My wife's soul mother (alma mater for those of you keeping score at home) had an alumni dinner in our town tonight, so we went and had an amazing meal for a relatively small price. I had the country fried steak which was fabulous. Given the onset of chubease (the word that just made itself up for how easily I put on weight), I limited myself to one half slab of said steak. The awesome thing was, they gave each of us two slabs. I see at least two more meals in my future, which is very exciting.
Since it was an alumni and fundraising dinner, we got to hear their advancement (development/fundraising) pitch. Now this is the thing. This is a small-to-medium-sized Midwestern Bible college. For those who know, this means pretty fundamentalist. My family was involved in this school in various ways over the years, so I spent time on campus. I was raised in such a way that I believed the party line straight and narrow. I drank deeply of this milieu. Interestingly, I went to Moody Bible Institute, a school that was probably a bit liberal for the tastes of many of the more conservative Bible college folk. (They spoke respectfully of Moody tonight.)
After leaving Chicago, I fell off the wagon. I stopped versejacking. I stopped believing in strict literality (particularly of little nibbles of Bible-y bits). I started believing in—not merely acknowledging the existence of, but actually practicing—the idea of context. Perhaps most importantly, I started believing the Bible when it says that the current heavens and earth will be recreated into a new heavens and new earth. (Note that these are the primordial Greek gods—Ouranos and Gaia—though they would be ouranoi and ge, plural and singular in the NT rather than both singular.)
It blew my mind and simultaneously made me cringe when I heard one of the representatives talking about a personal evangelism incident from the past summer. The man and his wife are building a house. The man was talking with the guy who excavated their lot. The excavator commented that he had an absolutely beautiful lot. The man said, "You know what? This is all going to go away [maybe he said burn, I don't remember]. But there is going to be one thing left. Do you know what it is?" The excavator looked at him and said, "You got me. The sky?" (Interjectory comment from narrator: "You're not too far off, buddy!") "No. You and me. The question is where you will be when everything else is gone."
Eventually, the excavator became a Christian (I have a really hard time typing that word in this instance), and the man's son, who led excavator to the faith, promptly gave him a Ryrie Study Bible. Double cringe. Let's be sure to teach Newbie to never read the Bible in a way that he can understand it!
The subtext of the entire evening was, "We teach students to live with a biblical worldview. We don't compromise our doctrine. It's so important that they have this foundation. We teach the fundamentals. That world out there is a poisonous place." (I guess I won't argue with that last assertion.) I'm not sure who they were trying to convince. All the people there were alumni or family. Why keep harping? Do more alumni dollars come in for each assurance?
Another sad moment was after they had asserted in the new "Marketing Video" (different name, guys?) that they welcome students with open arms and everyone is family. A prospective student asked what the turnaway rate was for applicants. They only turn applicants away if their GPA is too low (which they can actively remediate in community college, and be welcomed immediately) or if their doctrine doesn't measure up. So . . . you mean you're not actually welcoming. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to show love or Jesus or something to these aberrant students to help them come to the truth? No? They might poison the student body? Seriously.
All of this actually brought me back to the poisonous atmosphere of my roots. I still struggle with being RIGHT, even though my beliefs have swung round to what I believe to be biblical beliefs. The major heritage of that upbringing I still struggle with is the fact that I assume I am right, and everyone else is wrong. I say that I believe I need to hear voices other than my own, or else I will perish in my own myopic stubbornness. But practically, I still insist that I am right.
I have to say, I had a very enjoyable time talking to several people at the table. They are dear and fun folks, that I would love to spend more time with. They have fun stories and insights. But I couldn't believe the shock of being dunked back in my old thoughts and two and a half hours later being pulled right back out. It reminds me of how far I've come, but also how far I have to go.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
He means the opposite of what he said
I've tried to follow the lead of a friend and mentor and not engage in Bush-bashing (even though he, unfortunately, seems to think more highly of the President than I think is merited—but then again, my friend reads far more than I do). (Enough caveats?) In fact, as you may have noticed, I guess I'm turning anti-bashing, period.
