste. Stir.
When this mixture has sauteed for just a moment more, fold in the tomato. Stir thoroughly. Continue to sautee until the tomato wilts a bit, then remove from heat.
Take your toasted roll/bread, and spread a little mayonnaise on the inside. Place the baked tilapia filet on the bread, and spoon the sauteed vegetable mixture on top. Sprinkle just enough shredded cheese to give it a bit of a tang, and enjoy.

YUM! I never enjoyed a fish sandwich this much. Some suggested variations:

Put a little Cajun seasoning (like Tony Chachere's or Slap Ya' Mama!) in the mayo, or substitute it for the salt and pepper in the sauteed veggie mix.
Flatbread or a tortilla could make this a tasty wrap.
If you want a healthier cheese option, feta might be a good choice.

Give it a try and let me know what you think!

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Voiceover recording FAIL!

2009-04-19T02:06:00.005-04:00

While recording voiceovers for a training video at work this week, I got real frustrated. I use something akin to a Porta-Booth to do recording. While it does a good job approximating the quality of a full-blown soundbooth, it makes reading copy and controlling the computer a tad difficult sometimes. I just couldn't get situated, and so goof-ups were frequent and hard to recover from.

Witness the EPIC MonT-SteR Consternation&trade!

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

A free Macbook Pro?

2009-04-09T23:45:00.006-04:00

UPDATE (5/1/2009):
I received credit for completing my offer -- my ShamWow! towels arrived yesterday (happy happy, joy joy), and my offer was marked as complete by Notebooks4Free last evening. Now I just have to figure out how to get referrals.

Call me crazy, but Macinlust can drive one to do crazy things from time to time.

You've probably seen these sites where they offer goodies that appeal to anyone with a bit of a gadget bug. Complete an array of offers, and you'll get the techno-carrot they dangle in front of your face to entice you—anything from iPods to PSPs to, well, Macbook Pros.

The problem with many of these sites is that they want you to complete the most ridiculous offers to get the goodie. No, I'm NOT going to apply for a mortgage and buy a European vacation package just to get a LAPTOP, for Pete's sake. My gadget greed isn't THAT out of control, thank you very much.

I recently encountered a site that asks one to complete a modest offer (like a trial at Netflix or a sample pack of gourmet coffee) and refer 24 people who also complete offers to get the goodie. That seems doable to me. So, I took the plunge.

In my case, I had to order some ShamWoW! towels, which is fine; I've been wanting to try them anyway. But now comes the work of referring 24 people who are willing to complete offers like I did.

So, if you're interested in getting a Macbook Pro on the über-cheap, pay Notebooks4Free.com a visit. From what I've seen, this is actually a reputable company that's not out to scam you (go here for a positive and seemingly credible review).

I'll keep you posted on how my application for the Macbook progresses.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

P.S. The MonT-SteR Reduction has been going badly. I really fell off the horse after my business trip. A day off for Good Friday tomorrow will give me the chance to go to the gym for an extended period of time, thus breaking the pattern of not getting to the gym for an extended period of time. Pray for me! This whole weight-loss, fitness thing HAS to happen.

Photoshop World and The Biggest Loser, Blog Edition

2009-03-25T23:19:00.002-04:00

Greetings from Beantown. I'm here in Boston for the Photoshop (PS) World conference, learning all sorts of yummy new things about every designer's favorite killer workhorse application.

I consider myself an intermediate to almost-advanced PS user, and it was gratifying to find that a good number of things presented today were review for me. But I got to see lots of nooks and crannies in PS CS4 that I was unaware of. The neat thing about PS nooks and crannies is that they can have a very meaningful impact on your workflow. For example:

If you have PS CS4, check out the Content Aware Scaling. In essence, if you have an image that you need to scale in a non-proportional way, you can protect the important content of the photo so it doesn't squish or stretch. Very powerful when you have a photo that is perfect for your project but it doesn't fit the dimensions of the end product.
PS CS4's mask and adjustment panels are awesome time savers, and they give you the ability to apply masks, feathers, and adjustments to an image in non-destructive fashion. Very cool.

I could go on, but I don't want to bore my few readers. In any case, I'm learning lots, and having a very good time here at the conference. I'm eager to get back and put these little tidbits into practice.

In other news, your One and Only Favorite Friendly Neighborhood MonT-SteR™ is, well, fat. Portly. Obese. Rotund. Corpulent. Some of you who actually see me on a regular basis will doubtless be completely UNsurprised at this revelation. But it's true. Call me Moby Dick (Ishmael was thin, I'll wager).

And so, The MonT-SteR must reduce. Lots. Like, the "over 100 lbs." kind of "lots." To be specific, I need to lose at least 140 lbs.

This seems kind of daunting, but I done this before. I lost nearly 100 lbs. years ago, and over time (especially after the birth of my first son) I gained the weight back, and then some (and how!). And corresponding medical complications are forcing my hand. I'll not be done in by hypertension and declining cholesterol.

So, as a therapeutic measure, and to help with motivation, I've decided to use my blog to chronicle my progress. Think of it as The Biggest Loser for the blogosphere.

Not sure what shape this will take, or how I'll publish my results. But I think it will be helpful to know that readers and other netizens can come along for the journey. I'm sure there will be days when I'll need encouraging words from folks out there!

In an effort to continue my recent trend of getting to the gym, I'll be heading to the fitness center here in the hotel before breakfast and class.

So, off to bed with me!

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Rapid-fire political potpourri

2009-02-11T22:27:00.008-05:00

Infuriating

As many of you know, that poisonous train wreck of a stimulus bill passed, and it wouldn't have happened without Senator Arlen Specter's continued perfidy. I'm not a Pennsylvania resident, but my grandparents are. They are part of the "greatest generation," and my granddad served honorably during World War II. So you can imagine my shock when I found out that the stimulus bill contains measures that ration health care to senior citizens using Medicare based on a cold, unfeeling equation.

That's right, folks. The stimulus bill sets up a new bureaucracy that determines which of our seniors get health care and which ones don't.

You need bypass surgery? Hmm, let's see here. According to actuarial tables, given your medical history and hereditary risk factors, you only have another 2 years of average life expectancy. Let me plug your numbers into our formula here, and... Ooh, sorry! You might beat the actuarial table, but we can't risk it. Giving that bypass to someone a bit younger is a better use of health care dollars. Well, better get your house in order. Next!

Doesn't sound very nice, does it? I appealed to Senator Specter not to support the bill for this and many other reasons. Millions of other citizens like me did the same. He voted for it anyway. And folks, I'm not just ticked. I'm fire-breathing, nail-spitting mad.

So I sent the good senator a note, letting him know exactly how I feel:

Dear Senator Specter:

You have betrayed your country by supporting a bill that puts generations to come into hock. Moreover, you have voted for legislation that will wreck our economy and ration health care to citizens like my grandparents -- Pennsylvania residents who are part of the "greatest generation" that saw our nation through the perils of World War II and the Cold War.

They deserve better. We all deserve better.

Therefore, be assured that I, as a United States citizen, will devote all the time and treasure I can muster to oppose you when you are next up for re-election, in hopes that someone more worthy of your office will be duly elected in your place.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Monti
Virginia Beach, VA

I'm serious about this. Senator Specter has to go. I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure he loses the next Republican primary. Stay tuned...

