Posts
On the morning of May 27, 2010 as the 45th President of the United States began his day - as we all do, in the bathroom grooming himself. Little Malia took time away from her standard morning preparations to ask her father, in her own way, the question that is seemingly on everyone's mind: "Did you plug the hole, Daddy?"
Does anyone besides me find this an odd question, for the President of the United States to draw upon for addressing the media? Never mind the President's (rightful) disposition about the media highlighting the goings on of his young children. Never mind the supposition that most of our - non-presidential - children rarely pay too much attention to what we do in our day to day. Never mind the ubiquitous notion (at least in my mind) that the presentation may have been for dramatic purposes only and using what may generously be termed as poetic license to do so. His opinion that he must command and control - this is a recurring one. Days before that we are treated with insider accounts of the President demanding staff to "Plug the **** hole!". He felt the same way about GM...and AIG...and Health Care.
I, for one, would like to give the President a pass on "plugging the hole". If you are tea party faithful, I think you should too. In fact, I think that the interests of the country would be better served if President Obama simply maintained pressure on the companies in charge to corral the resources of the American people - and get the hole plugged. They will get it done. Then he can use what he does control: the regulatory agencies that monitor this situation to correct, rebuke and penalize the appropriate parties at an appropriate time and in an appropriate way. In this he would be condoning what is good (creativity, inginuity and efficiency of the American people). And punishing evil. (Those who through neglect, greed, or political posturing allowed this to occur.)
I know, my republican friends are secretly behind the scenes, even as I write, trying to figure out how they will follow the advice of the Presidents Chief of Staff. Who famously stated out loud what every politician intuitively knows, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." And make no mistake, politically, this will be a "great" crisis for the opposition. I'm not from that school of thought, anymore. I am tired of living in a world that is so caught up with the "social investment" by our government (read: taxes) that we don't know where our ownership ends and government control begins. Let me rephrase that, "I am petrified of living in a world that is so caught up with the social investment by our government that we don't know where our ownership ends and government control begins.
We demand our medicare; We demand our social security; We demand our public school funding; We demand our unemployment compensation; We demand, we demand, we demand. And then we rally ourselves Washington, or Chicago, or Madison, or Atlanta and demand that government get out of the way. Shame on us. We should be appalled at the notion of which our President burdens himself: that he "is in control". That is exactly the problem. And that would be true whether the President of the United States who held the notion were Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln. So, please, take a step back Mr. President, give yourself a break. Let the creative and fiduciary forces available in this country (so far) create a solution to "plug the hole." The result will be a more efficient and effective solution than a distant central government could ever provide.
I am tired of the hypocrisy. I am tired of it in myself and I'm tired of it in those around me. When will we repent of this? When will we acknowledge the need for sacrifice and when will we take action based upon those prerequisites? Give yourself a break Mr. President, you can't control this - nor can you control GM, AIG, Healthcare, the student loan industry, ad infinitum... Please stop trying to control - guide, enforce and lead. Punish evil and condone what is good. Then stand back let the people come together and take care of themselves.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Obama's "Katrina" Presser - summary
Our President taking control of the gulf coast disaster:
Observations:
Obama to Americans: "Go to the Beaches" - surely this will be a headline in some of the conservative commentary. The president here is merely voicing, as he should the concern of gulf coast governor's that all but 2 of the beaches are still open. Surely they will attempt to equate this with George Bush's equally out of contexted remarks in Chicago after 9/11: "Go shopping", although it is likely that this won't get such wide spread exposure as the ridicule that Bush has received.
15:30 - "...should the Federal Government have such capacity..." - a dangerous question when it relates to the President's rhetorical assertion which basically is the first suggestion I've heard him publicly make that the government also get into the oil business. I can almost see him thinking, "You know, only the government can do this right, so we better look at getting into the oil business." Very dangerous notion, yet consistent with his views of the efficacy of government.
30:00 - "...still having to rush more equipment, more Boom..." - what in the world is "boom"? Apparently there wasn't enough of this containment product to help stave off the gushing leak. Would it be possible for the government to encourage standards of "how much is enough" without getting into the oil business? Probably. It could encourage through condoning industry standards and bench marks, penalizing where standards are not met and punishing where this is done intentionally and neglectfully.
33:20 -"...what became a habit, predating my administration..." - whether or not this get's traction is a question. Certainly the conservative commentary will pick up on it. The President makes clear that the fact that permit waivers were offered is a habit that started before he took office. Maybe he intends to simply show the habit is entrenched, but it smacks of "blaming Bush". I think that folks are getting tired of hearing him push the blame off on others. Maybe this will be placated by his statement at the very beginning. He does follow with a reasonable explanation of the waiver, which constitutes an unintended argument about the efficacy of governement.
44:30 - "... domestic production is an important part of our overall energy strategy..."- the question ask why the President chose to ask for expanded drilling given the fact that he knew about the corruption in the MMS (mineral management services) points to the fact that the administration still chose to move forward even though they clearly understood the corruption that was involved. He says that oil must be a part of our overall strategy and admits to being wrong (46:10) that the government and oil companies have the ability to shut them down in a worse case scenario. It is good to know that he is still acknowledging is that domestic drilling is still important and that we will continue it after ("further reforms).