One comment from President Bush's speech to the UN today bears critique. (Okay, I know a lot of his comments from that speech bear critique, but only one energized me enough to tap out a critique.) I quote the President: "As the 21st century unfolds, some may be tempted to assume that the threat has receded. This would be comforting. It would be wrong. The terrorists believe time is on their side, so they've made waiting out civilized nations part of their strategy. We must not allow them to succeed."
In my study of history, I've seen that it's usually the people who are right who win out in the long run. Ruinous regimes usually fall, even if it takes 400 years. It's the decent commoner who forebears a dozen generations of decent commoners who eventually wins. The totalitarian overlords are the ones who assert that their life matters more than anything else, that they need to make a legacy, that they need to protect and control everything. The dictator is interested in NOW. The commoner knows that life will grind on as it has for thousands of years, and only faithful plodding will show that time is on their side.
Another caveat: I'm not siding with terrorists. I merely think that using the "time on their side" phrase called President Bush's rhetoric into question. He should have realized that that example never benefits the more powerful side. To critique the "terrorist": Time is on their side, given their communal understanding of life and the idea of one person's sacrifice benefitting the whole. However, they are using the controlling weapon of the powerful totalitarian: death. They have undermined their own cause by resorting to death and violence. There is another class still, the decent commoners of above, who will outlast those who engage in random killing. Time is on the side of the average Muslim. The masses will soon completely tire of death and fear tactics. (See American parallel.)
People want to live decent lives. I want to live a decent life. Is time on my side? Will I outlive our government's fear-mongering and idiotic self-interested bailouts? On that note, sure, people will suffer if our economy collapses. I hope that the steps being taken are merely to parachute the economy back to a reasonable plateau. But the lessons being taught to greedy corporate apprentices is that money is all that matters, and yet it is free to the greedy. Please tell me that time is on my side. I want to live a decent, common life that outlives the current greedy, deathy culture. Just before another greedy, deathy regime steps in to take its place.
One comment from President Bush's speech to the UN today bears critique. (Okay, I know a lot of his comments from that speech bear critique, but only one energized me enough to tap out a critique.) I quote the President: "As the 21st century unfolds, some may be tempted to assume that the threat has receded. This would be comforting. It would be wrong. The terrorists believe time is on their side, so they've made waiting out civilized nations part of their strategy. We must not allow them to succeed."
In my study of history, I've seen that it's usually the people who are right who win out in the long run. Ruinous regimes usually fall, even if it takes 400 years. It's the decent commoner who forebears a dozen generations of decent commoners who eventually wins. The totalitarian overlords are the ones who assert that their life matters more than anything else, that they need to make a legacy, that they need to protect and control everything. The dictator is interested in NOW. The commoner knows that life will grind on as it has for thousands of years, and only faithful plodding will show that time is on their side.
Another caveat: I'm not siding with terrorists. I merely think that using the "time on their side" phrase called President Bush's rhetoric into question. He should have realized that that example never benefits the more powerful side. To critique the "terrorist": Time is on their side, given their communal understanding of life and the idea of one person's sacrifice benefitting the whole. However, they are using the controlling weapon of the powerful totalitarian: death. They have undermined their own cause by resorting to death and violence. There is another class still, the decent commoners of above, who will outlast those who engage in random killing. Time is on the side of the average Muslim. The masses will soon completely tire of death and fear tactics. (See American parallel.)
People want to live decent lives. I want to live a decent life. Is time on my side? Will I outlive our government's fear-mongering and idiotic self-interested bailouts? On that note, sure, people will suffer if our economy collapses. I hope that the steps being taken are merely to parachute the economy back to a reasonable plateau. But the lessons being taught to greedy corporate apprentices is that money is all that matters, and yet it is free to the greedy. Please tell me that time is on my side. I want to live a decent, common life that outlives the current greedy, deathy culture. Just before another greedy, deathy regime steps in to take its place.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Transcending static v. dynamic
I'm in a meeting talking about using books to drive people to websites. I have some old school sensibilities that make me rebel against that.
We started discussing how Facebook creates a whole layer of meaning beyond print books. One person noted that they can read others' bookshelves and see their notes on their books. It has some interesting parallels to book clubs, with more to offer, and yet less. You can't have an embodied banter about a book, but at the same time, people are newly enabled to interact in a totally different way.
Traditional print vehicles are static. It's hard to update a book more than once a year. When you are participating in a book club, it's dynamic. You react to one another's thoughts in real time. If you note your thoughts on a book on a Facebook bookshelf, you supply static info. It stays hanging out there for anyone to interact with. Oddly enough, this becomes a new dynamism. The profile viewer interacts, and the poster can refine their thoughts. Yet there is always the static element. It's strange to me how web apps have been helping change our concepts of static and dynamic. They are now tightly fused, whereas the old style were much more opposites.
We started discussing how Facebook creates a whole layer of meaning beyond print books. One person noted that they can read others' bookshelves and see their notes on their books. It has some interesting parallels to book clubs, with more to offer, and yet less. You can't have an embodied banter about a book, but at the same time, people are newly enabled to interact in a totally different way.
Traditional print vehicles are static. It's hard to update a book more than once a year. When you are participating in a book club, it's dynamic. You react to one another's thoughts in real time. If you note your thoughts on a book on a Facebook bookshelf, you supply static info. It stays hanging out there for anyone to interact with. Oddly enough, this becomes a new dynamism. The profile viewer interacts, and the poster can refine their thoughts. Yet there is always the static element. It's strange to me how web apps have been helping change our concepts of static and dynamic. They are now tightly fused, whereas the old style were much more opposites.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Sleep inversion
I had an interesting experience yesterday. We got up around ten to get ready to go see my niece play softball. (They won. The game was interminably long, but they got the W. And Kayleigh played well.) We got home around 4:30 and took a nap. Susan woke up at some point, but I stayed asleep. I rolled out of bed around ten. I did some things around the house and went back to bed around eleven.
It's pretty poetic to take a five hour nap, then get up for an hour, then go back to sleep for nine hours. This hasn't happened in a while. I wrapped up my Ethics class on Wednesday the 17th, and it has been great to be able to decompress. The tally goes 2800 pages, 40 hours of lecture, four papers and two tests in 13 weeks (while working full time). I read about 1300 of those pages in the last three weeks. So it's quite satisfying to invert my sleep schedule to try to "catch up" a bit. My next quarter starts in about two weeks, so I'd better do everything I want before that starts up again.
It's pretty poetic to take a five hour nap, then get up for an hour, then go back to sleep for nine hours. This hasn't happened in a while. I wrapped up my Ethics class on Wednesday the 17th, and it has been great to be able to decompress. The tally goes 2800 pages, 40 hours of lecture, four papers and two tests in 13 weeks (while working full time). I read about 1300 of those pages in the last three weeks. So it's quite satisfying to invert my sleep schedule to try to "catch up" a bit. My next quarter starts in about two weeks, so I'd better do everything I want before that starts up again.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11
I am grieved at the loss of life. Any life. So on this anniversary of 9/11, I think of the families that were broken up by the active hatred of certain groups. But I also pray for our nation, that we would love our enemies. I pray that our hearts would be formed more by the heart of Jesus than by vindictiveness (or even some sense of justice).
Let's note that this is the seventh anniversary. Might it be possible to follow the spirit of the First Testament and forgive the debt that we feel "those people" have to us? There will never be productivity in being fueled by a "never forget!" mentality. We should learn our lessons and remember those for sure. But that part of an event that causes us to hate or be bitter . . . let's hold that so loosely as to forget it.
Personally, I am so patriotic to the vision of America as a "city on a hill" that I saw almost instantly the grievance "those people" had against us. I recognized the inhumanity of what they did to us, but I also saw the ongoing inhumanity we have shown to them. (Don't get me started.) That made it easier for me to forgive, in that "it didn't really directly affect me" sort of way. (That's what I mean by "city on a hill." We are willing to take the high road in every case, except that this is a fantasy at this point.) Even if one of my family members had been murdered on 9/11, I would still say, "Right grievance, wrong method." Death is always the wrong method. But systematic oppression, in this case through supporting one side then another without a second thought on a couple of occasions—with disastrous consequences for them—is a grievance that must be addressed. They just did it in a terrible way.
