Keynes + Hayek + Rapping = Awesome

Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con blog is quickly becoming my favorite.  This is the second time I've stolen material from him (he tipped me off to the Hitchens story as well).  For anyone who thinks economics is interesting or just wants to get a kick out of a nerdy video, I highly recommend watching this.  Basically it's just John Maynard Keynes rapping against F.A. Hayek about why each other's economic philosophy is wrong.  The look of annoyance on Hayek's face while watching Keynes party it up, followed by his glee at Keynes' hangover are worth the price of admission. Enjoy!

John Edwards & Christopher Hitchins

I was kind of looking around at random things today having to do with the Tim Tebow kerfuffle, and I came across this political cartoon.  Now, the cartoon was originally published in March of 2007 (yes, this date is important) to make fun of Newt Gingrich for being a jerk of a husband (which was true).  Umm...I would explain why this cartoon is so ironic, but you're all smart: I'm sure you can figure it out...

Isn't that just a doozy?  Exhibit A as to why it would be wise NOT to put your politician of choice on a pedestal.

Moving on - Christopher Hitchens (right) has definitely made a strange bedfellow with this one.  Who might this bedfellow be?  Would you believe me if I said "C.S. Lewis"?  While being interviewed by a minister of the Unitarian Church named Marilyn Sewell, he was asked the following question:

"The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and [sic] distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?"

He responds the way C.S. Lewis responds in "Mere Christianity" about people who similarly call themselves Christians without actually affirming virtually any major Christian beliefs.  Hitchens says:

"I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."

It's not often that you will ever hear me say this to Mr. Hitchens, but: Bravo, you cantankerous bastard - Bravo.

Political Influence in the United States

Ever wonder who holds all the political clout in the U.S.?  Well, wonder no more.  The London Telegraph released its 2010 list of the 100 most influential U.S. conservatives and liberals this month.  They had done this once before, back in 2007.  Some of the changes are fascinating.  For instance - George W. Bush is listed as a more influential conservative now than he was when he was president.  His vice president is now #1 after leaving power.  Interesting, eh?

With that in mind, since I'm a conservative, I'll list 5 surprises in the conservative list (other than what are listed above):

1. David Petraeus at #8.  Really?  Does anyone actually know his politics?  Sure, he supported Bush's surge plan in Iraq: but he obviously is currently in support of Obama's pull-out policy in Iraq, (which conservatives have lambasted) since Obama still has Petraeus at the head of all military operations in the middle-east.  How can the Telegraph even label him a conservative?  I'm pretty sure no one really knows what he is...which is exactly how it should be with a military commander.

2. Joe Lieberman at #29.  Come on.  Lieberman?  A conservative?  Given a 100% rating by NARAL on abortion rights.  Opposed Bush tax cuts "for the rich".  Supports Affirmative Action.  Supports same-sex marriage.  No on drilling in ANWR, yes on Kyoto (if China would have signed on), yes on UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.  0% rating on family record from Christian Coalition.  No on preemptive war.  Ran as AL GORE's running-mate for president on the Democratic ticket in 2000!  Oh...and did I mention that he's still in the Democratic Caucus in the senate?  Sorry...his record on a few security issues and a couple gun issues is decidedly NOT enough to qualify him as a conservative.

3. Ron Paul at #41.  First of all, libertarianism is not the same as conservatism - at root they are actually philosophically opposed...it just so happens that occasionally their separate philosophies land them in the same place on issues.  But if everyone and their dog wants to define libertarianism as a form of conservatism, so be it.  The bottom line is that Paul had an odd following of a few fringe conservatives, a lot of libertarians, and a few fringe liberals (he had Nader-esque support in 2008).  At best, 10% of conservatives are influenced by him and virtually 100% of the rest think he's a crackpot.  Certainly not in the top 50, and DEFINITELY not above luminaries like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, George Will, Bill Kristol, etc.

4. Jeb Bush at #76.  Ok, first of all - how did he go UP from the 2007 list, where he was #86?  The only argument given for him is that he would have been a good candidate in '08 had his name not been "Bush".  Umm...soo...3 years ago he was influential enough to be #86, he's no longer in office and has no real public voice anymore, but somehow goes up?  What?

5. Bill O'Reilly at #85.  This seemed remarkably low to me.  "The O'Reilly Factor" finished #1 in the ratings race for cable news shows this year and has (I believe) for a couple years running.  So how do Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and Mike Huckabee all finish above him in the list?  Strange...

I'd be interested to hear what all your takes on the list are.  Any liberals that read this - tell me what you think of the liberal list.  Conservatives - am I wrong?  Do you have surprises other than those listed?

Breaking News: The Detroit Lions are Not in the Super Bowl

Well, it's official - the Saints are going to the Super Bowl.  The Saints, as many of you know, were one of only 5 teams in the NFL that had never attended a Super Bowl.  This leaves the Lions, the Browns, the Jaguars, and the Texans as the only remaining teams to have never been to a Super Bowl.  Of these teams, the Lions plight is certainly the worst.  Why?  Here goes:

The Jaguars are a relatively new team, since they were an expansion team from 1994.  During their existence they've already been to the AFC Championship game twice, which means they've gone to the AFC Championship twice during the time since the Lions' last appearance.

The Browns have not been to an AFC Championship game since 1986, where they lost to Elway and "The Drive".....technically.  I qualify that with "technically" because this doesn't tell the whole story.  Let's not forget that in 1996 the Browns moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens.  That same team that moved to Baltimore not only went to, but won the Super Bowl in 2000.  The Browns that exist in Cleveland now are an expansion team that has only even been in existence since 1999.

The Texans have only been in existence in 2002, so who really gives a crap that they've never been to the Super Bowl?

The Lions, on the other hand, have been a continuous franchise for the duration of the time that the Super Bowl has existed.  They've only even been to the NFC Championship game one time since the Super Bowl's inception.  Given the above information, is there any question that the Lions are more due than anyone left?

I remember back in the 80's and 90's when the perennial bottom feeders of the league were teams like the Patriots, the Bucs, and the Saints.  Since then two of those teams have Super Bowls (one of which created a full dynasty), and the third is on its way there for the first time now.

I ask this: is there ANY team that is more due than the Detroit Lions now that the Saints are going?  Absolutely not.  So much has been said about how great this is for the city of New Orleans - the great story it has made post-Katrina, etc.  True.  However, if I were to ask what city, other than New Orleans, has suffered the most in the last couple years is there any doubt that it is Detroit?  I'm not sayin'.....I'm just sayin'.

First post!

Hello to everyone who will be reading my blog (all 4 of you)!  Basically, I'm creating this as a means to replacing the "note" function on Facebook.  I used to write notes pretty often, but I discovered more or less quickly that I hated that.  So I move to a real blog - my first since the now defunct and oh-so-famous zombie blog.  I promise to anyone who actually reads that I will post a minimum of once per week.  What will I post on?  Who knows.  Politics, the Detroit Lions, food, philosophy, the Mariners' offseason, theology, books.  It's all on the table.  If you're lucky I may even delve into mockery of pop culture.  Comments are always more than welcome.

Oh...in case you're wondering (which I'm sure you are), the name of my blog is kind of a reference to this guy:

He often says that he's operating on "knowledge on loan from God".  Well...in Latin, the title of this blog mean "knowledge from God...or not".  Is my blog in dedication to El Rushbo?  No.  He and I differ on too much for me to dedicate a blog to him.  But he really is a character.

*Update: I changed the name of the blog anyway.  Please disregard.