Embarrassing

Sigh...

I can only conclude from this that a significant portion of Obama's supporters believe that they have elected a personal Santa Claus.

Julio, if you don't like the pay and benefits at MacDonald's, then FIND ANOTHER JOB. Don't blame others for the fact that the Mickey D's health care plan ain't all that. What in heaven's name do you expect? It's MACDONALD's! If you can't find another job, then it's YOUR responsibility to do what you can to enhance your resume, acquire better skills, and find a better situation. YOU take initiative. Don't lower yourself by begging the President to make MacDonald's give you the moon just because YOU think they should.

Sheesh.

Perplexing

The "I Love You, Barack" lady has been making the rounds on the `net:

Don't get me wrong here -- my heart goes out to Henrietta Hughes. Once again, however, someone has an opportunity to sit in President Santa Claus's lap and present a wish list. Is this really appropriate? I'm all for approachability in public officials, but I feel like there's some sort of impropriety in the way she and good ol' Julio address the President.

The onlooker behind her could barely contain herself. Her bottom lip was quivering. You could see that her respiratory rate had increased. Folks, I'm flummoxed by this.

Mrs. MonT-SteR reminded me that I have the benefit of being grounded in Christ, of having hope in God, of knowing that I'm cared for by His hand. Not everybody has that. And so they will glom onto whatever seems to offer it in their estimation.

It's wrongheaded, but a lot of people are focusing affection that ought to be reserved for God Himself on President Obama. He's a man, and like any man he's bound to disappoint at some juncture. But it's a good reminder that the hope we have in Christ needs to be shared as widely and liberally as possible.

Frightening

This article needs no comment. We really do hang by a thread. Man, in his pride, has lost control of everything. I continue to assert that this country will disintegrate in short order apart from another Great Awakening that impacts every state in the union.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Politics of the Emerging Church

2009-01-21T23:18:00.005-05:00

Dave Brody over at the Brody File cited a recent Newsweek article covering the gains Democrats have made amongst young evangelicals, who voted for Obama in surprising numbers.

Interestingly, CBN News is re-airing a story on the emerging church (go here for a primer if you don't know what that means) detailing how the movement is generating both buzz and controversy -- the latter within older or more traditional evangelical circles.

With its emphasis on community, relationships, ministry to the poor, and adopting a welcoming posture toward people who typically wouldn't darken a traditional church's door, the emerging church has a lot going for it. But if the concentration of young evangelicals who support biblically suspect candidates and policies exists within the emerging church (as I suspect it does), evangelicalism may have a bit of a problem on its hands.

In response to Brody's article, I sent him an e-mail outlining my concerns in summary fashion. Take a read and let me know what you think:

I was born in 1972, so I am a Gen X-er. I am also what official demographers would label an "evangelical," but my age puts me between the more traditional evangelicals and the younger ones you refer to in your article. Nevertheless, I readily admit that I'm concerned by the willingness of younger evangelicals to throw in with the likes of Obama.

For my own part, I voted against Obama for a constellation of reasons, but my pro-life commitment was at or near the top of the list. As a Christian, I simply cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate in good conscience; quite frankly, I don't see how any other Christian, whether young or old, could do the same under any circumstances.

To an extent, I share the concern younger evangelicals have for addressing a broader array of issues, including environmentalism and socio-economic justice. Surely, such concerns have biblical warrant -- and when pressed with solid scriptural evidence to that effect, I imagine most older evangelicals would be forced to agree. I think the locus of the division between evangelicals of younger and older stripes centers on how we address these biblical concerns in actual practice.

This is where certain sectors of evangelicalism have gone badly awry in more recent days (e.g., the alliance of Rick Warren, Jack Hayford, et al with climate change alarmists). For example, I have always felt that if anybody is going to be an environmentalist, it ought to be a Christian. But Christian environmentalism would necessarily look different than the colloquial environmentalism typically espoused by closet Marxists and pantheists who proceed from decidedly unbiblical, anti-Christian worldviews. Conversely, Christian environmentalism would speedily lose both its meaning and its impact if believers merely link arms with existing movements in an attempt to be relevant or to demonstrate that the American Church is politically sensitive beyond traditional hotbutton issues.

Certainly, Christians need to be willing to address the breadth of ills that plague our culture. Let's just be sure that we do it in a way that comports with the Living Truth we steward. Otherwise, we will fall short of being salt and light -- good intentions notwithstanding.

On that note, I think younger evangelicals who heartily supported Obama need to ponder the following questions: Do you think it pleases or displeases God that you voted for a presidential candidate who believes the wanton destruction of countless unborn children is legally protected behavior? And, given that we serve the Lord of Life who calls us to defend those unjustly sentenced to death, what other social justice issues are deserving of higher consideration when you cast your vote?

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Best YouTube clip EVER

2009-01-16T03:04:00.003-05:00

Well, some of you may quibble, but I challenge you to watch this without laughing at least a little bit. For my own part, I laughed so hard I very nearly passed out. My stomach still hurts...

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

P.S. Okay, I admit it. I'm easily entertained. You can stop making fun of me now. There are benefits to getting a good hearty guffaw out of silly little things, you know...

Robert + mic = fun (for a while, anyway)

2009-01-09T22:43:00.001-05:00

I hooked up my shiny new Samson C03U USB microphone last night to test it out, and my son decided to get in on the act. The result was some considerable cuteness, at least until it went south at the end (it was way past his bedtime).

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

The tide turns

2008-12-28T15:13:00.003-05:00

Uh-huh.

A year ago, I wouldn't have thought this possible. But lately, I've had a sense that the global warming hysteria juggernaut is losing steam. Big time.

Between this year's record, world-wide low temperatures and snowfall and recent data showing that a year of global cooling has practically eradicated more than a century of warming, it seems that Al Gore and his Chicken Little brigade are having a hard time blaming humanity's collective carbon footprint for any and every calamitous or anomalous weather phenomenon.

Check out this story in the Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.

It's about dadburned time.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Browser testing services: caveat emptor

2008-12-13T12:48:00.003-05:00

It's time for some MonT-SteR Consternation™.

One of the maddening things about building Web pages is cross-browser compatibility. Most modern browsers are standards-based, which means that solid CSS designs will display consistently whether you're using Firefox, IE7, Safari, Opera, etc.

The fly in the ointment is IE6, which is regularly cursed by beleaguered Web designers the world over by virtue of its plethora of CSS rendering bugs.

"IE6 is old, Rob," you say. "Just stop supporting it. People need to upgrade."

Au contraire, mon frère (ou mon soeur, s'il vous plaît). People do need to upgrade, but somewhere around a third of all Internet users continue to use IE6 for a multitude of reasons. I'm sure there are plenty of individual users who don't upgrade because they don't know how, or IE6 feels like home, or they heard someone badmouth IE7 because of its updated UI, or they don't know about Firefox, ad infinitum. But it's not just home users. There are plenty of corporations with beefy IT departments out there refusing to upgrade as well.

Until usage statistics for IE6 drop to infinitesimal levels, it stubbornly remains a thorn in the flesh. And beleaguered Web designers who use the Mac tend to curse IE6 even more, because Microsoft stopped building IE for the Mac at version 5.2. How do we test our designs?

