Guest Voice: Social Issues Symbolism by Jack Hunter

When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, “this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,” referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, “by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith “Rick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.”

In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such “coming together” rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of “diversity” has one again proven to be a farce. For a true “coming together” of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warren’s stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasn’t budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired “coming together” means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.

The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans – issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if it’s practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.

Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they aren’t important – but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand states’ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.

Rick Warren’s invocation at Obama’s inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars – but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naïve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.

When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, “this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,” referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, “by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith “Rick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.”

In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such “coming together” rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of “diversity” has one again proven to be a farce. For a true “coming together” of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warren’s stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasn’t budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired “coming together” means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.

The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans – issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if it’s practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.

Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they aren’t important – but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand states’ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.

Rick Warren’s invocation at Obama’s inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars – but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naïve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.

Jack Hunter Blogs at The Southern Avenger and Taki’s Magazine

Obama Visits Military

It seems that Bambi made it to see the vets. How nice. Pretty funny, seeing he hasn’t served a damn day in the Military.

I also have an e-mail to share, that I got this morning, I was wondering what it was about. Now I know.

via Jack Tapper’s Blog:

President-elect Obama stopped by the Marine Corps base in Hawaii Kaneche Bay where servicemen and -women were eating Christmas dinner in Kailua Thursday evening.

“Just wanted to say hi, hey guys,” Obama said as he walked into the Anderson dining hall which was decked out in Christmas decorations.

The diners represented seven military units — Marine and Navy — some of whom were joined by their families for Christmas dinner.

As Obama entered the room, it was absent of the regular fanfare of cheering and clapping. The diners were polite, staying seated at their respective tables and waited for the president-elect to come to them to stand up.

Obama, dressed casually in a blue polo shirt and dark khaki trousers, worked his way around the room — table by table — and took pictures with the service members. He slapped them on the back at times, shook hands, and signed some autographs.

“Hey guys, Merry Christmas,” The president-elect said as he walked from table to table.

The servicemen and -women were already seated at their holiday dinner when the president-elect made his impromptu visit. They were dining on salad, candied sweet potato with marshmallow topping, cream of mushroom soup, mashed potatoes, beef, ham, turkey, broccoli and corn.

The president-elect spent about an hour with the troops. Obama transition aides say that Obama did not eat with the uniformed men and women — he ate at his beach home with his family and friends Christmas night.

I think it goes without saying, that Obama was not among friends.

Others: Atlas Shrugs, Sister Toldjah, RedState, BLACKFIVE, Gateway Pundit, Hugh HewittPower Line

Far Lefty Liberal Columnist Joel Stein Admits that Liberals Hate America

A stunning admission from the far left, but not a huge surprise.

Via The L.A. Times:

I don’t love America. That’s what conservatives are always telling liberals like me. Their love, they insist, is truer, deeper and more complete. Then liberals, like all people who are accused of not loving something, stammer, get defensive and try to have sex with America even though America will then accuse us of wanting it for its body and not its soul. When America gets like that, there’s no winning.

But I’ve come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws. But calling your wife fat isn’t love. True love is the blind belief that your child is the smartest, cutest, most charming person in the world, one you would gladly die for. I’m more in “like” with my country.

A rather mind-numbing statement and a rather frank admission. That is the whole problem with Liberals, they would rather focus on America’s flaws, than focus on it’s greatness. He goes on to blather on about Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

But this is what bothered me:

Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy. If it had been Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Israel or one of those Scandinavian countries with more relaxed attitudes toward sex, that would have been fine with me too.

Hell, why stop there? Why not just move to somewhere more inline with your beliefs, like say, Iran, Russia or maybe North Korea?

The Communist Blathers on:

I wish I felt such certainty. Sure, it makes life less interesting and nuanced, and absolute conviction can lead to dangerous extremism, but I suspect it makes people happier. I’ll never experience the joy of Hannity-level patriotism. I’m the type who always wonders if some other idea or place or system is better and I’m missing out. And, as I figured out shortly after meeting my wife, that is no way to love.

Stop The ACLU agrees with my assessment:

And yeah, I understand the point of the column. It’s a criticism. We’re “blinded” by love to the point where we don’t even see America’s flaws. But that’s not quite true. I see them, as do many conservatives. But unlike liberals, that’s not all I see. I look at America and love her for everything she is, both the good and the bad. I look at my country, and despite the mistakes we have made and inevitably will continue to make, still know that this is the freest, best country on the face of the Earth, know that anyone from anywhere in the world can come here and build a good life for themselves if they’re only willing to work hard and play by the rules, that America will always stand for freedom and justice and democracy.

