When "capitalism" goes Wrong

The point about capitalism and commercialism of late, is that they have really preached the extension of business rather than the preservation of belongings; and have at best tried to disguise the pickpocket with some of the virtues of the pirate.          The Outline of Sanity - GK Chesterton, 1927/

NAR: Charismania on Steroids

More thoughts on the NAR.  From John MacArthur's sermon on the Holy Spirit:

What’s going on today is the opposite, attributing to the Holy Spirit the work of Satan. That’s what’s going on. Attributing to the Holy Spirit the work of Satan. Satan is alive and at work in deception, false miracles, bad theology, lying visions, lying dreams, lying revelations, deceptive teachers who are in it for the money and power and influence. Satan is alive and well and the work of Satan is being attributed to the Holy Spirit, that is a serious blasphemy just as attributing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit is a serious blasphemy.

The latest wave of this, I’ll just give you one illustration, the latest wave of this that is gaining traction and has entered into the sort of national news is a new form of Charismania, bringing reproach on the Holy Spirit called the New Apostolic Reformation, NAR, the New Apostolic Reformation. It is not new, it is not apostolic, and it is not a reformation, by the way. It is like Grape Nuts, it’s not grapes and it’s not nuts, it’s like Christian Science, it’s not Christian and it’s not scientific. Well the New Apostolic Reformation isn’t new, it isn’t apostolic and it isn’t a reformation. But it is a rapidly expanding movement being generated by some of the same old troubling false teachers and false leaders that have been around in Charismania for decades, always dishonoring the Holy Spirit, always dishonoring the Scripture, always claiming miracle signs, wonders, visions, dreams....

....There was a couple of weeks ago, a few weeks ago now, a prayer breakfast in the city of Houston that you may have read about. It was an event sponsored by the New Apostolic Reformation and their leaders and the guests and the main speaker there was Rick Perry, who is a candidate for the Republican Party for President. At this event sponsored by the New Apostolic Reformation, two pastors were leading in this event. They are apostles. They have been given apostleship by the Holy Spirit. They called Rick Perry’s office, as governor of the state of Texas, and told him that the Lord had revealed to them through the Holy Spirit that Texas is the state that God has chosen to lead the United States into revival and godly government and Rick Perry is to play a key role. And at that event, these two apostles of the New Apostolic Reformation Movement, laid hands on Rick Perry and prayed over him. They claim that God speaks directly to them specific instruction…specific instruction. And if people fail to listen to this divine revelation that comes through them, there will be more earthquakes, more terrorist attacks and worse economic conditions....Now you know where this all comes from. This is again attributing to the Holy Spirit the work of Satan. I don’t know what Rick Perry knows or doesn’t know about all of this, you know, in a campaign year, you take the prayers from anybody especially if you’re not sure what this is all about. But this is just one illustration of the aberrations that continue to be placed on the back of the Holy Spirit as if these are things that He is doing. It is such a frightening, frightening form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit....

Confidence Men - Notables

"Presidents are amoung the few mortals who are sometimes graced with chances to change a culture. Throughout a windswept march, the country had been working to dislodge some of the era's prevailing certainties about markets being efficient, about people--- economically, at least--- getting what they deserve, along with the concomitant belief that financial barons are brilliant and indispensable, and manufacturing executives are dinosaurs. With the eyes of the country on him, Barack Obama ended the the month by shielding Wall Street executives agains these winds of cultural change, while he fired a man who had effectively managed four hundred thousand workers in their making of seven million cars a year-- without bothering to meet him. At the same time, he agreed to try to bail out Chrysler, and eventually GM, by adopting the practices and principals of private equity in the use of government funds." p241 "Someone said to me the other day that history produces great leaders. But I don't think that's quite right. I think the American people produce great leaders. The fact that they took a guy who was four years out of the Illinois Senate and made him the president, but insist that he run every mile of the race to get there, clear every hurdle, run every gauntlet-- there's wisdom in that....but now, 5 months along he [Axelrod] and his boss were furiously trying to run up steep and unforgiving learning curves." p 283 "The confidence of a nation rests on trust and can endure for years after this trust has been broken. But it cannot endure indefinitelyif the foundation of trust is not at some point earned. Confidence is the immaterial residue of material actions: justly enforced laws, sound investments, solidly built structures, the well-considered decisions of experts and professionals. Confidence is the public face of competence. Separating the two -- gaining the trust without earning it -- is the age old work of confidence men." p292 "The president received the report on May 15. it took just a few days for Summers to hear about it. He found out through Emmanuel. Orszag looked up from his desk. Summers had stormed over from the White House to Orszag's office, and his face was red with rage. It looked like he was about to burst a blood vessel. He told Orszage he'd found out about the paper. He said that he, Peter, knew the rules, no matter what the president had said. Everything was supposed to go through NEC....[Summers] What you've done is IMMORAL!..." p 297 On Peter Orszag writing a summary report at Obama's direction to get it directly to him. "'What is my narrative?' he all but shouted. 'I don't have a narrative.' Of course he was right. The extraordinary story of Barack Obama -- a boy, so truly African American, who was blown between countries and households before finding his solid stance in the United States and then racing upward through its meritocracy-- no longer seemed pertinent to almost anything he was doing. It was, no doubt, always a narrative of 'up ahead, a dream of what would be': of how he would bind the country into an enlarged ideal of shared purpose, integrating its dissonant chords into a melody as elegant and surely struck as he, himself, appeared to be. Instead, he had vanished into a cloud of endless policy debates and irreconcilable factions, of bold words -- still hoping to summon the magic -- so often divorced from measurable deeds. Bit by bit, month by month the first narrative had faded, even if plenty of people felt it's presence, like the ghost of a lost limb. 'He was right' one of the participants that morning recalled. 'He had no narrative. No story. For someone like Obama, that's like saying I don't know who I am. That I've lost my way." p 372

Confidence Men

A new book by one of Washington's primary journalists came out in the last month.  Ron Suskind, who wrote of the sordid misdeeds of the Bush administration has given his take on President Obama's first 3 years in office.  Chock full of information, interviews and storyline from primary players in the administration the book is being hailed by conservatives as proof positive that the President didn't/doesn't know what he is doing and indeed, appears to have the Washington elite closest to Obama wondering what hit them.  Apparently, Suskind was given access to the top players with the idea that his book would paint a strong and confident picture of the President and his administration.  The Obama elite, instead seem to be taking this as a hit job.  I understand why they think this, but my opinion is that the book positions him pretty uniquely, if not well, for his attempted re-election.  The book itself is divided into three sub-books entitled:  The Two Capitals, Home Alone, The Education of Barack Obama.

The Two Capitals mostly details his rise and highlights the hope and expecation of both the genius's make up his support team and the electorate.  Suskin's narrative weaves in and out of the run up to the election with a starting point in September 2010 and looking back.  A good deal of this reads like a novella detailing the early brushes with Wall illuminati that allowed him to understand the markets.  Between the informational growing spurts, the enlightment on Wall Streets transgressions and the coming fall-out that, according to the narrative, the soon to be President was told was a matter of when - not if, this book details a compelling lead up to his ultimate inauguration.  It details the wonderment and even awe - and occasional distaste that the President felt about his rapid rise in favor amoung the people.  (47)  Finally, this section details the transition team.  Presumably this is where the sections from which the title "The Two Capitals" comes.  I would say that I don't quite understand it's emphasis as a section title since really only the 7th chapter deals with post-election ending as events actually did, with the climax of his inauguration.  The title suggests to discuss the oddly symbiotic relationship of George Bush (seemingly) going into seclusion in Washington and  Barack Obama (seemingly) running things from Chicago.  Except that George Bush is never brought up so apparently it should be common knowledge to the reader.  The seed of quirks in personality, pride and sometimes pomposity of staffing that would contribute to an (at least early) organizational dysfunction are finally in place.

Home Alone  describes the President through his early learning of issues in general management.  These lessons according to the narrative were largely in setting his own agend and not allowing the agenda to be set for him.  Geithner and Summers are highlighted as strong personalities early.  But then, in a story woven to highlight the strong leadership skills of the new president, we visualize a meeting with staff to discuss priorities:  Healthcare or Economic Focus.  In the absence of his primary health care expert, the former Senator Tom Daschle the president calls on a tentative assistant to Daschle to defend Healthcare as the priority.  The poor fellow is trounced by the minds in the room until the President puts him out of his misery, "Ok, enough, enough...I'll play Daschle." (178)  Upon which the President flips the rolls and trumps all the smartest guys in the room.  Healthcare becomes the early focus.  That's not to say he wasn't rolled however.  The book details Rahm Emmanual derailing talks to "rip the bandaid off" and enable true reform with forcible and punctuated language that may as well have been a punch in the stomach to Christina Romer. (219)  This, after the President seemed to be leaning toward a more industry harsh, "bad bank" solution from Romer and Summers.

The final section seems to highlight his ongoing education.  Details how President Obama realized that his team was manipulated situations (if not him) and he was not truly making or implementing policy as he was directing it to be made or managed.  He attributes this largely to the learning process and in effect the book argues that we might consider the first four years as a down payment and that to be fair he really needs another 4 years to work out the details.  The Obama administration seemed a bit shell shocked when the book came out but I suspect that this will be a good jumping off point for them to persuade the American people not to give up on him yet. 

There were several things that discouraged me as I read the book.  The first is that the people that who are in charge of the government are the exact same people that instigated the laws and regulatory environment that allowed it to happen.  Lawrence Summers (Citi and repeal of Glass Stegall), Rahm Emmanual (Fannie), Timothy Geithner (New York Fed, TARP) Ben Bernanke (QE's).   These guys are smart enough to figure out how to rob the american people in a way that is either legal or there is no controling legal authority.  I am bewildered that the President feels that it is wise to work with the very individuals that allowed this mess to occur - and in fact capitalized on the loop holes they created in their roles - to help his resolve what is the most critical economic challenge in my lifetime.  The second thing that I am amazed at is that no one seems interested in truly resolving the problem.  Their plan seems to be do whatever you must in order to make people feel confidence in the market place, and then the market will come back.  Wouldn't it seem wise to work on underlying principals that would actually provide us with strong fundementals?  What must be done to accomplish a fundementally strong financial infrastructure?  How do we drive business toward growth rather than making it more difficult to make money.  How do we discourage the gambling mentality of our financial service sector that provides nothing but naked profit?  Something from nothing?  There must be a way to retstrain the gambling markets and contract the productive markets.  And yet we have no positive suggestions from the smartest guys in the room.     

           

A Problem with Wall Street, Not Capitalism

I believe that Mr. Robb nails it:

**********************************************************************

A Problem With Wall Street, Not Capitalism
By Robert Robb

The conservative reaction to the Occupy Wall Street protests has been derision coupled with a reflexive defense of Wall Street.

Both are a mistake.

One of the elements of the derision is the claim that the protesters don’t have an agenda. But they do.

The protests consist mainly of people who believe that economic and social justice requires a form of economic organization other than capitalism. That may not lend itself to a five-point plan, but it’s an agenda nonetheless.

It’s a decidedly misguided agenda. The protesters are massively wrong about the incompatibility of capitalism and social justice.

Social justice shouldn’t be measured on what the rich have, which is the fixation of the protesters. Instead, the focus should be on the lot of the poor. The spread of market capitalism has done more to improve living standards for more of the world’s poor than anything else in human history.

There is, however, a serious social justice problem that has developed in American market capitalism. Two of the bridges to the middle class for those without a college education – manufacturing and construction – have been eroded. Manufacturing jobs haven’t been lost mainly to free trade, as the brief against capitalism would have it, but to sharply improved productivity. And construction wages have been undermined by illegal immigrant labor.  The American economy hasn’t really developed substitutes for these bridges. While the protesters misdiagnose and exaggerate the problem, conservatives shouldn’t be so dismissive of the rising income gap based upon education.  The protesters are occupying Wall Street because they see large investment banks as the heart of American capitalism. They are also wrong about that, but their mistake is shared by the policymakers in both of the country’s major political parties.

Capital is the bloodline of commerce. Businesses produce first, then get paid by those who buy their goods or services. They need money to get from Point A to Point B.  There are an infinite number of ways that businesses get capital. Large Wall Street investment banks play a role, but a rather small one. And almost exclusively for big businesses, which isn’t where the growth in the American economy occurs.   A lot of what the large investment banks do isn’t raising capital. It’s gambling on economic movements of various sorts. Some of this is economically useful hedging to minimize risk. But a lot of it is rich people betting on economic trends rather than ponies, dogs, cards or dice.  Some compare Wall Street investment banks to casinos, but that’s unfair to casino operators. Casino operators just bank the house take. Investment banks have a house take, the fees to set up the bets. But then they bet as well. Worse, they bet with borrowed money, which is about as stupid a business model as can be envisioned.  When their bets with borrowed money turned out badly, Washington bailed them out with public money in the mistaken belief that they were more important to the broader economy than they really are.  The reforms proposed by the Obama administration and approved by Congress are inadequate to prevent a recurrence. If policymakers are unwilling to let large investment banks go broke, then the gambling needs to be thoroughly separated from the brokerage and capital-raising functions. And banks and hedge funds have to be limited to a size that policymakers are willing to see go broke.

The ire of the Occupy Wall Street protesters is warranted. Large Wall Street investment banks have taken taxpayers on a ride and escaped deserved consequences for their irresponsible financial behavior.  The protesters are wrong, however, in regarding Wall Street as the heart of American capitalism. But they have a lot of company in that mistake.

Robert Robb is a columnist for the Arizona Republic and a RealClearPolitics contributor. Reach him at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com. Read more of his work at robertrobb.com.

Two tiers of American Business...for now

The Constructive Tension US Democracy

In his article, "Too Much of a Good Thing" in the new republic this month Peter Orszag the former adviser to President Obama and Clinton advocates for less democracy in the United States.  This is one of the worst ideas I have heard since someone suggested (and continues) a new constitutional convention. 

The problem is that our form of democracy is slow, incremental, and insanely illogical.  The thing is that for many of us in the United States our country has provided a good life because, as a form of government, our representative form of democracy is slow, incremental and insanely illogical. The thing is, our form of government protects radical shifts in policy for the very reasons that these ideologues decry.  Do I wish that we would stop spending?  Yes.  Do I wish that abortion on demand would cease to exist?  Yes.  Do I wish that all people in our country were to have a high quality of life?  Yes.  Do I wish that any individual that has an unjust, unspeakable violation of their person happened upon them be whole and have options?  Yes.  The problem is that most of the time the things that we want, balance and justice, are things that no society is without.  It is unfair.  It is unjust.  It is not complete.  But these things, added to the hundreds of thousands of blessings that we see every single day in this country are what make up the fabric of Life.  What our "USA Democracy" points out is that the best way to protect everyone, is to make it difficult for any of them to have their own way.  In this way, disparate interests have to be dedicated and resolved in order to get ANYTHING done.  Only in instances where their is a preponderance of agreement (response to 9/11) or a subversion of this system (ObamaCare through reconciliation) anything happen quickly.  No matter the method, it usually results in government overreach.  

These calls for "less democracy" or demonizing the process because of how cumbersome it is can be made, but it usually made by those who would wish to subvert the "will of the people" and impose their own.  More than likely they would be the ones to benefit by a subdued or quiet (read:  drugged or muzzled) populace.  They will couch it in conversations about how our system of government is broke, or is antiquated.  They'll focus on the low opinion American's have in the "congress".  They intentionally omit the fact that a strong majority loves THEIR congressperson, they just don't like congress as a whole.  What these policy makers really mean is that "we the people" are too stupid to know what is in our collective best interest and it sure would be easier if they could just do what they know is best.  In spite of the terrible and irresponsible fact that the much of the American people are less informed than they ought to be - we still have a strong involved contingency that should not be ignored.  No matter if their views are traditionally from the Left or the Right. Our founders recognized and created a system that not only recognized that tension created between these two groups - but used that tension in a practical way - to prevent any one group from getting too much too fast.  So, I'll let you have your extreme view.  You let me have mine.  And together, in this slow, incremental and illogical system - we'll keep making progress in our own way.  

   

President Obama professes Jesus as Lord

At a fundraiser in Los Angeles yesterday President Obama encountered a heckler who plainly stated Truth.  "Jesus Christ is God! Jesus Christ is God! Jesus Christ is God! Jesus Christ is the son of God!" To which the crowd immediately began to boo.  Of course I hope that most were booing at the perceived inappropriateness of the venue for such a proclamation: interrupting a political event.  (In Truth, should such a proclamation ever be considered "inappropriate"?)  Better yet would it be they boo due to a correct premonition of what would come next.  After his utterance of Truth the young man uttered a strong opinion too.  You can  listen here.  I'd like to suggest that such an opinion spoken is inappropriate, while at the same time being quietly watchful to the possibility of his suggestion is not.

It's probably not a wise thing to utter such opinion next to Truth.  If you've listened through the link you'll know that the heckler christens Barack Obama the anti-christ.  Now scripture encourages us to be on the look out for the anti-christ - and for those that would come before the True Christ in messiah-like fashion.  It even suggests that there will be One who eventually claims to be God.  I have to admit that I have wondered about this President.   I've kept a quiet mouth on the idea - but an open eye and mind to the possibility.  Anyone remember the photo to the right?  Or these?  How about Oprah Winfrey's pronunciation of him as "The One".  Yikes.  I've watched him(seemingly) cater to Muslims here, here and arguably suggest that all religions are Truth.  And admittedly, the deep policy differences that I hold with the President - particularly as it relates to abortion rights and social engineering on behalf of the gay agenda - led me to a knee jerk first thought, "...even the demons believe in God..." (James 2:19)
At the same time I've seen him profess a stirring and profound Christian testimony about coming to Christ.    The contradictions are too numerous to number in this space.  So this reminds me that throughout history the Christian public, including me, have speculated - and the contradictions existed - in the same way about other leaders.  Some thought Stalin was the anti-christ.  Some thought Hitler the anti-christ.  In my lifetime I can remember wondering about Gorbachev. (remember that sinister mark?) How about Amadinajad.  I have to admit that I even wondered about possibility of Clinton or the Bush family dynasty springing forth the one who is anti-God.  (We still have Jeb - and ALL grandkids kids.)  So it should be no surprise - and I would argue is a biblical mandate - that I should view any world leader that comes to the world stage as a conquering hero - to be a candidate.  Of course, we think these things knowing that most scholars believe the anti-christ will rise from eastern europe or the middle east.  So perhaps the President's response shouldn't surprise us and even may give those of us watching and in political disagreement something he's always promised: Hope. (he's certainly given us plenty of change).

Progressives to taste the racism Smear?

Progressive 2008 Obama voters find themselves finds himself in an interesting predicament.  With liberal progressives and even those within the black community unsatisfied with the his agenda there is a curious shot being fired in the progressive publication, The Nation.  Melissa Harris Perry writes in this weeks online issue that a more pernicious racism could very well be afoot.  In spite of President Obama's efforts to minimize the issue of raise, at least in his public voice, the table is now being set to guilt those unsatisfied with his work as a progressive and possibly set up a primary challenge for him prior to the 2012 general election. 
Harris-Perry points out the obvious that voters were willing to bring him into office in 2004 as a senator in Illinois (against a black republican opponent no less) and then again 2008.  To her credit she admits that the most "naked, egregious and aggressive form" of racism is no longer a factor.  She comes to this conclusion by pointing out the less obvious (which I take at her word as I've not researched it myself) by comparing the "roll-off" vote in prior elections.  "Roll off" is the number of voters who vote in a primary election but then fail to vote in current year municipal, state or local elections.  The same can be compared to off year elections.  For example, those who voted in the Kerry-Bush race in 2008 but refused to vote in the Illinois senate race which was comprised of Obama and another black candidate Alan Keyes.  If the number votes cast were significantly lower for the senate race then one could deduce that racism was still alive and well.  The "roll off" was statistically insignificant.  This allowed Harris Perry to conclude the worst form of racism is no factor.

But don't celebrate yet.  According to Harris Perry we still need to look out for what she has termed "liberal electoral racism".  This is defined as "...the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.  She goes on to compare the legislative "successes" of President Obama and President Clinton concluding of course that Obama has seen as much success as did President Clinton.  Concluding that both Clinton and Obama are centrist Presidents.  Of course she concludes the only difference between the two:  one is white and the other is black.  Therefore any push for the base to abdicate him, or heaven forbid, push for a primary challenger will indicate a form of racism that still exists.  An interesting theory I disagree with on many levels but I will leave the reader to decide.

What I find equally interesting is the comments section.  "I love you Melissa but bunk!"  or "...don't you listen to the reasons liberals give for being very unhappy with President Obama? To blame it on racism is, frankly, insulting...".  On and on it goes.  I don't know if a primary challenge is in the cards or not, but it offers some small satisfaction to see those that would accuse me of racism for not voting for this President (much less agreeing with His policies) beginning to get back a bit of their own medicine.  Is it possible they will learn from this and cease and desist?    

Roots of Obama

We hear much rhetoric in the conservative right about President Obama's political ideology.  Marxist. Socialist.  Communist.  I read a book that I only wish I could change the title.  I'd call it "The Roots of Obama's Policy".  Of course that sounds pretty boring and probably wouldn't sell as well, but it is was a fascinating read.  This book may present a more accurate picture of who and why the President acts in the way that he does.  The premise of the book is that we are not living out the ideology of Barack Obama so much as we are living out the legacy of a failed Kenyan civil servant that Barack Obama has been trying to live up to his entire life: Barack Obama, Sr. 

The author, Dinesh D'sousa's first and most basic clue to this possibility is to look at the title of President Obama's first book, "Dreams from my Father".  The very title itself implies that he has received his dreams from his father.  D'sousa's book suggests an Obama I and Obama II.  Obama I is the inspirational Obama that was so praised and lifted up in adulation during the 2008 campaign.  The Obama that - putting it in the words of the man himself -was "...a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views..." .   I think the premise of the book is that President Obama is not a communist or a socialist or a marxist.  He is anti-colonialist and anti-Imperialist.  D'Sousa suggests that President Obama believes the US, in the 20th and 21st century, is colonial in it's foreign policy.  It suggests Mr. Obama's hope is that he can help make the US the last of the colonialist powers. 

The consequence of this is that his policies are designed for one purpose: to weaken our standing abroad, and strengthen the role, power and impact of the federal government domestically.  The book suggests that - when given the choice of policy - his choice will always further this objective.  The book offers a tremendous amount of evidence to make this case.  I won't present all of the evidence here, but agree that it does seem to serve as a predictive measure of how Obama has acted.  Think about it.  Health Care (domestic)- increases government control.  Finance Reform(domestic)- increases government control.  Buying GM(domestic) - increases government control. Poland Missile Shield Abandoned (foreign)- weakens foreign influence.  Leading from behind in Libya (foreign)- weakens foreign influence.  Flooding economy with (borrowed) printed dollars(QE I, II, III?) - increases government control and weakens foreign influence.

Perhaps the most interesting things that it explains, in my mind, is why the President finds himself with eroding support in both conservative and progressive political camps.  We have the right clamoring for his ouster, we have the left clamoring for his ouster and we have independents exceedingly dissatisfied.  His policies have seemingly pleased no one and the reason, this book would argue, is because he isn't playing to any of us.  He is acting to more fully realize the dreams of his Father.  Could this explain why a "really good one-term Presidency" would be OK with him?  If "really" good is defined by him, and not by the rest of us, then he can - in principal - be "really good" even if no one (but him) is satisfied with his results.     

I will say there were occasions in this book for what I perceived to be hyperbole.  Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, even the title of the book plays to the hard core Obama malcontent.  While hyperbole may increase sales, it likely prevents a more wide range of political ideaology in it's readership.  I think that's unfortunate.  Were it not for the title of the book I think it offers a reasonable (even one for which we might objectively empathize) explanation for how and why the President takes action. I wonder though, what an honest to goodness, clear thinking, progressive might think?  

The Rise of Rick Perry and the New Apostolic Reformation?

An article by an old friend, Greg Metzger, that I've rediscovered the joy of verbal jousting in recent months.  (Thanks Greg!)  The piece talks about the possible influence of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and the theology of dominionism on Governor Perry - a republican presidential candidate.  Greg posits the notion dominionism generally and that NAR influence specifically, is something beyond the usual pandering for Governor Perry.  As is common, I disagree, although this is a "less than hearty" disagreement. 

Dominionism can sound awful - but properly balanced it merely suggests that we are to be steward's of God's creation. To be steward's we must be involved in word and action.  Certainly Christians shouldn't pull out of society like the pre-trib brethren and leave it to those who would be "left behind"? The notion de-legitimizes this very platform.  I, for one, am much more excited about Christians infiltrating with consequence the public square rather than leaving it in it's "nakedness" as described by RJ Neuhaus. True "little christs" doing so would mitigate the fringes, yes? Like any theological view point - the extreme fringe can be dangerous - but a very powerful motivator and hence political tool. I get the impression - and it is only an impression - that a president Perry, in spite of his NAR ties, does in fact offer more of the same.

So far, little has enthused me about this Governor. While I suspect I know more than the average citizen about him, I have yet to spend much time analyzing outside of a few interviews, articles and right wing media buzz. What is interesting to me is that generally the buzz doesn't measure up to the man - as far as I am concerned. In spite of the hype - to me - his speeches aren't that great, off the cuff statements touch the fringes of sensational and even his persona strikes me as hollow. While I won't judge the man in total, I have to say that his alliance and persona comes across more opportunistic than heartfelt. I suspect that NAR will be the governor's version of the Rev Wright and, beyond the primaries, will go the way of Obama's "old uncle".  

Endagering the rest of US

Lately I've been reading a book that came out earlier in the year called "Wreckless Endangerment" (Morgenson and Rosner) that was released earlier this year.  The book is a detailed account of how America managed to incur the largest economic crisis since the great depression.  Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Carter years through George W. Bush's home ownership initiative and beyond the tome lays out in specific detail how our system failed.  The book details the growth of an industry that, under the auspices of providing "painless" housing to the lower and middle classes managed to suck resources of the middle class dry until the entire system imploded upon itself.  Make no mistake, we all participated in one form or another in what would become our biggest crisis in my lifetime, so far.  If their were only a way to translate this book into common parlance.  The crux of the message this book offers is a scathing argument against corporate corruption and political corporate cronyism that, in hindsight, is obvious from both sides of the political isle.  I have heard it said that no one has been prosecuted at the highest levels of these organizations because while there was much morally or ethically wrong with what was being done, there was nothing legally wrong with the process in place.  I can't understand how it can be legal for an organization the size of Countrywide, the largest mortgage company in the country at the time (now defunct) to package mortgages that were clearly non-compliant and then forward them to Fannie Mae, who would presumably have systems in place to check for compliance, but then maintain the loans or allow them to be packaged and sold to investors as AAA investments.  Even describing the process, however, one senses the ambiguity that affords legal protection.  The lesson is that the corporate world and the public world have become so homogenized and are playing the game together - to their own self interest.  This is a very informative, ultimately frustrating read.  In the end the question remains:  What do we do about this system? 

 

OMB 2011 Long term Outlook - Page ix (Summary)

Today the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released it's 2011 long term outlook for the United States Federal Budget.  In it we find that according to the accountants and actuaries that the governement depends on to interpret our overall budgetary positioning.  To be fair this is an outlook based on assumptions that are certain to change. 
Following the logic of any governement document you'll note that page ix starts on page 11 which is the Summary of the budget.  Here are some interesting quotes:
"...At the end of 2008 the debt equaled 40% of our gross domestic product (GDP) (a little above the 40 year average of 37%).  Since then the figure has shot upward: by the end of this year the congressional budget office (CBO) projects, federal debt will reach roughly 70% of GDP -- the highest percentage since shortly after World War II..."

"...As the economy continues to recover and the policies adopted to counteract the recession phase out, budget deficits will probably decline markedly in the next few years.  But the budget outlook, for both the coming decade and beyond, is daunting...."

"...baby boom generation portends a significant and sustained increase in the share of the population receiving benefits..."

"...per captita spending for health care is likely to continue to rise faster than spending per person on other goods and services..."

The remainder of page ix explains that their are 2 scenerios that were used to explain what our Long Term scenerio debt picture looks like.

 
As a point of comparison the US national debt was around 120% after the end of World War II.  When put into that perspective debt equivalent to 70% of GDP doesn't sound so bad does it.    This increase in spending in the 1940's is what makes the likes of Paul Krugman and other Keynsian economists believe that we should be spending even more dollars as a government in order to bring our nation out of recession.  Their belief is that while in the early 1940's we spent on wars as a percentage of our GDP we should spend likewise in wars, and spending programs in order to create a positive economic environment.  An interesting argument but begs the question; if the governement is spending the money on social programs, bailouts, what is being produced that will result in a sustained and profitable (prosperous) recovery? 

We will find out - one way or the other. 

Where are all the Little Girls

A follow up from the Wallstreet Journal to my post, "What to do with all the Little Boys" regarding a new book on the market.  This from the perspective of those who are no longer with us; the female victims of China's one child policy.  A sample from the article:

"...Late in "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl makes some suggestions as to how such "abuse" might be curbed without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion. In attempting to serve these two diametrically opposed ideas, she proposes banning the common practice of revealing the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing. And not just ban it, but have rigorous government enforcement, which would include nationwide sting operations designed to send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail. Beyond the police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, doctors would be required to "investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly" when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal.

Such a regime borders on the absurd. It is neither feasible nor tolerable—nor efficacious: Sex determination has been against the law in both China and India for years, to no effect. I suspect that Ms. Hvistendahl's counter-argument would be that China and India do not enforce their laws rigorously enough.

Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice..." <emphasis mine>

The book is written by a pro-choice advocate for abortion. 

Mullah's Against Mullets

I thought this was quite funny as long as you don't think about the deeper implications of those living under such a regime.

by Richard Robbins , Washington Times

As Iran attempts to become a nuclear power with global reach, at home the Ayatollahs are mounting a fashion offensive. In an effort to blunt the "invasion" of western culture, Iran has implemented a "moral security plan" that bans men from wearing necklaces, short pants, and "glamorous hairstyles" such as ponytails and the mullet. 70,000 "morality police" have been deployed in Tehran and other cities to enforce the edict.

It's hard to understand why the Islamic Republic considers gold chains and mullets to be key emblems of western culture, but when you add the pre-existing ban on disco dancing it is clear that Iran has declared total war on the 1970s. They just never got over the Carter administration.

Love Wins through Grace

I just finished reading Rob Bell's controversial book, Love Wins.  I must be living under a rock, because I innocently picked up the book sitting at an office I was visiting, while doing some work thinking that it might offer some marriage guidance.  I didn't know who the owner of the book was and I didn't know the author. Little did I know what I was in for.  I am one who, given the time and circumstance loves to discuss and think about the more esoteric matters of faith, theology and apologetics, but for better or worse in recent years, find myself just trying to live life as the good Lord intends.  Consequently, anything of substance I read tends to be related to marriage or family or a work project (this generously assumes this blog counts as "work").  My initial interest in improving marriage was quickly supplanted with an old curiosity and an intellectual excursion unlike anything I've visited since my college years.  This book was as fascinating as it was frustrating.

First of all let me give my read on Bell's perspective.  Bell often emphasizes what we can't know over what we can.  Like the bible this is a book that you should not read or critique by the page.  It should be consumed as a whole. And critiquing a book as a whole is a very difficult thing.    The critics want to focus on his statements regarding hell to imply he believes there is no Hell as evangelicals believe Hell to be.  He starts easy and simple, just like we like it:  "Do I believe there is a literal Hell?  Of course." (p71)  Then he eases into a literal hell as seen in the "empty eyes" of a drug attic, the depression resulting from sexual abuse or the angst and confusion of an innocent young child whose father has committed suicide.  In doing so, he seems to suggest that Hell is here on earth and it is comprised of choices that are made apart from God's best.  His final definition of Hell is when "...we choose not to live in God's world, in God's way...".  (p93)  I have to say that biblically I would agree both temporily and eternally that hell is the absence of God and the increasing misery that comes with an increasing absence of all that is good.  If Bell were saying that there is no Hell, as the evangelical community thinks of it, then I would say there is heresy.  I am not convinced that this heretical claim is being made, at least not here.  The critics seem to ignore the fact that not only does he never make the statement that there is no hell, quite the opposite he  later states to the question of Hell's existence, "There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously."  (p79)  Additionally, he has clearly and unequivocally stated that he is not a Universalist.  He also indicates both in the book and other places that it is not irrelevant how we respond to the person of Christ.  In fact,  he indicates that it is “terribly relevant”.  These are all statements to which mainline evangelicalism would respond positively.

Now my read on the evangelical perspective. Where my evangelical friends will begin to “raise concern” with Bell, to put it gently - and approach “heresy” to state it boldly - is in what Bell is not willing to say.  And this is where 2 items Bell brought together struck me as food for prayer and consideration.  First, Bell brings the story in the old testament (Exodus 17) where the Israelites have been complaining, as they frequently did, to Moses as they head in their self-directed and meandering way, toward God's promised land.  Their primary concern - at least this time, is  about there being no drinking water.  God tells Moses to take a handful of the leaders to Horeb and strike the Rock, where water will flow.  Moses strikes the rock, water flows. Secondly, Bell notes that the apostle Paul then ties this episode referenced in First Corinthians 10 to the person of Jesus Christ.  Paul ties Christ not as a "type" of Christ, but the very literal Rock by stating, "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them and that rock was Christ."  Bell ties this new testament warning to the old testament story and notes that "...Christ was present in that moment....giving, quenching sustaining..." through a rock. Now I'm no theologian, but if the apostle Paul is suggesting that Christ was sustaining the Old Testament Israelites spiritual condition (even as they were under the law) through a rock that was Christ, then is it perhaps possible that same Christ can communicate a gospel message toward an unsaved spiritual condition through other means as well?  Does not Romans 1 tell us his eternal power and divine nature can be seen in nature?  Does the bible not say that if we seek, He will be found?  (Deuteronomy 4:29, Matt 7:7)  I see no heresy here in what Rob Bell says. The heresy lies in what we hear and how we attach to it something he does not say.  Which begs another question, can there even be heresy in what he “does not” say?

To ponder that question let's see what Bell does "not say", that evangelicals hear so clearly. The fuzziness occurs, and the evangelical red flags start waving when he postulates, "...As soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what you believe and so forth...." (p155)  The statement is complicated even more by an earlier reference to a  difficult to explain  verse often used to espouse Universalism where Jesus says, "...I have other sheep who are not of this sheep pen...". (John 10:16)    Does Rob Bell say that a Muslim can go to heaven?  Yes.  Does Rob Bell say a Hindu can go to heaven?  Yes.  Buddhist, Baptists?  Yes and Yes. Do we all agree with this? Well, while we may not want to - as it sits in this context - the answer is actually a resounding "Yes". Think about it. Evangelicals spend hundreds of billions of man hours and untold billions in resources evangelizing Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists and ... Baptists don't we?  What we react to in his statement is something Bell does not say.  We attach to his statement the idea that something “other” than Jesus will save.  Does Bell say the doctrine of Islam will save?  No. We suggest he does. Does Rob Bell say that Hinduism will get you to heaven?  No. We suggest he does. Buddhism, Baptist Theology saves?...you get the point? Can evangelicals agree that "Jesus Saves"?  Can we agree that God might use a person's search (in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baptist doctrine) to draw him to the person of Christ?  Rob Bell says that Jesus is the only way to heaven. His answer to this is an unequivocal Yes.  just like evangelicals.  The way is as "...narrow as and as wide as the universe...". (p155)  What Rob Bell does not narrowly define is "how" God might communicate the message of the gospel - and further he commits an even more egregious faux pas in evangelical terms by avoiding explanation in a way that is comfortable, and definitive to evangelicals.  Leaving us to answer the question for ourselves.

And therein, lies the element of frustration that I feel upon finishing his treatise. He approaches the question, but backs away.  He focuses on God's Love, but explains not Justice.  To watch him explain it one get's the feeling that he actually enjoys the process of making us chase the truth.  Is that what Christ did?  As unsatisfying as it is, Bell holds both in the book and elsewhere that "Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact.  We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't...." (p115)  Or that those are things that remain "firmly in the realm of speculation".  I'm sorry but that leaves me feeling short changed.  After all, I want an answer.  I suspect that part of what is unsatisfying is that there are those questions, that I won't be able to answer on this side of God's grace.  But then, didn't God tell us that, while His grace is sufficient for us, we won't see Love clearly for "...now, we see but a poor reflection...then we shall see face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known..." In this, then I would suggest that it is a frustration that God has allowed us to experience and that in Him, perhaps, we can extend our own grace to Pastor Bell where we feel short-changed, to others where they seem to fall short or rest in their own journey and to ourselves where we know not our heart:  accepting the grace that is His to offer and ours to receive. Can we be content in that?

What to do with all the little Boys

For over 30 years the Chinese governement has been demanding that the vast majority of it's citizens adhere to a policy of no more than on child.  Is anyone besides me concerned about all the little boys? 

The Brookings Institute estimates that there are almost 30 million more boys than girls in mainland China.  This means that for  every 100 baby girls born, 120 baby boys arrive on the scene.  It is further reported by the Chinese controlled media that by 2020 there will be over 37 million chinese men unable to find wives. The media and news reports make a big issue over the demographic impact of this reality as it relates to caring for the elderly and producing the revenue required to care for an aging population.  Where are the articles detailing what an autocratic regime that has been willing to crush decent, and murder millions of babies over the last 30 years might choose to do with so many unattached, strong, verile males?  Is it any wonder that a government that snubs it's nose at our concerns for civil liberties would desire to keep a lid on the growth of it's military?  

We are a nation that is in debt to the Chinese government beyond all other governments, aside from our own.  (Figure that one out.)  As China starts to call us out on our trek toward default, will they soon begin to exact a self-determined "collateral" by tapping into the resources of our staunchest allies or even nominal friends?  Does it makes sense to anyone that the Chinese government has every reason in the world to create war, not for some military industrial complex or even for what it might gain, but for the simple logic that they have more men than women?  Think of it this way, even they lose a battle they initiate, say,  for land or conquest, demographically they still WIN.  It answers the question:  "What to do with all the little Boys."  What exactly is to stop a nation that unconcerned with any "right" not affirmed by "the state".  What's to lose by pursuing, maybe Taiwan or South Korea?  Why not take that leap toward establishing a stronger presence in Africa? Maybe a hostile takeover to acquire natural resources that will be necessary for 21st century survival?  They have a demonstrable intrest in Africa, which offers a continent of nation-states that, at least hypothetically, offer little resistance to an Army with the size, scale and sophistication of mainland China.  Some time ago the US was the only nation that had both the moral authority and the military prowess to defend agains such an attack.  Today?  Certainly our moral authority can be called to task simply by virtue of our massive debt to the Chinese government, and while our military prowess remains strong - how long can that strength remain if the Chinese refuse to finance it? 

They have the human resources to spare and,  from a purely utilitarian perspective, the need to winnow their XY chromosone resources.  We have a diminished moral authority and will lack the resources to defend whatever agressive action they may chose to initiate.  Is it just me or is some Chinese offensive military action inevitable?   

 

Tax Cut + War = Deficit

Tax Cut + War = Deficit

This subject line on an email greeted me this morning from my friends at MoveOn.org.  It really bothers me.  Not because I am a "hawk" and am very satisfied with the status of our offensives in the Middle east.   (I'm not.)  Not because it makes a very powerful argument.  (It does.) What really bothers me is the presupposition that one is required to make in order to agree that it is true.  Now, if they had said, "Medicare+War+Funding female Jello wrestling in Antarctica= Deficit".  Alright.  Or I'm even OK with "Food stamps + Shrimp on a Treadmill Studies + War =   Deficit".  But please, please, please...if you're interested in Truth, stop telling us that Tax Cuts are a COST to government.   

That statement is wrong on so many levels.  To hold that view presupposes that the government owns all of our money -- all of it -- and simply allows us to keep a certain amount of it.  It presumes that anything that it "gives back" to us "costs" it something.  That is the only assumption that can be made if allowing us to keep what we think is our hard earned money "costs" the government something.  This is why so many people from the right and, to a lessor extent, the independent side of the political spectrum think that our President leans toward socialism.    

The only way to assume a tax cut a cost, is if you start from the view point that all resources are owned by the government.  Then, anything that you give to people becomes a "cost".  Only then can you can say that a Tax Cut "costs" the government something.  However, understand the importance of personal property and John Locke's argument of ownership: that we own our production and the results of that productivity.  This is ownership.  If you agree then you will also agree that the government takes from what "we the people" own.  It takes for many reasons, some of which are well intentioned and some reasons of which are necessary.  I'm OK with that...in balance.  To live in a free, (relatively) just society, it is good for the federal government to take funds to assure certain things are accomplished.  That must be balanced however, with the idea that government does not have the authority, much less the obligation to borrow beyond our ability to repay, in order to provide these services.  And we are dangerously close to that position in 2011.  When you cut taxes on the means (owners) of production, productivity increases.  When productivity increases, taxes increase: even if the tax rate goes down!  It's a proven fact with which even President Obama apparently agrees.    

Recall the debate between then Senator Obama and Hillary Clinton that Charlie Gibson moderated?  This was the Gibson debate that was "fair" according to the pundits.  Senator Obama tells in so many words that he doesn't really want to raise taxes because it will increase our revenues in the Treasury (Apparently he knows that it won't.)  He wants to raise taxes out of "fairness".

GIBSON:  You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Breath taking.  He wants to raise taxes, not because it will increase revenue in the treasury which we desperately need, but because it's not "fair" that other people get to make lots of money.  Is it fair that the money that is taken from the wealthy can no longer be invested in assets that will require people to run (jobs) and new business for people to own? (jobs)  Is it fair that we are actually going to have less money in the treasury to pay our bills because the government would rather play to some intellectual notion of fairness? The reality that the President and Charlies Gibson agreed upon is that revenue in the government treasury GROWS when taxes are lower.  It's not fair to raise taxes, when lower taxes improve all of our lives. 

This is what brings us back to our original notion. Barack Obama and his  wing of the Democratic Party (and yes, some Republicans) want to control as much of our assets as they can, even if it is counterproductive to increasing our revenues.  Plans in place are well on their way to a maximum tax rate over 60%.  This isn't imaginative, congress works on this as we speak.  These tax rates rival the rates of the Jimmy Carter era.    Is it any wonder that one might suspect that it's not really about fairness - that contradiction smacks of control.  Controlling as much of the assets and dollars as possible and giving to "each according to his need".  Thereby explaining why MoveOn considers a tax cut - a "cost".

War + A whole host of Other things we Can't Afford = Deficit. 

The Atlantic explains Walker's Raison d'etre

For those hootin' and hollerin' about the work that Governor Scott Walker (and Mitch Daniels, and John Kasich) are doing to try to provide more flexibility to the taxpayers of their state to negotiate with public employee Unions the article by Joel Klein in the Atlantic Monthly should be something to read.  Ok, maybe it will be something to read only for those who aren't hootin' and hollerin' but have an open mind about the issues at hand.  Namely, the education of our students in the public school.  Joel Klein, a democrat, appointed to role of Chancellor for the City of New York Department of Education explains the impossibility of effective and efficient school operation with the existing power structure in public education.  Klein, on President Obama's shortlist for Education Secretary and a Clinton Administration appointee is no right wing hack.  He is a well connected public service employee who understands the ins and outs of politics.  You can read the full text or here are some excerpts (I suggest the full text.):

*Right now, if you were running for office, would you be more concerned with unemployment or education? Also, unlike terrorism, an educational crisis has a different impact on the powerful than it does on most of society. Their children, who are in private schools or elite public schools, receive a decent education, so it’s hard to get them fully engaged in the broader national debate.

*when making a lifetime tenure commitment, under New York law you could not consider a teacher’s impact on student learning. That Kafkaesque outcome demonstrates precisely the way the system is run: for the adults. The school system doesn’t want to change, because it serves the needs of the adult stakeholders quite well, both politically and financially.

*In short, politicians—especially Democratic politicians—generally do what the unions want. And the unions, in turn, are very clear about what that is. They want, first, happy members, so that those who run the unions get reelected; and, second, more members, so their power, money, and influence grow.

*The extent of this “no one gets fired” mentality is difficult to overstate—or even adequately describe. Steven Brill wrote an eye-opening piece in The New Yorker about the “rubber rooms” in New York City, where teachers were kept, while doing no work, pending resolution of the charges against them—mostly for malfeasance, like physical abuse or embezzlement, but also for incompetence. The teachers got paid regardless.

So here's the deal.  Governor Walker knows that if the school and the school systems are to have the flexibility to keep the very best teachers and delineate the very worst, then we must acknowledge that some teachers are really good, and others are...well...not so good.  President Obama in 2008 said: “The single most important factor in determining [student] achievement is not the color of [students’] skin or where they come from. It’s not who their parents are or how much money they have. It’s who their teacher is.”  A very astute observation, so why then in 2011 does the President criticize the bill that will more effectively allow the state to deal with teachers on a case by case basis and not assume that all teachers deserve equal pay? 

Collective bargaining against the profits of a corporation are one thing.  It's fairness arguable to some extent.  This is an entirely different issue.  When the teachers union comes up "against" it's foe, the foe it fights is the Tax Payer, the citizen of that state.  That state, produces no wealth, only services.  There are no "profits" to divvy up.  If a Governor, "plays nice" with the unions, he wins politically.  He wins untold thousands of votes from member teachers and union employees.  He earns untold thousands in campaign contributions from same.  He gains untold credit for running the government smoothly.  Where exactly is the incentive for those who negotiate on the behalf of the "people" - incentive to play hard ball and get the best deal possible?  This incentive doesn't exist.  Which is why it is very seldom you have a personality willing to risk the political capital to simply do the right thing and negotiate hard for the people of the state.  Hence, we end up with promises being made far beyond the availability of our state treasury to manage our debt - like that of the federal government debt - goes up exponentially.  Unfunded liabilities put to another day.  Eliminating the rules for collective bargaining will allow "the people" a stronger negotiating position, so long as the negotiator is strong enough to use it.  No matter the cost, who will pay this debt?  Our kids.  They get shafted with the quality of education, and they'll get to pay the bill too. 

The status quo isn't working for the student or the tax payer.  It works only for the unions and it's constituency.  Joel Klein reminds us of that and offers some insight on where we have to start to get to a solution.   

Benjamin Netanyahu - Congressional Speech, May 24, 2011

http://www.cspan.org/Events/Israeli-Prime-Minister-Addresses-Congress/10737421714-1/Thursday, May 24, 2011 Prime Minister Netanyahu has been given the opportunity to speak to a full house of congress.  He outlines the history of friendship that Israel has with the people of America. He also offers effusive praise to the United States of American for it's full throated support in the face of it's daily turmoil.  He touches on the beauty and efficacy of the state of Israel, the only democratic form of government in the middle east.  He praises the work of the young protestors in the middle east and encourages the growth that democracy would bring, even to Palastine.  He identifies positive change that has occured in the Palestinian territories economically.  And of course, plainly states that a relationship with Hamas, a nation plainly determined to bring for the destruction of Israel, cannot stand  He points out the irony related to the Arab nations which deny their citizens the right to speak out against it's own government or to convert from Islam, all the while demanding that Israel, who offers it's Arab citizens full rights of citizenship, freedom of speech.  To wit: "...Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud in Israel that over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of 1 percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel.."  He even weathered some good old American protest on behalf of the Palestinian plight.


Upon the acosted protestor's being ushered out of the building he deftly pointed out that we should "wear as a badge of honor" the fact that we can protest like the young lady just did.  Indeed, had she done so before Parliment of Tehran or Tripoli she would have been not only removed, but summarily extinguished. 

 To read the full text click here.  To see the video click here.

Two Fine Days, and Travesty each

It was a great day to be alive.  Out and about for the afternoon, and party time on late into the evening.  But at midnight of this fine day, October 7, 1998 the life of an energetic, amiable, fun-loving young man was brutally snuffed out.  Under the guise of offering a helping hand, would be burglars picked up Matthew Shepard at a bar gave him a ride and, at some point brutally beat and killed him along the side of the road.  18 hours later a cyclist would find Mr. Shepard, propped up like "a scarecrow" along the side of a lonely highway in rural Wyoming.  During this trial witnesses stated that the young Mr. Shepard was targeted because of his sexual orientation.  A travesty. 

Not long ago in Margate, UK Dr. Richard Scott walked into work on a day that seemed like any other day.  He reviewed his calendar, saw a few appointments and then saw the patient that would represent the possible termination of his stellar, unblemished medical career as a general practice doctor and surgeon.  For on that day, another young man would walk into his Bethesda Clinic.  No small irony that the facility is named after the biblical pool where a man was healed by Jesus Christ.  For on this day, Dr. Scott would find that an attempt introduce a patient to that very same Jesus, would threaten his vocation, avocation and way of doing business.  A travesty.

So what do these cases have in common?  The law that was passed by our congress in response to Matthew Shepard's brutal injustice is House Bill 1592.  The Local Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.  It is the US version a similar law in the UK and the persecution, and perhaps, prosecution of Dr. Scott will be the logical extension of our HB 1592 if it is not checked.  Advocates for 1592 indicate that the bill specifically provides for free speech, but as with a good economic policy (opinion alert!) there is a trickle down effect that will be powerful and, combined with Patriot Act authorizations could easily be construed and result in the same persecution in the US that Dr. Scott now faces in the United Kingdom.   

There is no justice for the death of a young man in the prime of his life.  None.  This law will not provide justice for his death.  This law will merely start the proverbially stone rolling down the hill of intolerance toward those who hold to what the government determines to be intolerable.  The case of Dr. Scott is only the first of many representing where government will take this law, unless we as a people use our power to check it's power.  If we don't, our power to speak against it will soon be gone.  A Travesty. 

AWKWARD: You go public, I go public. Love, Bibi

Awkward starts at 7:48.  Awkward for the President.  Awkward for Israel. Awkward for us.  Just awkward.  This week President Obama insisted upon going public with a partial policy before the world that, at one time was a baseline for closed door negotiations.  Israel pleaded with the President to  focus on the supposed "Arab Spring" or some other important issue, but the administration declined and went public with their demand.  This left Prime Minister Netanyahu left to clarify, in no uncertain terms, and define the other absolutes which the President chose not to highlight.  It was awkward for the President.  It was awkward for us to watch.  It had to be done.    President Obama willfully, perhaps unwittingly, chose to be provocative by bringing something into the public eye that has always remained behind closed doors.  By doing so, the President created a scenario where Palestine will hold that the President stands for unilateral sacrifice to get 1967 borders. 

There are those that argue that President Obama hasn't changed policy at all.  And it is true that 1967 borders were a baseline for Clinton, a baseline for Bush and until now, a baseline for the Obama administration.  What the administration would appear to not understand is that you don't publicly state what the baseline will be in a forum where you cannot establish the entire baseline.  To wit:  You cannot have a return to 1967 borders with "swaps" without the host of other conditions that must be accompany this baseline.  To the Presidents credit he did try to outline the non-soquitur that is Palestine relationship with Hamas and the improbability of US support for the UN's intent to vote on Palestinian sovereignty.  What the President Obama has done, that other administration did not do is bring to the public eye where negotiations, behind closed doors, are supposed to begin.  Making the statement that the President made was counterproductive because it offers the Palestinians what they want, without requiring what past administrations would have required to achieve that return to borders with a swap.

We can tout the support of the Anti-Defamation League and a host of other supporters of the state of Israel that have praised the work of President Obama in his speech detailing his "return to 1967 borders" to a large contingent, including the Press, at the state department.  The phrase had no place in public dialogue because it makes it more difficult for the Palestinians to give up - something, when seemingly the President of the United States is already saying publicly what the Palestinians should get.  This appears to be a unilateral statement because of what the President doesn't say.  This faux-pas in negotiating tactic is really what is wrong with what the President has done.  As always he means well, he just doesn't seem to get it.  Alan Dershowitz, a fairly well known attorney, and not exactly a right wing ideologue criticizes the President's quite effectively here .  Dershowtiz goes even further in this interview admitting that inspite of voting for the President, Obama's  foreign policy clearly demonstrate a "sophisticated and realistic approach to negotiations which he doesn't seem to have."  Dershowtitz rightly points out the propensity for the President to not understand effective negotiation technique by recalling the Presidents equally unilateral demand for the Israeli's by demanding earlier in his term that the Israeli's impose a "freeze on all settlements".  Fortunately, the administration understood it's mistake and this demand was dropped.  Hopefully, there will be a way for our President to clarify his position on this episode as well.  It seems that there are lots of our congressman asking for clarification - read: retraction - from our President as well.

It would have been nice if neither the President, nor the Prime Minister would have had to bring up the topics they did - but the President took the lead, chose the provocative - and left Mr. Netanyahu no other choice but to attempt to mitigate the damage and clarify.  Awkward, but necessary.