Now this is the key point: Even if they didn't have a legitimate grievance, we would still be called to forgive them if they attacked us out of the blue with no possible reason. Instead, we have two ongoing wars related to 9/11. Some would say that there are 50 million people that have been liberated from systematic oppression under Hussein. I don't buy it. We used death to "liberate" them. That's never a liberation. Granted, people are better off without Hussein as their leader. He was a brutal, terrorist dictator. He deserved to be retired. I'm just not sure that there was any moral basis for us to invade and further destroy an already decimated country. We could quibble about details all day, for there is supporting evidence on both sides. I choose to look at the evidence and say, "We should not have resorted to war for this cause." Again, only tangentially related to 9/11, but our wars were a response to that impetus. I think the world sees our wars as directly related to 9/11.
It's time for a seven-year jubilee. Let's forgive the debt of hatred. Let's find a way to love and serve our enemies.
Let's note that this is the seventh anniversary. Might it be possible to follow the spirit of the First Testament and forgive the debt that we feel "those people" have to us? There will never be productivity in being fueled by a "never forget!" mentality. We should learn our lessons and remember those for sure. But that part of an event that causes us to hate or be bitter . . . let's hold that so loosely as to forget it.
Personally, I am so patriotic to the vision of America as a "city on a hill" that I saw almost instantly the grievance "those people" had against us. I recognized the inhumanity of what they did to us, but I also saw the ongoing inhumanity we have shown to them. (Don't get me started.) That made it easier for me to forgive, in that "it didn't really directly affect me" sort of way. (That's what I mean by "city on a hill." We are willing to take the high road in every case, except that this is a fantasy at this point.) Even if one of my family members had been murdered on 9/11, I would still say, "Right grievance, wrong method." Death is always the wrong method. But systematic oppression, in this case through supporting one side then another without a second thought on a couple of occasions—with disastrous consequences for them—is a grievance that must be addressed. They just did it in a terrible way.
Now this is the key point: Even if they didn't have a legitimate grievance, we would still be called to forgive them if they attacked us out of the blue with no possible reason. Instead, we have two ongoing wars related to 9/11. Some would say that there are 50 million people that have been liberated from systematic oppression under Hussein. I don't buy it. We used death to "liberate" them. That's never a liberation. Granted, people are better off without Hussein as their leader. He was a brutal, terrorist dictator. He deserved to be retired. I'm just not sure that there was any moral basis for us to invade and further destroy an already decimated country. We could quibble about details all day, for there is supporting evidence on both sides. I choose to look at the evidence and say, "We should not have resorted to war for this cause." Again, only tangentially related to 9/11, but our wars were a response to that impetus. I think the world sees our wars as directly related to 9/11.
It's time for a seven-year jubilee. Let's forgive the debt of hatred. Let's find a way to love and serve our enemies.
"No Spin Zone"
"Hi, this is Bill O'Reilly. Welcome to the No Spin Zone, where we've been caught in a death spiral for so long we don't realize we're spinning out of control."
If only he had the courage or self-awareness to say that.
If only he had the courage or self-awareness to say that.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Okay, this is ridiculous. (concerning economic politics)
I don't know why I'm on such a roll today. But I've got all these ideas bursting messily forth from my head.
I've thought a lot in the past about discipleship and finances. What happens when everyone starts making sense in relation to their finances? Our economy as we know it collapses. This, specifically, is the consumeristic laissez-faire capitalist economy. The American economy is laissez-faire in relation to individuals and classes of people, but it's not close to being laissez-faire relative to business. Two posts ago, I mention my ethics professor and his view of governmental involvement in Western European economies. He says there should be free markets with programs or protections for people. This has helped their economies be more robust, and has generally brought equality to the masses. On the other hand, America continues to widen the gap between the 1 percent that contribute to political campaigns and the masses. Also, the greed of the rich has brought disastrous consequences in our current housing crisis by duping poorer people into getting over their heads in unsound mortgages. Our advertising culture of dissatisfaction made those who took the bad mortgages believe that they deserved the best of everything through consumer credit and also the biggest (im)possible house through mortgage credit. Now our economy is in the dump. Thanks, guys.