Enter Browsershots.org and CrossBrowserTesting.com, which provide free (and paid) online browser testing without the hassle of finagling your system to run IE6 alongside other modern browsers. The former will give you a screenshot of your web design displayed in the browser of your choice. Helpful, but slow -- even if you pay the $15 for a month of priority testing. On the other hand, CrossBrowserTesting.com provides what amounts to a remote desktop session in your browser window using your requested computer/browser configuration. And it offers more flexibility for paid users with subscription and pay-as-you-go models.

Sounds good, right? Yes, but with one significant caveat (and here's where the "emptor" comes in).

I was excited about CrossBrowserTesting.com until I noticed that my credits were disappearing way too fast for how much I was using the service. It turns out that partially used credits are not carried over from one remote session to the next. For me, the net result was that I lost almost a third of the 30 credits I purchased. When I discovered this, my slack-jawed disbelief turned to anger. And I vowed to warn others.

Consider yourself warned. If you go with the pay-as-you-go service, you will lose credits unless you use all of them in a single remote session. It doesn't matter how unused a partial credit is; whether 20% or 99%, that credit goes bye-bye forever when you end your remote session. And so does your money. Granted, credits cost about 20 cents each or less, but it can add up -- especially if you go whole hog and opt for 500 credits at $200. Imagine losing a third of that, and you'll see red as well.

To be fair, CrossBrowserTesting.com does state that partially used credits do not carry over. My surprise at this after the fact was my fault -- chalk it up to failing to read the fine print. And there is a monthly subscription option with a flat fee of $29.95 for the first month and $19.95 each month thereafter for unlimited priority testing (FYI: these rates will soon be raised by $10 a month). Obviously, that would solve the disappearing credits issue.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that when I complained bitterly to CrossBrowserTesting.com about losing almost an hour of testing time, they gave me complimentary credits to cover the loss. But they were also unapologetic about their pricing structure, stating that it's a common practice in the industry.

Funny, but that everybody-else-does-it argument never worked on my mom.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

On salt and light

2008-11-12T01:02:00.005-05:00

Our small group spent two weeks studying the passages in all three of the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus refers to His followers as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" (see Matthew 5:1-16, Mark 9:33-50, and Luke 14:25-35).

We found that our working definition of what it is to be salt and light tends to be woefully shallow and one-dimensional.

I attempted to synthesize the issues raised by all three passages into a summary statement. While this is definitely more expansive than the typical definition you'll get from your average Joe Christian, it isn't by any means exhaustive.

Give it a read -- and let me know what you think:

Being salt and light in the world is an all-encompassing way of life that is divinely sanctioned, from top to bottom. It recognizes the unvarnished truth of our station before God, as well as our relationship to one another (within the community of faith) and to the wider world.

Before God, we are spiritually impoverished and in desperate need of His cleansing touch. In response, we pursue God and His righteousness by mourning our sins and dealing ruthlessly with our sinful tendencies -- for God will not brook split allegiances.

Before one another, we adopt a posture of openheartedness -- an eagerness to freely and peaceably receive, serve, and minister to one another in Christ's name, and a recognition that worldly hierarchicalism in all its forms is a prideful and bitter poison that has no place amongst Jesus' followers.

Before the world, we walk not in the brash, self-righteous flamboyance of the pointed finger or the upturned nose, but with mercy, with the kind of winsome, gentle, fervent devotion to God that speaks far better than mere words can. And when the world rejects or seeks to hurt us for this, we humbly entrust ourselves to God, being counted among those of whom the world was not worthy.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

6 reasons why I'm voting against Obama

2008-11-03T23:14:00.005-05:00

For the passing of his grandmother, he has my sincere condolences. But he's still bad for our country. I know this will offend some people -- nothing has the power to alienate like a discussion about politics. Please know that I am not attempting to be deliberately offensive. I'm simply sharing my mind and heart, in the hope of persuading some wayward, last-minute undecideds who stumble across my blog.

Check back here tomorrow night for my traditional Election Day coverage. Come what may, we'll have some fun with it.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Enough is enough

2008-10-09T22:48:00.009-04:00

Time to man up, mainstream media (MSM).

There are some pointed questions I have not heard asked of Sen. Obama vis-a-vis Bill Ayers. Charlie Gibson had an opportunity to ask them, but elected not to. Instead, he unquestioningly swallowed Obama's flimsy line about how Bill Ayers is "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when [Obama] was just eight years old."

Both Barack and Michelle Obama have stated that Ayers is simply a well-known education policy wonk in the Chicago area. Mrs. Obama said yesterday on Larry King that there isn't anyone heavily into education policy in the Chicago area "who doesn't know Bill Ayers." It's an obvious attempt to downplay Sen. Obama's ties to Ayers by asserting that, in Chicago politics, associating with Ayers is almost unavoidable -- and no big deal.

What Sen. Obama and his wife conveniently omit is that, to this very day, Ayers is utterly unrepentant about having committed (or been party to) violent terrorist acts against the United States. It's a matter of public record. And I have not heard Sen. Obama directly repudiate Ayers for that (not just the "detestable acts" committed 40 years ago) in any way, shape, or form.

Not. One. Single. Time.

He is content, rather, to immediately point fingers at McCain's campaign for engaging in "the politics of personal destruction" by having the unmitigated gall to bring Ayers up at all. And the MSM happily indulges this narrative, which is nothing short of a national disgrace.

The truth, Senator, is that while Ayers is not currently one of your campaign consultants, your association with the man has been more than casual or incidental to your political career. You may have been eight years old when Ayers attempted to kill innocent people, but you have chosen to freely associate with him during your adult years in multiple contexts.

Here are the questions I want Obama to be asked:

At what point in your adult life, Senator, did you become aware of Ayers' history?
How did this knowledge affect your relationship with Ayers (whatever its nature)?
If you knowingly associated yourself with this man after learning that he was an unapologetic domestic terrorist, does that disqualify you from being President of the United States?
Does it bother you that Ayers has publicly stated that he has absolutely no remorse over having tried to take innocent lives?
Are you prepared now to publicly denounce not only the "detestable acts" he committed 40 years ago, but also the cavalier, hard-hearted attitude he currently has about having plotted and/or carried out multiple acts of attempted murder and wanton destruction?
Given Ayers' deeds and rhetoric, Senator, it would not be unreasonable to label him a Marxist revolutionary in the mold of Lenin. Why do you suppose he elected to 1) personally host a gathering that launched your first run for the Illinois State Senate in 1995, and 2) contribute to your 2001 reelection campaign?