Liberals look at America, and have a hard time feeling the love and patriotism that conservatives feel because they can’t get get past the flaws. They can’t love America unless she is perfect. Conservatives, however, don’t require perfection to know that America is, indeed, a special, blessed place. It doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is a terrible, terrible place. It doesn’t mean that no one can possibly have a great life anywhere else. However, despite what many Little League coaches and PC teachers may believe, not every runner can finish the race in first, and while the rest of the world may be great, it’s just not the USA.

I could not have put it better myself.   However, I’ll take it a step further, if the Communist is dissatisfied with America and all of it’s supposed “Flaws”, he can always leave, there is not a law forcing him to live here.

Iraq Declares Christmas an Official Holiday for First Year

Some good news from Iraq.

Via FOXNews.com:

Iraq’s Christians, a small minority in the overwhelmingly Muslim country, quietly celebrated Christmas on Thursday with a present from the government, which declared it an official holiday for the first time.

But security worries overshadowed the day for many, particularly in the north where thousands of Christians have fled to escape religious attacks.

Overall security in Iraq has improved markedly in the past year, but a fatal car bombing in Baghdad on Christmas morning was a gruesome reminder that serious problems remain.

The bombing outside a restaurant frequented by police killed four people and wounded 25 others in the Shiite neighborhood of Shula, said a police officer speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give information to news media.

Also Thursday, an oil official said attackers blew up a pipeline in the city of Kirkuk. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the attack occurred Wednesday and pumping was expected to resume within three days.

In his homily on Thursday, Chaldean Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly praised the establishment of Christmas as an official holiday as a step toward easing tensions.

“I thank it too for making this day an official holiday where we pray to God to make us trust each other as brothers,” he said at the Christmas Mass before several dozen worshippers in the small chapel of a Baghdad monastery.

A senior Shiite cleric, Ammar al-Hakim attended the event, flanked by bodyguards, in a gesture of cooperation with Christians.

“I thank the visitors here and ask them to share happiness and love with their brothers on Christmas. By this they will build a glorious Iraq,” the cardinal said.

Unlike some liberals, who only want to look on the bad side of everything, (No wonder Sean threw you off of his show, idiot.) I think that this is proof that the surge is working. There is no doubt, that there is much work to do in Iraq. But this is a sign that there is some progress in Iraq.

What pisses me off, about the Liberals is this; they refused to admit that we won the overall war on terror in Iraq. Granted, we went there on bad information, I do admit that, as do many Conservatives; but the Liberals continue to repeat that dead fucking tired line of, “We cannot win, we have to leave and let these people fight their own battles.” Further more, they are the most irresponsible people ever. If we just pack up and leave, without fixing what we broke, without making DAMN sure that the Iraqi’s can defend themselves from attack from another Nation, we would be responsible for the worst case of genocide ever.

The Liberals refuse to see that Muqtada al-Sadr is all but irrelevant and hiding in Iran. The insurgency over, other than the spurious car bomb, things are back to normal. It sad that the Communist Liberals won’t give our Military the credit it deserves for accomplishing that enormous feat.

I just wonder how long it will be, before the Magic One will just remove all of our troops from Afghanistan and say, “Oh well, we deserved 9/11 anyhow, so, we’re not going to fight no more!” It would not surprise me at all.

The Moderate VoiceScared Monkeys, TigerHawk, Gateway Pundit, and Don Surber

Funny Video: Sponsor an Executive

This was sent to me by the smartest Democrat I know………………My Mom.  😀

RedState Update:Blagojevich Has Dirt On Obama?

Jackie and Dunlap talk to the corruptest, bribe-takin’est governor in all of America– Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Find out how much it’ll cost to find out Obama’s involvement!

(CONTENT WARNING NSFW!)

Exit Comment: This video solves the riddle of how many times you can put the f-bomb in a video. WOW! 😮

From the "You Must be kidding!" Dept.: Enviro Nuts in Seattle, Washington Refuse to Salt roads!

This is just absolutely flippin’ crazy!

Via Seattle, Washington’s Times:

To hear the city’s spin, Seattle’s road crews are making “great progress” in clearing the ice-caked streets.