49:40 -"...the fact that oil companies now, have to go a mile underwater and then drill another three miles below that, in order to hit oil, tells you something about the oil industry..." - The President hits the nail on the head here but then get's the message wrong-- or at least incomplete. He takes from this that it is going to be "expensive and risky". True enough. Is perhaps the message is that we should be allowed to drill for oil in the area's of this country where oil is more accessible? Is it not less risky then, to drill off the east and west coasts? In ANWAR? He takes the opportunity to criticize our "drill, baby drill" friends. But chooses not to acknowledge that the drilling for which they shout offers exponentially greater reserves at significantly lessor risk. The shrillness of the phrase will likely be amplified, while the intent (safe, abundant oil) obfuscated. It's not true that "...the easily sucked up oil has been already been removed out of the ground....". (50:34) It's just that the "easily sucked up" stuff has been regulated out of reach. He should change that as a result of this.
57 :22 - "...boot is on the neck of BP..." - while the President did not say this himself, members of his administration did. The question asks if the President is comfortable with that metaphor. Outsiders indicate that the assertion is "ludicrous" that the government can do anything. The President says we don't need to use language like that, but BP "...needs to be held accountable...". True.
1:00:10 - "...did you plug the hole yet, Daddy..." - the weirdness of the insertion, or offering us insight into Malia's supposed comment not withstanding the President does a nice job communicating that their are consequences to this. One might even believe that he emphasizes with the responsibility to be a good steward of, what he calls this "bounty" we've been given. He does a good job of showing how frustrating and infuriating it would be to be affected by this mistake. He alludes to all of the crisis that have hit: financial, economic and, now, this oil spill catastophy.
1:02:35 - "...I take responsibility..." - here the President plays his equivalent to Roosevelt's "the buck stops here...". The question I suppose that remains to be explored is, should he? Do I want him taking responsibility? Do you want him taking responsibility? He certainly seems to feel that he should.
Observations:
Obama to Americans: "Go to the Beaches" - surely this will be a headline in some of the conservative commentary. The president here is merely voicing, as he should the concern of gulf coast governor's that all but 2 of the beaches are still open. Surely they will attempt to equate this with George Bush's equally out of contexted remarks in Chicago after 9/11: "Go shopping", although it is likely that this won't get such wide spread exposure as the ridicule that Bush has received.
15:30 - "...should the Federal Government have such capacity..." - a dangerous question when it relates to the President's rhetorical assertion which basically is the first suggestion I've heard him publicly make that the government also get into the oil business. I can almost see him thinking, "You know, only the government can do this right, so we better look at getting into the oil business." Very dangerous notion, yet consistent with his views of the efficacy of government.
30:00 - "...still having to rush more equipment, more Boom..." - what in the world is "boom"? Apparently there wasn't enough of this containment product to help stave off the gushing leak. Would it be possible for the government to encourage standards of "how much is enough" without getting into the oil business? Probably. It could encourage through condoning industry standards and bench marks, penalizing where standards are not met and punishing where this is done intentionally and neglectfully.
33:20 -"...what became a habit, predating my administration..." - whether or not this get's traction is a question. Certainly the conservative commentary will pick up on it. The President makes clear that the fact that permit waivers were offered is a habit that started before he took office. Maybe he intends to simply show the habit is entrenched, but it smacks of "blaming Bush". I think that folks are getting tired of hearing him push the blame off on others. Maybe this will be placated by his statement at the very beginning. He does follow with a reasonable explanation of the waiver, which constitutes an unintended argument about the efficacy of governement.
44:30 - "... domestic production is an important part of our overall energy strategy..."- the question ask why the President chose to ask for expanded drilling given the fact that he knew about the corruption in the MMS (mineral management services) points to the fact that the administration still chose to move forward even though they clearly understood the corruption that was involved. He says that oil must be a part of our overall strategy and admits to being wrong (46:10) that the government and oil companies have the ability to shut them down in a worse case scenario. It is good to know that he is still acknowledging is that domestic drilling is still important and that we will continue it after ("further reforms).
49:40 -"...the fact that oil companies now, have to go a mile underwater and then drill another three miles below that, in order to hit oil, tells you something about the oil industry..." - The President hits the nail on the head here but then get's the message wrong-- or at least incomplete. He takes from this that it is going to be "expensive and risky". True enough. Is perhaps the message is that we should be allowed to drill for oil in the area's of this country where oil is more accessible? Is it not less risky then, to drill off the east and west coasts? In ANWAR? He takes the opportunity to criticize our "drill, baby drill" friends. But chooses not to acknowledge that the drilling for which they shout offers exponentially greater reserves at significantly lessor risk. The shrillness of the phrase will likely be amplified, while the intent (safe, abundant oil) obfuscated. It's not true that "...the easily sucked up oil has been already been removed out of the ground....". (50:34) It's just that the "easily sucked up" stuff has been regulated out of reach. He should change that as a result of this.