Quickie debate reaction

2008-10-02T23:34:00.004-04:00

I have so many things I want to talk about, but there's no time this evening. I'll have to limit myself to top-level reactions to the VP debate tonight:

Positives for Biden. The good senator from DE left the angry, pompous so-and-so persona at home tonight. Since I was a teenager, I've found Biden to be insufferable. Tonight, he was likable, even gentle. Of course, he had to be. His usual bombast and bluster would have ruined him. He was also articulate, and played the elder statesman role well. He was disingenuous as heck, but he looked and sounded good.
Positives for Palin. She also performed well, and obviously did her homework. She didn't flinch, or look as though she was cowed by the stage or the person at the other podium. And she looked into the camera, as Obama did in the first presidential debate. I think she's a good communicator with the ability to connect with the common man (or woman). Roger Ebert snobbishly labeled her a "provincial," but that's actually part of her strength. Ebert and his ilk equate provincial with stupid or uninitiated. For my own part, I'm sick of ensconced Washington elites who have educated themselves into imbecility (to coin a phrase from Malcom Muggeridge) and are experts only at mucking everything up. I think it's high time some more "provincials" with common sense and flyover-country values had a chance at running Washington. But I digress...
Negatives for Biden. Not too much I can say here, because it would require elaboration I don't have time for. For me, the negatives had to do with the substance of his assertions. For example, equating McCain's vote against a troop funding bill that had a withdrawal time-table attached to it with Obama's vehement anti-war stance was laughable. Which brings me to...
Negatives for Palin. Palin's robotic adherence to the lines she's been fed by her handlers was frustrating. Note to McCain's advisors: For God's sake, just let this woman be the unapologetic conservative she is, will ya? Biden handed her so much red meat to pounce on, and she hardly bit on any of it. As a result, he got in a lot of free punches that she could/should have knocked out of the park. Grr...

Overall, I think the debate was largely a draw, but that plays in Obama/Biden's favor. The McCain camp has a lot of work to do. Can they pull it out? I have my concerns at this juncture.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Making lemonade out of a lemon

2008-10-01T23:33:00.003-04:00

The lemon, in this case, is my 24" iMac's hard drive. I officially pronounced it dead today.

So, the new one is on its way. Once it gets here, a couple of Mac nerds at work are going to help me perform hard-drive transplant surgery on my poor 'puter. My sister had the unmitigated temerity to suggest that I just bag it and buy a PC. The only problem with that is that I would have to use the PC. What do you think I am, a glutton for punishment?

"But Rob, but Rob," my handful of readers exclaim, "isn't your iMac causing you aggravation already? What's the diff?"

The "diff," as you so eloquently put it, is that PCs are contemptible gutter trash. How's that grab ya!

Honestly, though, I'm blogging right now on my Frankenmac, which is a blue and white G3 with all kinds of funky, extraneous upgrades in it. A little slow, yes, but it's reliable as anything, in spite of the fact that it's nearly a decade old. I've owned a number of Macs over the years, and they've generally been durable and dependable. This iMac is one of two exceptions. The other was a venerable Performa 6200 that is still operational to this day. In each case, the hard drive died prematurely -- obviously a lemon. In the case of the Performa, the machine was still under warranty when it croaked, so the repair was free. The iMac, unfortunately, is not.

Even more unfortunate is the treatment I've received from local repair shops. The Apple store in Norfolk won't let me buy a hard drive on my own; they will only do the repair if I pay through the nose for Apple parts. Thanks, but no thanks -- my money doesn't grow on trees, you know. There's another Apple authorized dealer in town called the Mac Specialist that could probably fix it, but the gentleman I spoke with on the phone today was just insufferably rude and condescending. Plus, they wanted to charge me a ridiculous sum for a SCSI cable several years ago. I just can't bring myself to do business with them.

So, I'll make lemonade out of this lemon by making the repair myself. In the meantime, here I am, kvetching and rambling to nobody in particular about my iMac while the economy is in turmoil and the world teeters on the brink of mass conflict and upheaval. That's perspective for ya!

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Live debate coverage

2008-09-26T21:00:00.002-04:00

Go to my brand spankin' new Twitter page: www.twitter.com/themontster.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

2008-09-25T23:09:00.003-04:00

Some thoughts on recent events in rapid-fire succession:

McCain's campaign suspension. Unorthodox, bold, smart. McCain's certainly a risk taker -- even though I've found his politics odious at times, I also find it refreshing that he's willing to think and act outside the overly scripted, focus-grouped, poll-driven box that is modern American politics. Doubtless McCain's camp brooded over the political calculus of temporarily dropping his campaign, but I think it says something meaningful and positive about McCain that he was willing to do it in the first place. Plus, he's once again put Obama on defense; all he could do was react. And I don't think his reaction has been terribly smart so far. If Obama appears at tomorrow's debate alone, he will look like an ostentatious stage hound fiddling while Rome burns. I think it really does have the potential to be the death knell of his campaign.
The mortgage bailout. I have to admit that I don't fully understand the crisis. But my reaction has been along these lines:
- Where do these governmental incursions into the market end? What happens if the U.S. automobile industry starts to tank? Or the airlines? Do we have to bail them out too? Where does it end? We're on a slippery slope of socialism here, and one need only look to the historical example of the former USSR to see how well that works.
- Besides, as a taxpayer, I don't want to be on the hook for business failures I have no control over. Nor do I want to be on the hook for the unrepentant malfeasance of politicians, bureaucrats, and Wall Street fat cats.
- Speaking of bureaucracy, the idea of giving Henry Paulson -- an unelected official -- a blank check for $700 billion to use at his discretion seems like lunacy. Our national debt is already $6 TRILLION. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already put taxpayer dollars on the line because they are GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises) that borrow heavily from foreign investors to do business. I resent the fact that Paulson et al (President Bush included) are out there fear-mongering, telling us that we have no choice but to further compound the taxpayers' outlay or face economic meltdown. Isn't bureaucratic incompetence and corruption partly to blame for this mess in the first place?!? Sorry guys -- the economy may be having problems, but I'm skeptical about the Chicken Little approach. If we need a solution, I'd prefer a thoughtful, non-Marxist one to the put-the-taxpayer-in-a-hammer-lock variety.
Planning to start my interaction with Gary Grieg's defense of Lakeland soon -- stay tuned!
On a lighter note, I really enjoyed LSU's comeback at Auburn on Saturday. Looking forward to seeing them develop over the rest of the season. It's going to be a great ride again this year. Geaux Tigers!

That is all. For now, anyway...

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Puttin' the hurt on daddy

2008-09-23T00:01:00.003-04:00

My little Mark really did a number on me last week with a headbutt to the eye that would have made George "The Animal" Steele proud:

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Wacky Wednesday News Digest #4

2008-09-10T21:51:00.007-04:00

As promised, here's the return of this tMR feature.

Listen as I laugh through stories of burglars who do laundry and use sausages as weapons, as well as a recalcitrant lawn mower that met with a grisly end at the hands of its owner.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Why so serious?

2008-09-09T23:13:00.001-04:00

The MonT-SteR's favorite childhood friend, David, had an amusing response to the "About Me" section of my Facebook profile, which reads as follows:

Howdy. I'm Rob.

I'm a Christian man who loves God, family, and friends. If you ask those who know me, they might tell you I'm a study in contrasts -- simultaneously one of the silliest and most serious people they know.

David wrote the following on my Facebook wall:

You ARE one of the silliest and most serious people I know. You nailed that one. I wonder if you are the only person on Facebook to list both The Office and The Bible as your favorite ways to spend your time. A great example of how polemics and spaghetti go well together with a side of garlic bread. Actually, that sounds delicious.

Quintessential David. I'm still chuckling over it. In any case, to honor the astuteness of David's observations, I'm making a post that focuses on lighter fare. And given that I've been kvetching about politics and the state of American Christendom lately, I think a new edition of the Wacky Wednesday News Digest is in order for tomorrow (take a listen to episodes 1, 2, and 3).

In other news, I have a new favorite salsa. Baja Cafe salsa has been on sale at the local Food Lion for half price, so I picked up some recently just to try it. The verdict?

YUM!

Definitely restaurant quality stuff. It just has that special tang that the salsa at good Mexican restaurants has. My favorite thing about the restaurant salsa is the taste of fresh cilantro that comes with every bite. Baja Cafe approaches that flavor, which is why I love it so.

Check it out! I've found it in the refrigerated section at our store, in the general area of things like cream cheese and all those canned Pillsbury doughs (doesn't the idea of canned dough kinda wig you out?).

Finally, I can't let the night pass without mentioning Barack Obama's horrific gaffe today in Lebanon, VA. In an attempt to cast doubt on the authenticity of the McCain-Palin ticket's change mantra, he said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." This would probably be a non-issue if it weren't for the humorous line in Palin's acceptance speech about lipstick being the sole differentiator between a hockey mom and a pit bull. Whether Obama intended to capitalize on that line for his own zinger or not, the audience almost certainly took it that way -- which had the net effect of making it look like Obama publicly called Palin a pig.

Did he really mean to do that? I want to give him the benefit of the doubt (honestly, though, I have my suspicions). In any case, I do feel a little bad for the guy; if it really was a slip, I have to imagine that he'll be kicking himself for such a poor choice of words. In the meantime, friends, sit back, relax, and enjoy tomorrow's media frenzy.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

More MonT-SteR Consternation

2008-09-06T23:11:00.015-04:00

"Bias? What bias? We don't see any bias."

Since the savaging of Sarah Palin began in the press last Friday, the party line of Obama's media camarilla (the Matthews/Olbermann wing in particular) has been one of blithe -- or feigned -- innocence.

"What is this bias you speak of?"

Some readers of my blog have told me I'm a whiner for complaining about media bias, but I'm so frustrated right now that I don't care. It doesn't upset me that people have opinions that diverge from my own -- I'm not so naive as to expect that everyone is going to agree with me. If you don't, that's fine. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to champion your pet ideology, worldview, or political doctrine. That's what the First Amendment is all about. It's a free country, thank God.

What bothers me is when journalists pretend to be impartial when they are obviously, palpably, unashamedly in the tank for modern political liberalism and all it entails. Either they think they can get away with it because they believe the public is entirely populated with dim-witted dullards and dolts, or they are so extremely self-deluded that they genuinely don't see it.

Most of the media's high inquisitors have united in the snide, boorish, public deprecation of Palin's fitness as a mother while touting her as a lightweight (do you Obama supporters really want to go down this road?). Greta van Susteren, on the other hand, is the only mainstream media personality I've seen who actually took the time to talk to some people who know Palin, have worked alongside her, and personally observed her work as Alaska's governor.

Since the lion's share of the media seems content to cast aspersions, I thought it worthwhile to post the video of Susteren's interviews here:

In other news, I stumbled across a blog run by someone who attended the same conservatory I did for my undergraduate studies; he started there when I was in my second year. This gentleman (I'll henceforth refer to him pseudonymously as "Archie") had harsh words after Sarah Palin's speech on Wednesday:

I knew I wasn't going to like her (with my personal Turn-Ons [sic] being "smart chicks," and my Turn-Offs [sic] being "hockey, bad hair, and people who don't believe global warming has any human cause"), but I was still a little stunned by the sarcastic nastiness of statements like, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer' -- except that you have actual responsibilities." Wow. Dissing Obama for working on antipoverty programs. This chick is a d**k.

Where does a Hungry MonT-SteR start with this? Sorry, Archie, but I gotta politely take issue with you for a moment:

The entire comment is self-stultifying in the extreme. One of its main premises is that Palin should be opposed (or disliked) because of her "sarcastic nastiness." Then Archie proceeds to make fun of her hair, imply that she is stupid, deride her for being a hockey mom, and label her with a crude expletive. Okay, based on his own logic, I hereby dismiss Archie's comments in toto and with prejudice because of his own "sarcastic nastiness." Fair's fair, dude.
Ugh, the climate change canard. I wonder how many devotees of pop global warming theory have paused to consider that climate change is nothing new, that it predates humanity itself, and that the natural forces that cause it (like the sun or volcanic activity) are ancient, more powerful than the collective carbon footprint of mankind, and completely outside the purview of our influence or control. Does climate change exist? Most certainly. But don't accuse me or anyone else of stupidity or ignorance because we doubt that anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact -- especially when recent global temperature data suggests the very opposite.
It's doubtful that Obama's work as a "community organizer" was simply an anti-poverty program. This has been little explored by the press, but Obama's community organizer days were largely in partnership with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) -- a radical national network of local-level activists with a history of engaging in voter fraud, political intimidation, and economically deleterious policies (go here and here for more). These policies include a Marx-inspired attempt to "break the system" by actively flooding the welfare rolls, with a view toward inciting socio-political upheaval and revolution. ACORN markets itself as an anti-poverty organization, but I fail to see how encouraging dependency on the state could ever reverse the fortunes of the impoverished. I'm not appealing to guilt by association here, but it is noteworthy that Obama partnered with this organization and even trained some of its leadership in Chicago. What is clear is that he has a longstanding relationship with ACORN, and that in some measure he is beholden to them politically to this day.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it really was just an anti-poverty program. We might call that laudable, but does it necessarily follow that it amounts to a presidential resumé? Given that Obama's legislative experience consists of voting "present" an inordinate number of times at the state level and has little to commend itself in terms of leadership, reform, or innovation at the federal level (the guy hasn't even finished ONE TERM as a U.S. senator), is it really "sarcastic nastiness" to question his qualifications? Is it "sarcastic nastiness" to humorously juxtapose the experience and responsibilities of an ACORN-style community organizer with those of a city mayor? Keep in mind that it was Obama and his campaign/media surrogates who first denigrated Palin's mayoral experience. I suppose I could be persuaded to grant that the rhetorical force of Palin's one-liner was unkind, but it hardly rises to the level of "sarcastic nastiness." Certainly, its substance has merit.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Quickie update

2008-09-03T23:47:00.001-04:00

Watched:

Sarah Palin and her "warm-up acts." In all, a good round of speeches for the GOP -- good use of humor, but hard-hitting as well. Palin is in a class by herself as the poised, articulate, hockey mom of a Washington outsider. My instinct is that she's going to win over a lot of the swing voters. But will they stay? This is why I'm eager for all the allegations ("trooper gate," and now the Enquirer is alleging an affair) to get cleared up once and for all; I doubt the media will cooperate. Part of me wished that Palin addressed at least some of this stuff in her speech tonight, but I suppose that would be impolitic. She sure can't afford to let the mud-slinging and calumnies go unanswered for too long. One thing McCain doesn't need is baggage heading into Nov.; as happy as I am with Palin, that's the one thing that worries me right now. Hope it all comes out in the wash.

Watching:

Tropical Storm Hannah. They're predicting that it will reach hurricane strength before making landfall, but at this point they don't think it will have enough time to grow into a major hurricane. The projected landfall has been steadily inching north and east for the past several days. Now, it appears that Virginia Beach could get a direct hit by the right-front quadrant of the hurricane very shortly after it makes landfall south of the Outer Banks. We're planning to evacuate if Hannah reaches anything higher than minimum Cat 2 strength. That's about what Isabel was when we weathered that storm in 2003, and I wouldn't want to try to wait out anything worse -- especially now that we have crumb crunchers in the house. :)

More tomorrow...