But it turns out “plowed streets” in Seattle actually means “snow-packed,” as in there’s snow and ice left on major arterials by design.

“We’re trying to create a hard-packed surface,” said Alex Wiggins, chief of staff for the Seattle Department of Transportation. “It doesn’t look like anything you’d find in Chicago or New York.”

The city’s approach means crews clear the roads enough for all-wheel and four-wheel-drive vehicles, or those with front-wheel drive cars as long as they are using chains, Wiggins said.

The icy streets are the result of Seattle’s refusal to use salt, an effective ice-buster used by the state Department of Transportation and cities accustomed to dealing with heavy winter snows.

“If we were using salt, you’d see patches of bare road because salt is very effective,” Wiggins said. “We decided not to utilize salt because it’s not a healthy addition to Puget Sound.”

By ruling out salt and some of the chemicals routinely used by snowbound cities, Seattle has embraced a less-effective strategy for clearing roads, namely sand sprinkled on top of snowpack along major arterials, and a chemical de-icer that is effective when temperatures are below 32 degrees.

Seattle also equips its plows with rubber-edged blades. That minimizes the damage to roads and manhole covers, but it doesn’t scrape off the ice, Wiggins said.

That leaves many drivers, including Seattle police, pretty much on their own until nature does to the snow what the sand can’t: melt it.

The city’s patrol cars are rear-wheel drive. And even with tire chains, officers are avoiding hills and responding on foot, according to a West Precinct officer.

Between Thursday and Monday, the city spread about 6,000 tons of sand on 1,531 miles of streets it considers major arterials.

The tonnage, sprinkled atop the packed snow, amounts to 1.4 pounds of sand per linear foot of roadway, an amount one expert said might be too little to provide effective traction.

“Hmmm. Six thousand tons of sand for that length of road doesn’t seem like it’s enough,” said Diane Spector, a water-resources planner for Wenck Associates, which evaluated snow and ice clearance for nine cities in the Midwest.

Spector and snow-control experts in four cities said sand is typically mixed with salt and used for trouble spots.

“The occasional application of salt is probably not going to have a lasting effect” on the environment, Spector said. But she cautioned it’s highly dependent on where it’s used, how often and how much is applied.

Seattle’s stand against using salt is not shared by the state Department of Transportation, which has battled the latest storms in Western Washington with de-icer, 5,800 tons of salt and 11,500 cubic yards of salt and sand mix, said spokesman Travis Phelps.

Many cities are moving away from sand because it clogs the sewers, runs into waterways, creates air pollution and costs more to clean up.

Its main attraction is that it typically costs less than one-fifth the price of salt, according to Spector.

“We never use sand,” said Ann Williams, spokeswoman for Denver’s Department of Public Works. “Sand causes dust, and there’s also water-quality issues where it goes into streets and into our rivers.”

Instead, it sprays an “anti-icing” agent on dry roads before the snow falls and then a combination of chemicals to melt the ice.

Cheryl Kuck, spokeswoman for the Portland Bureau of Transportation, said her city prepared the streets last week with the “anti-icing” spray. Once the snow started, Portland used chemical de-icers, followed by plowing with 55 plows and treating trouble spots with sand and gravel.

Although the city had plowed 29 of its 36 major routes, “nothing is clear,” Kuck said late Monday afternoon. “This is a difficult and challenging situation that’s going to take us a long time to recover from.”

Wiggins, of Seattle’s transportation department, said the city’s 27 trucks had plowed and sanded 100 percent of Seattle’s main roads, and were going back for second and third passes.

“It’s tough going. I won’t argue with you on that,” he said. But here in Seattle, “we’re sensitive about everything we do that impacts the environment.”

Oh My freakin’ goodness!  These liberal morons are absolutely out of their flippin’ minds! I mean, not plowing or salting the fucking streets, because they’re afraid of polluting the water? Seriously?!?!

Moonbats! You gotta laugh, otherwise, You’d be scared to death.

These are Obambi’s people man! WOW! 😮

Update: Hell, even Malkin Agrees with me! 😀

Others: Townhall.com, Betsy’s Page and Commentary

The Reading Room: The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson

I was given this link via twitter a couple days ago, I bookmarked it.

I admit, that I didn’t read the entire thing, But I read enough of it, to see that it is something that everyone, of all political stripes should, in fact, read.

Go here to read, “The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson”