There’s something about liberals.  Sure, they believe pretty much the opposite of everything I do, but the way they go about things really puzzles me, especially the public ones that get a lot of press.  Morgan K. Freeberg over at House of Eratosthenes has once again proved why he was one of the first ever “Daily Reads” I put out here.  He’s the sort of person who, once an idea takes hold, will noodle it out until he gets it.  Today, he’s analyzed the phenomenon where something we can do is declared impossible (ex. win in Iraq), while something we can’t do is declared as their goal (ex. eliminate poverty – see Matthew 26:11; the poor aren’t going anywhere).

I’d been trying to come up with a good way to illustrate the projection the liberals show (assuming that their latent feelings are the up-front feelings of their political opposites).  In fact, there is a great example in all of the hype surrounding Barack Obama’s clinching of the Democrat nomination for President.  It’s only historic to people who focus on race – and those are the same people telling us that we shouldn’t be focusing on race.  The most historic thing about Barack Obama’s nomination is that he’s the first person in history to defeat the Clinton war machine (and, to give him his due, that is a significant accomplishment).

Morgan also covers the over-compensation angle – you know, the stereotypical guy who buys a muscle car to substitute for lack of anatomical size.  I forget where I heard it, but there’s a saying that “if you have to tell someone you’re generous, you probably aren’t.”  Back to Jesus talking about the poor, He said that our left hand should not know what our right hand is doing.  (Matthew 6:2-3)

Go check out his post – he thoroughly dissects and analyzes this phenomenon.