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Labor Day news digest

2008-09-01T14:39:00.014-04:00

Some things percolating in The MonT-SteR's head:

Thank God that Gustav is weaker than expected and not drowning New Orleans.
Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for President. Politics aside, when you consider that Jim Crow laws were in effect less than a decade before Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ was born (and I'm a thirty-something Gen-Xer), you have to admit that we've come a long way. Obama may not be the best choice for President (in my estimation, he's most certainly not), but it's a good day in America when an African-American has the opportunity to be the best choice in the first place. Congrats to him, and to our entire nation. It really is an important landmark.
Since McCain's "Meet Sarah Palin" rally on Friday, Gov. Palin has come under intense fire from liberal bloggers who alleged that her 4-month-old son, Trig, is not her baby. They went so far as to say that Palin faked her own pregnancy in order to cover up her oldest daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Photos showing a trim looking Gov. Palin (despite being 7 mos. pregnant) and her daughter, Bristol Palin, with a "baby bump" during the same time frame have been cited as "proof" of this conspiratorial thinking.

My first instinct was to dismiss this stuff as the typical bilge that is gleefully spewed by venomous left-wing blogs. It turns out, however, that at least one element of the story is true: Bristol Palin is pregnant out of wedlock. According to a statement released by the Palins today to quell the rumors, Bristol has opted to keep the baby and marry the father.

Some leftists online are breathlessly touting this as the archetypal failure of conservative parenting and abstinence-only education -- an unwarranted logical leap that is borne of ideological allegiance rather than evidence. This can happen to the best of parents, and it's ridiculous to suggest that only conservative parents would be distressed by such a development.

Others are drooling over the prospect that this essentially kills McCain's chances in November. Admittedly, it is an interesting question. How is this going to play with values voters who were energized by Palin's addition to the McCain ticket? Michelle Maulkin over at Hot Air has echoed a thought I had. The Palin family's handling of this situation is a stark contrast to Obama's rhetoric, which views babies born to teenage mothers as unnecessary "punishment" that abortion conveniently remedies. That should be encouraging to pro-lifers -- it demonstrates that the Palin family shares and holds to pro-life values, even under gut-wrenching circumstances.

How does The MonT-SteR feel about all this? Not entirely sure. I can sympathize with the Palins, and recognize that children have the freedom to make choices that fly in the face of loving, consistent parenting. Part of me wishes they had been up front about it, but what family out there wouldn't want to keep something like this as quiet and private as possible? Even so, it appears that the pregnancy was no secret back in Alaska. According to a Time article, residents of Sarah Palin's hometown, Wasilla, were aware of the whole thing and yet unruffled by it:
If you haven't guessed yet, the people here [in Wasilla] are genuinely friendly. Even those in Palin's inner sanctum who have been told since Friday not to talk to reporters by McCain's media team, are almost apologetic that they can't be neighborly and chat, since you came all this way to little Wasilla. And those who can talk, do. All weekend they had the decency not to pretend that they didn't know the governor's eldest daughter was pregnant. But they also expected decency in return, that I wouldn't be the kind of person to make sport out of a young girl's slip.
This indicates that there was no attempt at some dastardly cover-up by the Palins. It also means that the so-called Kossacks over at Daily Kos who started this flap should be ashamed of themselves for 1) jumping to unfounded conclusions based on their own judgmental hearts and wishful thinking, and 2) rudely delving into intensely sensitive and private family matters in order to score ill-gotten political points.

As for me, I'm inclined to like Sarah Palin. I don't think this episode disqualifies her from being the veep candidate at all. But, I continue to hold a "wait and see" posture before I jump entirely on the bandwagon. I like what I've seen so far, but I want to get a better idea of what she'll bring to the ticket. Hopefully, it isn't additional baggage. In any case, my prayers are with her and her family as they weather a difficult time under heavy scrutiny by an unfriendly and biased mainstream media.

We'll just have to wait and see how this unfolds, and what the average American voter thinks of all this. It'll be interesting to see the fallout in the daily tracking polls.
The Lakeland Revival appears to have suffered something of an implosion, leaving in its wake troubling questions about Todd Bentley and the leaders who gave oversight to the movement. I mention this as someone who watched some of the Lakeland meetings via God TV, and was undeniably touched by the presence of God. In addition, a number of respected friends and acquaintances traveled to Lakeland to attend the meetings in person and brought back wonderful testimonies of genuine encounters with the Living God. While I acknowledge the hand of God in Lakeland, there were some things I observed about the meetings and the church's reaction to them that made me uneasy. For the sake of brevity, I shan't enumerate them here -- it'll have to wait for another post.

I had reserved comment on this for awhile, because I wanted to explore my questions and misgivings more thoroughly with God before making any statements; I don't level criticisms at what appears to be a move of God lightly. In contrast, Christians of certain stripes didn't have any hesitation about denouncing both Todd Bentley and the apparent outpouring at Lakeland, asserting that it was all unbiblical at best, downright demonic at worst. Others, such as Dr. Gary Greig (whom I also respect), found almost unqualified scriptural warrant and sanction of the entire affair. I actually planned to interact with Greig's statement on my blog, and will probably do so in the near future. Those who waved off his defense of Lakeland as "pseudo-scholarship" were too dismissive. Dr. Greig is most certainly not a pseudo-scholar. Nevertheless, I felt that some of his thinking was problematic, and I think it needs to be highlighted from the perspective of a reasoned, fellow charismatic (as opposed to smug hyper-cessationists looking for a theological axe to grind with Pharisaical gusto).

For my own part, I'm in a bit of a deconstructionist phase with respect to some peripheral aspects of the Charismatic movement, which is part of the reason why I reserved comment. I encounter "novelties" in doctrine and practice so frequently these days that I can scarcely keep up with it, and the pressure to just "swallow and follow" (as J. Lee Grady puts it) is palpable. All the while, a voice in the back of my head nags, "Are we sure there's biblical precedent for this? Besides, it seems to me that we don't sufficiently know or practice the basics of the faith. Can we step away from the latest, fantastical stuff that comes down the pike to focus on core (and oft-neglected) aspects of Christian faith and practice?"

I feel this way in part because George Barna has chronicled dangerous trends within American Christendom in recent years, demonstrating that the church at large is failing at basic Christian discipleship. My own anecdotal experience in ministry has confirmed many of his findings. Given that the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement accounts for a growing number of Christians in America, it's foolish to assume that it is immune to the problems enumerated by studies such as Barna's.

Perhaps the apparent denouement of the Lakeland revival (or, at least, Todd Bentley's involvement in it) is indicative of this. In any case, I confess that I failed to do the investigative work necessary (both factually and scripturally) to make discerning pronouncements vis-a-vis Lakeland with any kind of certitude. Next time something like this comes up, I need to be more prepared to have a reasoned, biblically informed, spiritually sensitive voice.

In the meantime, grace, mercy, and prayerfulness are prescribed as the Body of Christ walks through Lakeland's fallout. All I know is that I'd feel terrible if I were in Todd Bentley's shoes; the last thing I'd ever want to do is drag the name of Christ through the mud. It's in moments like that, when our fallenness and disobedience to God catch up to us, that the enemy moves in to condemn us and crush our spirits. There are those in the church who are dancing on Bentley's ministerial grave, and that's a shame. I suspect that the enemy did the very same thing in the wake of Peter's threefold denial of the Lord. Let's not side with the enemy, brothers and sisters; if Peter could be restored by Jesus' loving hand, so can Todd Bentley.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Live comments on the Saddleback Civil Forum

2008-08-16T20:04:00.007-04:00

Well, here's my ultimate take on the whole thing.

I think Obama is a well-spoken man who is at ease with himself. On the stump, I've found him to be rather haughty and arrogant -- the accusation of messiah-complex that is often leveled at him is not without warrant. But tonight, he was self-effacing, conversational, friendly, likable. I can understand why people are taken with him.

If you listen to him carefully enough, however, you hear inconsistencies that cast doubt on the steadiness of his core principles. Recall that when he had to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his speech more or less threw his grandmother under the bus as a knee-jerk racist after the fashion of "typical white people" (Obama attempted to do damage control on that comment after the fact, but not successfully IMHO). Contrast that with tonight, when he told Rick Warren that his grandmother is one of the great sages in his life. I'm confused...

Plus, I just find the lion's share of his thinking and politics noxious. The guy's a socialist -- no two ways about it. His discussion of the Supreme Court's role was just plain weird (I wanted to say inane, but let's be charitable), and his position on abortion is essentially a punt on the central human rights issue so he can maintain a politically expedient pro-choice posture (too bad those in the womb can't vote).

Turning to McCain, readers of my blog know that I'm not his biggest fan. Campaign finance reform was nothing short of a brazen assault on the First Amendment. He was the chief champion of that legislation, and it flies in the face of the oath a president takes to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, he's been a sell-out on immigration reform (or, more precisely, amnesty for illegal aliens). So I'm predisposed to being extraordinarily skeptical of McCain as a presidential candidate.

That said, he is a consistently pro-life candidate, which is important to me. The annual slaughter of 40 million unborn babies is nothing short of a modern holocaust of shocking proportions, and IT MUST END. I could never, in good conscience, vote for someone who is pro-choice. And he does hold to a number of conservative issues (keeping taxes low, tough stance on national security, constitutionalist judges, etc.). From my perspective, he's definitely preferable to Sen. Obama.

I thought McCain did pretty well tonight, although I found him stiff at times (especially when he discussed his personal faith). And he seemed to revert here and there to stump speech mode, something I think Obama avoided more successfully. Even so, I think McCain came across in a surprisingly warm, engaging fashion (as opposed to some stoic, old fart of a curmudgeonly war hero). In any case, in a contest of substance versus fluff, McCain won hands down. His black eyes: a rambling, non-answer on privacy vs. security; no clear enunciation of policy with respect to when and how much America should act as world policeman.

I'd like to express my appreciation to Rick Warren and Saddleback for a number of things:

Thanks for hosting this forum. It was very informative, and I think it gave us a good glimpse into the minds and hearts of the candidates. I appreciate you taking the lead on forging a dialogue between the candidates and the faith community
Thanks, Rick, for asking tough questions that the media will typically shy away from (especially with respect to Obama). I think it was apropos and fair for each candidate to be asked the same set of questions.
I really appreciated the judicious avoidance of direct questions about climate change. I still maintain that Rick Warren is grievously in error for embracing pop global warming theory, and I was really glad not to have to listen to such poppycock tonight. Looking forward to Rick's own "wise flip-flop" on this issue.

With my commentary (mostly) out of the way, here's what I captured of the forum.

8:04 p.m.

Question segment #1 is going to deal with leadership issues.

First question to Barack has to deal with the three wisest people who have influenced him.

His answer:

His wife. She's both wise and honest.
His grandmother. (Would this be the typically white racist grandmother he's alluded to in previous public gaffes?)
Cites Ted Kennedy as an influence in domestic policy (YUCK!). Wants a forum of advisors that have a breadth of views. (I guess this means they would span from left-center to moonbat. :)

Rick Warren (RW): What is the greatest moral failure of your life, and of America?

Barack Obama (BO): Difficult youth. Experimented with drugs. Associates struggles as a young man with selfishness -- so preoccupied with his own dissatisfaction that he couldn't see the needs of others. (A candid answer, I think.) America's greatest moral failure in his lifetime is its failure to abide by the precept of doing good to "the least of one's brethren." Applies to poverty, racism, sexism, and not providing ladders of opportunity.

RW: Common ground and common good. Did you ever go against party loyalty and self-interest in the interest of America?

BO: Cites campaign finance reform. (Blech. This is a terrible example, as it stomps brazenly all over the First Amendment. Sorry, Barack -- not in the best interest of the country.)

RW: What's the most significant position you've held that you ended up changing your mind on?

BO: Welfare reform. Felt that welfare had to be changed, but was concerned that the bill Bill Clinton signed would prove disastrous. But it worked better than anticipated. Convinced that work is the centerpiece of social policy. Provides a sense of both purpose and community. (Obama is to applauded here -- too bad this philosophy doesn't filter into the rest of his policy ideas.)

RW: What's the most gut-wrenching decision you had to make, and how did you process that?

BO: Cites his anti-war stance. (I find this to be a disingenuous answer. Hindsight is 20/20, Barack. He's touting his vaunted prescience with respect to the Iraq war being ill-conceived and unjust. He said he had doubts with respect to WMD from the outset. So even though Russia, France, Britain, Israel, and the US all had intelligence on Saddam's WMD program, you were singularly discerning -- above and beyond the intelligence capabilities of multiple nations. Stop insulting my IQ. Barack's anti-war stance is grounded in ideology before evidence, and as such it was not a gut-wrenching decision at all.)

Commercial break

8:20 p.m.

Rick warren asked Obama about his faith. He's professing that Jesus died for his sins, but says that "hopefully" his sins will be washed away. ("Hopefully" isn't exactly the orthodox Christian position on the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice, but we won't quibble too much right now.)

Rick says that he's getting to the "tough" questions.

Abortion! Rick says he has to deal with this issue all the time. Cites the statistic of 40 million abortions per year. At what point does a gestating baby get human rights? (Yay! I'm so glad he asked this question!)

BO: States that deciding when a gestating baby is fully human is "above my pay grade." He's pro-choice, believes in Roe v. Wade -- not because he believes in abortion, but because he doesn't think women make the decision to have an abortion casually. Says the goal should be to reduce the # of abortions.

RW: Has Obama ever voted to limit or reduce the # of abortions?

BO: He's against late-term abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception, he can't argue. But he can say, "Can we work together to reduce the # of unwanted pregnancies?" How do we provide resources that allow a woman to keep a child? (I think these are specious, or at least tertiary questions -- is abortion wrong or not? If wrong, it should be outlawed, plain and simple).

RW: Define marriage.

BO: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian, it's a sacred union. God's in the mix.

RW: Would you support constitutional protection for that definition of marriage?

BO: No. Historically, we haven't defined marriage federally. It's a state issue.

Interrupted by first-born son asking to watch a movie. Actually, he climbed on my head. Hang on...

8:40 p.m.

RW: Define rich.

BO: $150k/yr. down is middle class to poor. $250k/yr. and above is rich. (What about $151k/yr. to $249k/yr?). $150k/yr. and below will see a tax cut under his plan. Asserts again that $250k+/yr. is "rich." (He still hasn't addressed that apparent no-man's land between $150k and $250k/yr. Does he realize that?)

Obama's answers on the purpose of the Supreme Court and which justice he wouldn't nominate were -- well -- strange. It's designed only to limit the power of the chief executive? Huh? What about 9th grade civics -- highest body in the judicial branch, created to interpret and clarify law, and all that? And Barack's assessment of Clarence Thomas was essentially that he is a dunce and therefore unworthy of being on the court. He wouldn't nominate Scalia just because they disagree (what are the nature of those disagreements, Barack?), and he doesn't like the way John Roberts presides over the court because he's too compliant vis-a-vis the Oval Office. Sorry folks, but this is pablum. And he accuses Justice Thomas of thoughtlessness...

RW: There are 148 million orphans in the world. They don't need to be in orphanages. They need to be in families. Would there be a willingness to create an emergency plan for orphans?

BO: Thinks it's a great idea. Wants to work with international organizations. Part of the plan needs to be preventing unwanted children with good health care (my hunch is that this means Planned Parenthood style solutions in Barack speak).

RW: What should we do about religious persecution?

BO: Cites our complex relationship with China -- they're a trading partner, but they are actively engaged in persecuting people of faith. We need to "bear witness" and "speak out." We also need to lead by example. (Ugh. He's turning this into an anti-Gitmo rant. Can we stay on the subject?) We can't talk about religious persecution when Gitmo exists. (Dangblasted moral equivalence at work. As though Gitmo and sending Christians to labor camps are the same thing. Gimme a break.)

RW: Why do you want to be president?

BO: (This is The MonT-SteR's interpretation of what he said.) Basically, we're only great to the degree that we're socialist (disguised cleverly in language of empathy). That's why he wants the office, so he can turn us more in that direction. No thanks, Barack. Just say no to Marx and Lenin.

Next up, McCain's turn. Rather than type out RW's questions, I'm just going to organize it topically.

9:04 p.m.

McCain on Leadership

Wise leaders he'd depend on:

General Patraeus -- great military leader. Took us from defeat to victory.
John Lewis -- (I don't know who this is...)
Meg Whitman -- CEO of eBay.

McCain's greatest moral failure. First marriage. America, throughout her existence, has not always served interest beyond her own, although she's been the best at it in the world.

McCain led against party's interest and his own best interest on climate change, spending, tort reform, etc. The most trying was when he was first in Congress, Reagan wanted to send Marines to Beirut in a peace-keeping mission. He opposed Reagan, and the marines ended up getting bombed.

McCain's most significant reasoned flip-flop: Off-shore drilling. He knows that people disagree, but states that it's a national security issue. We're sending $700 billion to parties in the world who don't have our best interests at heart. We can't allow that. We need to have a multi-faceted, broad-based approach to energy policy and reform.

Most gut-wrenching decision: When McCain was in prison camp. Was going to be released, but refused. Was the toughest decision he made. Took lots of prayer.

Next up, worldview issues.

McCain on Worldview

Talks about his faith. Mentions salvation and forgiveness through Christ in about four words, seems very uncomfortable. Mentions that Christian faith embraces the world. (Hope that is a confession of mankind's universal need for Christ rather than theological universalism....) Falls into a story about Christmas in his POW camp, how when he was allowed to stand outside his cell on Christmas day, a guard came and drew a cross in the dirt. It was a special moment when enemy combatants were merely two Christians joining in worship in a dark place.

Abortion -- McCain states that a baby has human rights at the moment of conception. Has a 25-year pro-life record. Will be a pro-life president with pro-life policies.

Marriage -- Union between one man and one woman. People can enter into legal agreements and so forth (parallel to Obama's support for civil unions). If the courts attempted to force unilateral recognition of same-sex marriage, at that point McCain supports a Constitutional amendment.

Stem cells -- very great struggle and dilemma for the pro-life community. McCain wants stem cell research, but very optimistic about adult stem cell research. As it progresses, the debate will be moot.

Does evil exist? Yes -- it needs to be defeated. He's going to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Transcendent battle of the 21st century is the struggle between the West and extremist, radical Islam. It is palpably evil and must be defeated.

McCain says he would not have nominated Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. President's responsibility is great. Nomination should be based on proven record and constitutional perspective (not legislating from the bench). Proud of Bush for nominating Roberts and Alito.

On faith-based organizations: Can faith-based organizations hire those who adhere to their belief system? (Barack felt that they could not if receiving federal funds.) McCain says yes -- to require otherwise is to cripple the organization itself.

Education -- should there be merit pay for the best teachers? Yes. Choice and competition is the solution. Vouchers work. Home schooling works (yes!). Charter schools work. Choice and competition is a simple solution, but it has the potential to reform our education system. This is the civil rights issue of the 21st century -- sending children to failing schools is unjust.

Taxation -- McCain's wants everybody to get wealthy. Doesn't believe in taking the money of the rich. Small business owners work hard, and are classified as rich. But raising taxes on them would be onerous and damage the economy. Jokes that $5 million/yr. is the cut-off for "rich," and acknowledges that he's probably going to be taken out of context for that comment. Joked sardonically about spending $3 million of federal money on a DNA study of bears in Montana -- was that a paternity issue or a criminal issue? It's funny, but it isn't. During hard economic times, that kind of spending should be eradicated.

When our right to privacy and national security collide, what takes precedence? Mentions right to privacy with respect to union ballots (to eliminate intimidation). (Mm. McCain's answer is rambling here. Nothing substantive -- he's ranting about political infighting. Acknowledges the tension, but doesn't present any solutions or coherent method of handling the question RW put to him. Sorry Sen. McCain, you blew it on this one....)

Commercial break -- I have to say thus far that I've found McCain far more substantive. He got stiff when he talked about his own faith life and what Christianity means to him (I think that makes him uncomfortable). Obama was far more comfortable discussing his faith. But Obama really is all about feel-good fluff. So far, McCain is (for the most part) giving more cogent answers. Honestly, I wasn't expecting that.

9:40 p.m.

McCain on America's Responsibility to the World

Freedom is worth dying for. There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, so we can't possibly remedy everything. America's most precious commodity is her blood. We've shed our blood for others in a way no other nation has. Just as we defeated communism, we can defeat radical Islam. RW asks when we should intervene in situations like Darfour, Georgia, etc. McCain says that we need to stop genocide whenever we can (but particularly when it's in the interest of our national security). We need to marshal world forces. RW mentions that Russia is reasserting itself in Georgia and Poland, asks McCain to comment. He mentions the bloodshed and suffering, saddened by Russia's behavior. Mentions that Georgia was one of the earliest Christian nations. Georgian President was educated in the U.S., returned to forge a successful democracy. We need to not only negotiate a cease-fire, but insist that Georgia's territorial integrity be respected. It wasn't an accident that the presidents of other former Eastern Bloc countries flew to Georgia to show solidarity. This conflict is also about Russian control over energy. We need to send a message to the Russians that such behavior is not acceptable. (Unfortunately, McCain doesn't outline quite what that message should be beyond angry denunciations. A little fluff here....)

On religious persecution -- use the bully pulpit. Cites Reagan's example (he called the Soviets the evil empire, called upon them to tear down the Berlin wall). Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we help the oppressed in the world. Knows first-hand the price and preciousness of freedom.

Why he wants to be President: Wants to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves. Time to unify the country. America wants hope and optimism. Wants people who won't vote for him to know that he'll be their president as well.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR