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. 

"Did you plug the hole, Daddy?"

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.

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.         



    





 
   

 

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.     

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.





   

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.

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. 

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 members due 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.

Dare to Dream: Obama our greatest President?

Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th President was the leader of the Republican Party.  He is also attributed with being one of the first "progressives" in high government service, he promoted what we now would politely call the "conservation movement" and was in the extreme in promoting the government regulation of business.

Early in his career Richard Nixon was adamantly opposed to the spread of Communism all over the world.  He was vigorous, aggressive and down right mean about it.  In his senate race during the 1950's he suspected his opponent, Helen Gahagan Douglas was a communist sympathizer and, the story goes, he accused the former actress of being "pink right down to her underwear".  In 1970, our boisterous anti-commie is found shaking hands with Mao Zadong - leader of communist China - and Nixon is now largely accepted as the President who "normalized" relations with China.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan pursued an aggressive "peace through strength" policy called MAD - mutually assured destruction- the planned response to a Soviet attack was no longer to bomb Russian population centers and cities primarily, but first to kill the Soviet leadership, then attack military targets, in the hope of a Russian surrender before total destruction of the USSR (and the United States).  In 1987 Reagan signed the INF treaty which was the first nuclear arms reduction treaty.  He further reduced nuclear warheads through his final "trust but verify" nuclear arms treaty called START I treaty in 1991.

My point is this:  it is not without historical precedent that forward movement on certain issues will be affected by the most unlikely of Presidents.  We know that President Obama calls himself a "Christian" or as I call him a christian.  He has been clear on his criticism of the US as a christian nation.  His policies are truly concerning for those of us who are concerned with the anti-abortion movement.  He is big government - some say socialist others say corporatist.  But what if what he knows about Christ that we have seen here and here, were ever to actually IMPACT him for Christ?  What if it went from knowledge (or pitch...or spin...) to relationship?  Could he be one of our greatest Presidents?

  Sadly, I am persuaded that while our President understands the basic premise of the gospel I don't believe he has a heart changed by the person of Jesus Christ.  But what if God took the words our President knows and the testimony he has given and affected the President with a true faith in Jesus Christ?  Is not a spirit of humility, in God's eyes and rightly applied a good thing?  What might our President apologize for in this country that should be apologized for?  Were his heart changed by Christ, would it not be significant to, at least figuratively, don sack cloth and ashes for the 50 million babies we have legally extinguished?  Would it not be appropriate to (at least) apologize for denying certain of America's population their inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the first 86 years of the founding of this great country?   

Those of us on the right often feel disgust and disregard for this President because he apologizes and bows to dictators, Kings  (all nominal friends at best) all over the world.  And granted, I have great concern with the type of leader our President seems to be bowing to.  It seems that he likes to bow to dictators and snub our friends.  I don't like that at all, mainly because the action, in conjunction with his 20 year ties to the Reverend Wright cause me to wonder about his intent.  That being said, while American Presidents don't traditionally bow, is it really un-Christian for our leader to bow to other leaders out of deference and respect?    Certainly America serves the world by offering untold billions in an attempt to provide and protect it in hundreds of thousands of different ways.  Would it be such a bad thing for the American posture to be one of service and strength and not arrogance and strength?  Would it not be amazing if we had a President who, upon the true impact of a relationship with Christ, took upon himself the mantel of repentance to God on behalf of the people of this great nation?  Oh for the symbolism of that day.  We should be pleading with the Lord God to impact this man's heart with the Truth he knows.


The Letters and Lessons of Teddy Roosevelt for His Sons (Profiles in Fatherhood)
Memoirs of Richard Nixon  
The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War

President Obama claims Christ

Here we are again with President Obama Claiming the person of Christ as his only hope for redemption.  We saw this earlier in his campaign for the presidency as well.  Words that make the Christian believers that support the President and everything he does so proud.  And cause those of us who are concerned about his intentions and his policies stare drop jawed at our computer monitor.



While he did not mention the resurrection, I think if one heard this as a testimony from a member of our church we would be hard pressed to be critical of such a testimony.  While some may bicker with his inclusion of American's who celebrate Ramadan and Passover.  And many will argue from an evangelical perspective about whether President Obama's "fruit" is consistent with that of a believer - his words are quite clear: he counts himself among "us".  May God use the Truth he knows to lead him to just counsel and godly policy.  Let us pray daily for evidence of this answer to prayer.   

Walking with Lincoln: Spiritual Strength from America's Favorite President