57 :22 - "...boot is on the neck of BP..." - while the President did not say this himself, members of his administration did. The question asks if the President is comfortable with that metaphor. Outsiders indicate that the assertion is "ludicrous" that the government can do anything. The President says we don't need to use language like that, but BP "...needs to be held accountable...". True.
1:00:10 - "...did you plug the hole yet, Daddy..." - the weirdness of the insertion, or offering us insight into Malia's supposed comment not withstanding the President does a nice job communicating that their are consequences to this. One might even believe that he emphasizes with the responsibility to be a good steward of, what he calls this "bounty" we've been given. He does a good job of showing how frustrating and infuriating it would be to be affected by this mistake. He alludes to all of the crisis that have hit: financial, economic and, now, this oil spill catastophy.
1:02:35 - "...I take responsibility..." - here the President plays his equivalent to Roosevelt's "the buck stops here...". The question I suppose that remains to be explored is, should he? Do I want him taking responsibility? Do you want him taking responsibility? He certainly seems to feel that he should.
Counting on the Counties
It can get a little discouraging listening to what is happening to our country. I spoke with a friend the other day who railed against the lobbyists in Washington (and the state) only to comment that his business partners gave several thousand dollars to Paul Ryan (R) in Wisconsin and he "...didn't even show up on time for their meeting...". This friend, generally opposed to all lobbying, said he didn't make contributions that would be applied to those efforts. My statement to him was, "you know we'd be in more trouble if Paul Ryan showed "...up on time and ready to flex..." for your groups generous donation". The fact that he was late, would indicated to me that there is no quid pro quo like what is going on in Washington according to Pennsylvania Senate contender Joe Sestak(D). The fact of the matter is that there is a place, as well as an admonition for lobbying. Even George Washington in his famous Farewell Address said so much. "In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union...and excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views..." He goes on to say that one of the tactics used is to misrepresent the interests of others to the one who influences gain. A robust system of lobbying assures us that all interests are heard. Groups can unite and communicate the message they want heard. They should unite and be heard. The span of federal government is not conducive to making these decisions because it's reach to the local is limited. Government itself is not conducive to efficiently executing the actions it pursues. In addition to lobbying influence, local government is better able to manage this, but only if those in power understand the limit and the importance of the power they wield.
Former speaker of the house Tip O'neil is famous for saying that all politics are local. There has been some criticism of that philosophy in recent years as we live more and more in a world that is flat
. But is it possible that technology will allow us to more specifically manage our homes and our cities and our counties better than a central government that seeks to impose with no real knowledge of need? Would a local government, staffed by men and women of character, and integrity not be more inclined to push back on the government funding imposed upon it by the federal bureaucracy? Would an operational county government staffed with men and women of character not push back on obligations that are beyond it's ability to provide? Would people of character in local office understand that at some point we must say "No", and accept the sacrifice that such a statement will require? I don't really know, for sure. I don't have all the answers. But I have to think that a people that are moral, and ethical - God fearing individuals would be better positioned to accept the sacrifice and make the decision. Are there any left?
With the incapacity of our federal bureaucracy and congress to deal with the issue of deficits maybe it will take an organized effort from below to quell the mounting disaster that is our addiction to spending through debt. Can we? I think only if we realize Tip O'neil's adage can and should still play today: All politics are local. The politics of spending can be stopped locally. The politics of Washington can be stopped locally. The politics of bureaucracy can be stopped locally. But only if we get men and women of character to step our of their lives, their churches, their sports and their recreation long enough to say, "Enough". And back that sentiment with a willingness to sacrifice and act.
Former speaker of the house Tip O'neil is famous for saying that all politics are local. There has been some criticism of that philosophy in recent years as we live more and more in a world that is flat
. But is it possible that technology will allow us to more specifically manage our homes and our cities and our counties better than a central government that seeks to impose with no real knowledge of need? Would a local government, staffed by men and women of character, and integrity not be more inclined to push back on the government funding imposed upon it by the federal bureaucracy? Would an operational county government staffed with men and women of character not push back on obligations that are beyond it's ability to provide? Would people of character in local office understand that at some point we must say "No", and accept the sacrifice that such a statement will require? I don't really know, for sure. I don't have all the answers. But I have to think that a people that are moral, and ethical - God fearing individuals would be better positioned to accept the sacrifice and make the decision. Are there any left?With the incapacity of our federal bureaucracy and congress to deal with the issue of deficits maybe it will take an organized effort from below to quell the mounting disaster that is our addiction to spending through debt. Can we? I think only if we realize Tip O'neil's adage can and should still play today: All politics are local. The politics of spending can be stopped locally. The politics of Washington can be stopped locally. The politics of bureaucracy can be stopped locally. But only if we get men and women of character to step our of their lives, their churches, their sports and their recreation long enough to say, "Enough". And back that sentiment with a willingness to sacrifice and act.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
What is Sharia Law and why should I Care?
Sharia Law is the "religious" law of the Muslim Faith - "a road the path to the watering hole". Given through Alla's prophets and (mainly) Muhammad. Muslim's like to call it the Science of understanding. What is the definition of crime in Islam? Rules according to action. You can be guilty by omission or commission. If you don't do something prescribed - punishment. If you do something prohibited - punishment. This is rule of law in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia. It is possible that this law could reach all over if the United States if our government grants the right of Sharia "enclaves" in the US these rules of law will exist here as well! Where are they now?: Baltimore, Little Rock, Philadelphia in fact at last count there are Islamic enclaves of some sort in every state in the Union! Sharia is a methodology by which people are indoctrinated into emulating the prophets words and actions. The foundation of everything they do, educate, work, play, marry, have kids is rooted in Jihad. Jihad is how they move the theology forward. They are no interested in "converts" they are interested in the supremacy of Islam only - by force - not by choice.
The United States has a difficult time managing this concept because we like to accommodate a so called separation of church and state. Does Islam demand it's right to worship "rightly" according to the constitution? We tend to want to say "Yes", and apply the "right" because we see it as a religious (and not Christian) and we are "tolerant". However, a devout Muslim will see Islam as above every other law, including - perhaps especially - the constitution. If we allow this, be sure that Islam can function only for a limited time within the constructs of the US constitution. It will only do so in order to achieve an eventual "greater authority" over the US constitution. Therefore, "if it doesn't hurt or infringe on my freedoms" we think to ourselves, "more power to you." The problem with this idea as it relates to Islam, however, is that outside of "cafeteria" Islamists - most of which are peacful - the Koran does not allow for the Muslim faith to be politically neutral. Islam is a political theology and it's reach and authority supersedes all others. the Muslim Faith = a socio-political, socio-economic, socio-religious system enshrined in theological rhetoric. Religious view is only par of the story: it's a gov't, it's a state, it's a political movement. Unlike Christianity it is not based upon choice. Islam alone is true, and you are temporally punishable - by men - whether you choose to believe it or not. "Temporally punishable" - meaning - the leaders of Islam don't have to let God be your judge, they are happy to do it themselves. Judge, jury and executioner. We ignore this at our peril. Islam does not believe in Equal justice under the Law and must crush the notion entirety. How will they do this - they will assert their religious rights in order to take away yours. Britain has already established some experience with Sharia Law. They have had muslim enclaves for many years. What started as an accommodation has become a right. Britain has 50 Islamic Courts running up and down the country of Britain. There is an entire parallel society running a state within the state, a country within a country and it is functioning legally against the loop holes. In America we have this because they have studied the laws of the Amish communities that have run parallel societies for years. Rights being granted - Islam see as weakness on the part of the American system of Laws. This is the reason why they believe that the American constitution will become subservient to political theology.
Shari'a. Coming to a city near you!
It's also coming to a business near you. Keep your eye out for the term "Sharia Compliant".
Shari'a compliant means that you invest and do business in a way that is acceptable by Sharia Law. A business has have to have a certificate from an expert to become a Sharia compliant expert - there are no more than 300 or 400 experts because they keep their numbers low. Consequently, they are very well paid. Bin Laden and the other terrorists are toys as compared to the power that these "experts" have and the damage that they are able to move forward through willing participation in Shari'a compliance. It's amazing what we'll give up to make a lot of money. To be compliant you must acknowledge the supremacy of Islam. They seek financial supremacy through these laws. These monies represent trillions and trillions of dollars. Here are a few things they would prohibit at the expense of death: weapons, gambling, pornography - not so bad right? Also, infidel's (that's you and me), women's rights, gay rights, freedom to live and work and worship as you choose. Namely, they will limit choice. These are all casualties of the Islamic faith. If you don't accept Islam as it is - the alternative is War.
Islamic business requires that a portion of the sale be applied to what amounts to a tithe. The Dow Jones now has what they call the Dow Jones Islamic Index. Islamic entities now own about 46% of the London Stock exchange. By 2012 the majority owners of the London Stock exchange will be Islam and the finances will be going through Shari'a law certification. Even our own banks are getting into Shari'a compliant activities. And there's more.
Some of the biggest names in American business are required to do business through Shari'a compliance: KFC, McDonald's, Walmart - our biggest corporation's are complying for market reasons.
Shari'a. Coming to a business near you!
Currently the US government is promoting "Sharia" based constitutions all across the world. Democracy has largely come to mean "any government" the people "choose". All over the world the US gov't is backing these Shari'a backed constitution. They believe that free exercise of religion is a direct threat to their belief.
What is the aim? Is it just to practice their rights? Or is it working toward supremacy? What a good Islamic adherent must do is practice "good". That means practicing Islamic doctrine: no other religion, no freedom, no choice. Not helping the poor, the orphans or the widows. Act justly? nah. Love mercy? nope. Walk humbly before God? Don't think so.
Some say, as long as Sharia is not being applied to us we are ok. Shari'a won't be implemented. However, if there Muslims in this country who are living and dying and marrying and procreating, doing business and leaving inheritances then Sharia is being implemented. But we need to recognize that in considering it with respect to the constitution of the US it does not "fit" because it seeks to replace the constitution as a political system - Islam in it's truest form is a political theology. Islam speaks of a doctrine of "Allegiance and Rejection. This doctrine holds that allegiance must NEVER be to a non-Muslim.
Look some of the things that Sharia Law - and hence - the Muslim faith, would prohibit are things that I would wholeheartedly agree do not represent the best for mankind. In my view, God's rule book agrees in many cases with what Sharia would enforce. Where the danger lies, is that Christ would ask that YOU make the choice to live according to his standards. Christ would say "trust" me and choose to live as I intended you to live. (That is, according to scripture.) Sharia Law seeks to impose this "moral code" upon mankind in a way that God never intended. Sharia Law must become less. Through Christ, those who practice Sharia can know freedom. If we are to maintain our freedom we must help those them know freedom.
The United States has a difficult time managing this concept because we like to accommodate a so called separation of church and state. Does Islam demand it's right to worship "rightly" according to the constitution? We tend to want to say "Yes", and apply the "right" because we see it as a religious (and not Christian) and we are "tolerant". However, a devout Muslim will see Islam as above every other law, including - perhaps especially - the constitution. If we allow this, be sure that Islam can function only for a limited time within the constructs of the US constitution. It will only do so in order to achieve an eventual "greater authority" over the US constitution. Therefore, "if it doesn't hurt or infringe on my freedoms" we think to ourselves, "more power to you." The problem with this idea as it relates to Islam, however, is that outside of "cafeteria" Islamists - most of which are peacful - the Koran does not allow for the Muslim faith to be politically neutral. Islam is a political theology and it's reach and authority supersedes all others. the Muslim Faith = a socio-political, socio-economic, socio-religious system enshrined in theological rhetoric. Religious view is only par of the story: it's a gov't, it's a state, it's a political movement. Unlike Christianity it is not based upon choice. Islam alone is true, and you are temporally punishable - by men - whether you choose to believe it or not. "Temporally punishable" - meaning - the leaders of Islam don't have to let God be your judge, they are happy to do it themselves. Judge, jury and executioner. We ignore this at our peril. Islam does not believe in Equal justice under the Law and must crush the notion entirety. How will they do this - they will assert their religious rights in order to take away yours. Britain has already established some experience with Sharia Law. They have had muslim enclaves for many years. What started as an accommodation has become a right. Britain has 50 Islamic Courts running up and down the country of Britain. There is an entire parallel society running a state within the state, a country within a country and it is functioning legally against the loop holes. In America we have this because they have studied the laws of the Amish communities that have run parallel societies for years. Rights being granted - Islam see as weakness on the part of the American system of Laws. This is the reason why they believe that the American constitution will become subservient to political theology.
Shari'a. Coming to a city near you!
It's also coming to a business near you. Keep your eye out for the term "Sharia Compliant".
Shari'a compliant means that you invest and do business in a way that is acceptable by Sharia Law. A business has have to have a certificate from an expert to become a Sharia compliant expert - there are no more than 300 or 400 experts because they keep their numbers low. Consequently, they are very well paid. Bin Laden and the other terrorists are toys as compared to the power that these "experts" have and the damage that they are able to move forward through willing participation in Shari'a compliance. It's amazing what we'll give up to make a lot of money. To be compliant you must acknowledge the supremacy of Islam. They seek financial supremacy through these laws. These monies represent trillions and trillions of dollars. Here are a few things they would prohibit at the expense of death: weapons, gambling, pornography - not so bad right? Also, infidel's (that's you and me), women's rights, gay rights, freedom to live and work and worship as you choose. Namely, they will limit choice. These are all casualties of the Islamic faith. If you don't accept Islam as it is - the alternative is War.
Islamic business requires that a portion of the sale be applied to what amounts to a tithe. The Dow Jones now has what they call the Dow Jones Islamic Index. Islamic entities now own about 46% of the London Stock exchange. By 2012 the majority owners of the London Stock exchange will be Islam and the finances will be going through Shari'a law certification. Even our own banks are getting into Shari'a compliant activities. And there's more.
Some of the biggest names in American business are required to do business through Shari'a compliance: KFC, McDonald's, Walmart - our biggest corporation's are complying for market reasons.
Shari'a. Coming to a business near you!
Currently the US government is promoting "Sharia" based constitutions all across the world. Democracy has largely come to mean "any government" the people "choose". All over the world the US gov't is backing these Shari'a backed constitution. They believe that free exercise of religion is a direct threat to their belief.
What is the aim? Is it just to practice their rights? Or is it working toward supremacy? What a good Islamic adherent must do is practice "good". That means practicing Islamic doctrine: no other religion, no freedom, no choice. Not helping the poor, the orphans or the widows. Act justly? nah. Love mercy? nope. Walk humbly before God? Don't think so.
Some say, as long as Sharia is not being applied to us we are ok. Shari'a won't be implemented. However, if there Muslims in this country who are living and dying and marrying and procreating, doing business and leaving inheritances then Sharia is being implemented. But we need to recognize that in considering it with respect to the constitution of the US it does not "fit" because it seeks to replace the constitution as a political system - Islam in it's truest form is a political theology. Islam speaks of a doctrine of "Allegiance and Rejection. This doctrine holds that allegiance must NEVER be to a non-Muslim.
Look some of the things that Sharia Law - and hence - the Muslim faith, would prohibit are things that I would wholeheartedly agree do not represent the best for mankind. In my view, God's rule book agrees in many cases with what Sharia would enforce. Where the danger lies, is that Christ would ask that YOU make the choice to live according to his standards. Christ would say "trust" me and choose to live as I intended you to live. (That is, according to scripture.) Sharia Law seeks to impose this "moral code" upon mankind in a way that God never intended. Sharia Law must become less. Through Christ, those who practice Sharia can know freedom. If we are to maintain our freedom we must help those them know freedom.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Our Point counter Point President
President Obama spoke at the University of Michigan commencement exercises this year. The question he posed and provided an answer to the expectant graduating class is this: how will we keep our democracy going?
Now, ignoring the fact that we don't have a direct democracy - and offering the benefit of the doubt that the "representative" portion of our form of government was omitted out of rhetorical expediency and not as a means to imply we are a direct democracy, President Obama attempts to answer the question. He gives us 2 things to consider:
"First, American democracy has thrived because we have recognized the need for a government that, while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world."
"The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.
As I've found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn't easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."
The President postulates that the reason our representative democracy has thrived is because we recognize the "need for a government that, while limited, can help us adapt to a changing world." I don't know if that is true - much less if it is the reason democracy has thrived. We do have a people that recognizes we must adapt to a changing world. We also recognize that our institutions must adapt to a changing world - as he alludes to Thomas Jefferson's quote on the 4th panel of the Jefferson memorial. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but...with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." Where does it say that government must adapt or that the government should "help" us do this? This sounds like a representative tyranny to me, not representative democracy. Now, I would agree that there are certain things that the people must do, and if they do not, the government must step in. The people must remain moral. Where the people do not remain moral, the government must punish evil. There are many reasons that our form of government has thrived, but an understanding about the efficacy of government is not one of them. Even Jefferson in his quote - between Obama's ellipses of the Jefferson quote - speaks of the individual, and the accompanying change of government. Not government, to change the individual.
The President then goes on to explain that our second method of maintaining our democracy is to maintain civility in our debate and beyond that to listen to all sides. On this point I agree with the President. But I wonder, does he agree with himself? We should remain civil in our debate - but under what circumstances is calling a form of government health care "socialist" not civil - if in fact we discuss socialized medicine? The President points out the hypocrisy of a (tea party) sign that reads - "Keep government out of my Medicare!" The President rightly (is this civil?), mocks, "...this is like saying 'Keep government out of my Government-run Healthcare...". On the other hand, he also allows his party leaders to call their opponents names ( Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi) and himself and his executive branch staff to attack the private sector for political purposes. (news, banks, insurance, citizens) I agree civility is important in debate, but the commentary - even the harshest commentary - is part of the debate. It shouldn't scare us away or prevent engagement. It should spur us on to understand the real issues. Obviously, harsh commentary is something that flows freely from both sides - let it. Ignore it, process it, add to it. The Presidents best advice comes next: "...if you're someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website..." Diversity of opinion and thought is a good thing, it allows us the choice as God intended.
To eliminate these forums would go directly against the effort the President then goes on to encourage in the UM commencement address:
" The point is, when we don't pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders; when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day; when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that's when democracy breaks down. That's when power is abused. That's when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That's when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of Washington - because none of us are there to speak up and stop them."
Frederick Douglass once said, "Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awesome roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will."
Well, Mr. President, if we don't pay attention, and fail to educate ourselves, and choose to be silent - in short if we are not there - shame on us.
Now, ignoring the fact that we don't have a direct democracy - and offering the benefit of the doubt that the "representative" portion of our form of government was omitted out of rhetorical expediency and not as a means to imply we are a direct democracy, President Obama attempts to answer the question. He gives us 2 things to consider:
"First, American democracy has thrived because we have recognized the need for a government that, while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world."
"The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.
As I've found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn't easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."
The President postulates that the reason our representative democracy has thrived is because we recognize the "need for a government that, while limited, can help us adapt to a changing world." I don't know if that is true - much less if it is the reason democracy has thrived. We do have a people that recognizes we must adapt to a changing world. We also recognize that our institutions must adapt to a changing world - as he alludes to Thomas Jefferson's quote on the 4th panel of the Jefferson memorial. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but...with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." Where does it say that government must adapt or that the government should "help" us do this? This sounds like a representative tyranny to me, not representative democracy. Now, I would agree that there are certain things that the people must do, and if they do not, the government must step in. The people must remain moral. Where the people do not remain moral, the government must punish evil. There are many reasons that our form of government has thrived, but an understanding about the efficacy of government is not one of them. Even Jefferson in his quote - between Obama's ellipses of the Jefferson quote - speaks of the individual, and the accompanying change of government. Not government, to change the individual.
The President then goes on to explain that our second method of maintaining our democracy is to maintain civility in our debate and beyond that to listen to all sides. On this point I agree with the President. But I wonder, does he agree with himself? We should remain civil in our debate - but under what circumstances is calling a form of government health care "socialist" not civil - if in fact we discuss socialized medicine? The President points out the hypocrisy of a (tea party) sign that reads - "Keep government out of my Medicare!" The President rightly (is this civil?), mocks, "...this is like saying 'Keep government out of my Government-run Healthcare...". On the other hand, he also allows his party leaders to call their opponents names ( Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi) and himself and his executive branch staff to attack the private sector for political purposes. (news, banks, insurance, citizens) I agree civility is important in debate, but the commentary - even the harshest commentary - is part of the debate. It shouldn't scare us away or prevent engagement. It should spur us on to understand the real issues. Obviously, harsh commentary is something that flows freely from both sides - let it. Ignore it, process it, add to it. The Presidents best advice comes next: "...if you're someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website..." Diversity of opinion and thought is a good thing, it allows us the choice as God intended.
To eliminate these forums would go directly against the effort the President then goes on to encourage in the UM commencement address:
" The point is, when we don't pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders; when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day; when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that's when democracy breaks down. That's when power is abused. That's when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That's when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of Washington - because none of us are there to speak up and stop them."
Frederick Douglass once said, "Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awesome roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will."
Well, Mr. President, if we don't pay attention, and fail to educate ourselves, and choose to be silent - in short if we are not there - shame on us.
Friday, May 07, 2010
They laughed. He cried. We lose.
Somewhere in Indiana I suspect Dan Quayle is having a bittersweet moment. Recently Pew Research put out a new report which vindicated Mr. Quayle who in a 1992 speech at the Commenwealth in San Francisco. Bittersweet because this event was one of the first moments of many to come where ridicule and scorn would be heaped upon the 44th Vice President of the United States by our media and the culture at large. It would be on of the first, of many episodes of unintentional "humor". A TV season of comedy involving an articulate, profesional, attractive, wealthy media anchorwoman trying to figure out how to: give birth, find a father, manage logistics, a career and wacky (but professional) friends, Murphy Brown finally has her baby and the responsibilities that go with it. She also hammers Mr. Quayle. (see at approx 5:32) Funny stuff, sort of. If you don't think about it too hard. Or too long. Like 18 years too long.
Now 18 years later Pew tells us that that 41% of our mothers are unwed - as compared to 28% when Dan Quayle made these comments that made him part and parcel of the laughing stock that was supposed to be a fictional comedy show. But here we are in 2010 and more and more of our unwed mother's(are demographically) looking like Murphy Brown: They are smarter, older, more educated and more single:
"Intelligent, highly paid, professional woman..." mocking fathers. Of course, in the clip we see the media response to this charge of mockery, ironically, in all of it's mocking glory.
So here we are the populace has largely declared that it really doesn't matter. Motherhood without fathers is cool - or at least ok. And why? Certainly not because of this fictional character. But because we absorbed the humor with a chuckle we also - consciously or not - agreed with this "intelligent, highly paid, professional woman". Inaction, is a choice. Dan Quayle took action. The rest of us. Inaction. What are we not acting upon in 2010?
Yet I say bittersweet? Why would this not be simply sweet for the former Vice President? I think because Dan Quayle was trying to send out a clarion call, an alert, a warning - out of genuine concern. I believe he wanted this to change. I don't think his intentions were to provide fodder for comedic relief. We didn't receive the message. Intead, we laughed. he cried. We lose.
Now 18 years later Pew tells us that that 41% of our mothers are unwed - as compared to 28% when Dan Quayle made these comments that made him part and parcel of the laughing stock that was supposed to be a fictional comedy show. But here we are in 2010 and more and more of our unwed mother's(are demographically) looking like Murphy Brown: They are smarter, older, more educated and more single:
"Intelligent, highly paid, professional woman..." mocking fathers. Of course, in the clip we see the media response to this charge of mockery, ironically, in all of it's mocking glory.
So here we are the populace has largely declared that it really doesn't matter. Motherhood without fathers is cool - or at least ok. And why? Certainly not because of this fictional character. But because we absorbed the humor with a chuckle we also - consciously or not - agreed with this "intelligent, highly paid, professional woman". Inaction, is a choice. Dan Quayle took action. The rest of us. Inaction. What are we not acting upon in 2010?
Yet I say bittersweet? Why would this not be simply sweet for the former Vice President? I think because Dan Quayle was trying to send out a clarion call, an alert, a warning - out of genuine concern. I believe he wanted this to change. I don't think his intentions were to provide fodder for comedic relief. We didn't receive the message. Intead, we laughed. he cried. We lose.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Humility, empathy v. Humble Pride of Life
"Humility and Empathy. It's not about what you do, it's how you can motivate and create the environment for others to be their best. Including you. A magnification effect, of sorts."
A good friend offered me this advice today. Humility and empathy are a lost art. In it's place we have what I would call a humble pride of life. That is, humility for the purpose of driving one's own ambition. I thought it appropriate given the private thoughts of some of our so called "market makers" as outlined in the private emails of Goldman Sachs. (GS) The entire 901 pages of GS package mediated by the house sub-committee is seen below. Click here if you want it big enough to actually read
042710Exhibits -
In any case my point is that business today is judged on all the wrong factors.
Check out pages 227-246 for the reviews of some of the managers of the GS fortune. An example of this humble pride of life? How about page 243 which includes a self review of one J Birnbaum..."....I command considerable respect from younger membersdue to my experience and market impact. I need to spend more time converting this respect into comfort and trust." Translation? "...my subordinates for good reason think I'm a god. Maybe I should work on that..." In this episode we are talking about massive amounts of money. We can see the Money. Some say "money is the root of all evil"...isn't that what the good book says? The thing is, I like money. If you're honest about it, so do you. I'll take as much of it as I can legally, morally and ethically get my hands on. Some of us will take as much as we can get a way with and not get caught. I hope and pray that is not me. I like what I can do with money, I like what money can do for others and I like the pleasures, contributions and benefits that money provides to myself and society. So the scriptures are either wrong or I am a hypocrite. Right? I think not.
Of course the theologians among my, thus far, non-existent following have already noticed the fallacy. The Money is not the problem....the good book
says the "love of money" is the root of all evil.
So the question becomes, "Is the bottom line" all that matters? What if Mr. Birnbaum had internal pressure to give equally detailed (see page 241) metrics on how he acted justly, loved mercy and walked humbly? Would the outcome of this episode been entirely different as it relates to society as a whole? I'll suggest it may have never even occurred and GS would have made less money. Perhaps GS would have made less money, but would GS have created less value? I think not. In the business community, particularly big business, we have an accountable drive to make money with an unaccountable drive to "give back". Our large firms are not giving back to increase intangible value - they give back in order to increase monetary value. The give back because it "is the thing to do". They give back, but don't measure that contribution in any tanglible way besides monetary value. In 2007 Goldman Sachs made over $10b. They "gave back" less than 5% of that to the community. Where are the metrics for the impact of that contribution? In what ways do they assure that the impact of their employees work is adding value to the community at large? As a self proclaimed "market maker" we don't generally understand what companies like Goldman do. More importantly, we don't understand how their work impacts us. If, instead of allocating dollars - or perhaps better said - in addition to allocating dollars, GS required demonstrable metrics of social value from their employees, then none of this would have happened. Is that possible?
For now, we end up with self aggrandizement (p.241) and non-critical self review (p243) and metrics measuring the accumulation of untold fortunes. And lest we use the occasion of Mr. Birnbaum's private comments to foist criticism upon him let me suggest that we all do the same thing. Maybe we don't measure our profits in the billions - but in God's eyes it doesn't matter. You and I do the same thing. Only Mr. Birnbaum can change himself. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I can change me. You can change you. And business, it can change itself by figuring out a way to tangibly measure it's value in terms that mitigate a humble pride of life and emphasize humility and empathy.
A good friend offered me this advice today. Humility and empathy are a lost art. In it's place we have what I would call a humble pride of life. That is, humility for the purpose of driving one's own ambition. I thought it appropriate given the private thoughts of some of our so called "market makers" as outlined in the private emails of Goldman Sachs. (GS) The entire 901 pages of GS package mediated by the house sub-committee is seen below. Click here if you want it big enough to actually read
042710Exhibits -
In any case my point is that business today is judged on all the wrong factors.
Check out pages 227-246 for the reviews of some of the managers of the GS fortune. An example of this humble pride of life? How about page 243 which includes a self review of one J Birnbaum..."....I command considerable respect from younger members
Of course the theologians among my, thus far, non-existent following have already noticed the fallacy. The Money is not the problem....the good book
says the "love of money" is the root of all evil.So the question becomes, "Is the bottom line" all that matters? What if Mr. Birnbaum had internal pressure to give equally detailed (see page 241) metrics on how he acted justly, loved mercy and walked humbly? Would the outcome of this episode been entirely different as it relates to society as a whole? I'll suggest it may have never even occurred and GS would have made less money. Perhaps GS would have made less money, but would GS have created less value? I think not. In the business community, particularly big business, we have an accountable drive to make money with an unaccountable drive to "give back". Our large firms are not giving back to increase intangible value - they give back in order to increase monetary value. The give back because it "is the thing to do". They give back, but don't measure that contribution in any tanglible way besides monetary value. In 2007 Goldman Sachs made over $10b. They "gave back" less than 5% of that to the community. Where are the metrics for the impact of that contribution? In what ways do they assure that the impact of their employees work is adding value to the community at large? As a self proclaimed "market maker" we don't generally understand what companies like Goldman do. More importantly, we don't understand how their work impacts us. If, instead of allocating dollars - or perhaps better said - in addition to allocating dollars, GS required demonstrable metrics of social value from their employees, then none of this would have happened. Is that possible?
For now, we end up with self aggrandizement (p.241) and non-critical self review (p243) and metrics measuring the accumulation of untold fortunes. And lest we use the occasion of Mr. Birnbaum's private comments to foist criticism upon him let me suggest that we all do the same thing. Maybe we don't measure our profits in the billions - but in God's eyes it doesn't matter. You and I do the same thing. Only Mr. Birnbaum can change himself. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I can change me. You can change you. And business, it can change itself by figuring out a way to tangibly measure it's value in terms that mitigate a humble pride of life and emphasize humility and empathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)