If we discipled all Americans to be more frugal, these things would stop happening. The plutarchs would see their balance sheets start to tip toward the negative. Now, there are two kinds of frugality. One is personally oriented and the other is politically oriented. I used to be not frugal. When I got married, my wife helped me become that way, and I'm glad she did. This is personal frugality. My wife was frugal because she wanted her low income to be sufficient to provide her needs and keep her out of debt. But I've developed a political frugality in parallel with my personal frugality. This is where I say that the polis (city, society) needs to become frugal through personal frugality. If everyone started thinking this way, it would bring itself into the political sphere as it's defined today. We would begin electing people that would go the other way from what Alexis de Tocqueville said, in effect, "Democracy is doomed when people discover they can vote themselves the purse" (eg, earmarks, porkbarrelling, whatever). We need to flip-flop our economic priorities: hands-on with individuals through programs that teach them industry and frugality while we support their efforts to get out of debt and on their feet, and laissez-faire with business, where we let market forces actually determine what farmers do and what mortgage companies fail. If we keep propping up bad business practices (and war) with hundreds of billions of dollars, the country will spiral further into debt, and politicians will continue to say, "Sorry, there's no money to keep human beings from living like animals." But if we get our priorities straight, we can all live humanly, where no one, rich or poor has to idolize money. I know, I know. People who are filthy rich might lose money, and poor people might actually begin to become functioning members of society. Tragedy.
I've thought a lot in the past about discipleship and finances. What happens when everyone starts making sense in relation to their finances? Our economy as we know it collapses. This, specifically, is the consumeristic laissez-faire capitalist economy. The American economy is laissez-faire in relation to individuals and classes of people, but it's not close to being laissez-faire relative to business. Two posts ago, I mention my ethics professor and his view of governmental involvement in Western European economies. He says there should be free markets with programs or protections for people. This has helped their economies be more robust, and has generally brought equality to the masses. On the other hand, America continues to widen the gap between the 1 percent that contribute to political campaigns and the masses. Also, the greed of the rich has brought disastrous consequences in our current housing crisis by duping poorer people into getting over their heads in unsound mortgages. Our advertising culture of dissatisfaction made those who took the bad mortgages believe that they deserved the best of everything through consumer credit and also the biggest (im)possible house through mortgage credit. Now our economy is in the dump. Thanks, guys.
If we discipled all Americans to be more frugal, these things would stop happening. The plutarchs would see their balance sheets start to tip toward the negative. Now, there are two kinds of frugality. One is personally oriented and the other is politically oriented. I used to be not frugal. When I got married, my wife helped me become that way, and I'm glad she did. This is personal frugality. My wife was frugal because she wanted her low income to be sufficient to provide her needs and keep her out of debt. But I've developed a political frugality in parallel with my personal frugality. This is where I say that the polis (city, society) needs to become frugal through personal frugality. If everyone started thinking this way, it would bring itself into the political sphere as it's defined today. We would begin electing people that would go the other way from what Alexis de Tocqueville said, in effect, "Democracy is doomed when people discover they can vote themselves the purse" (eg, earmarks, porkbarrelling, whatever). We need to flip-flop our economic priorities: hands-on with individuals through programs that teach them industry and frugality while we support their efforts to get out of debt and on their feet, and laissez-faire with business, where we let market forces actually determine what farmers do and what mortgage companies fail. If we keep propping up bad business practices (and war) with hundreds of billions of dollars, the country will spiral further into debt, and politicians will continue to say, "Sorry, there's no money to keep human beings from living like animals." But if we get our priorities straight, we can all live humanly, where no one, rich or poor has to idolize money. I know, I know. People who are filthy rich might lose money, and poor people might actually begin to become functioning members of society. Tragedy.
One more thing: (the media again)
I'm reading the book "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger" by Ron Sider. There's a paragraph I just read that runs along my rantlines of late, and it gives me an idea.
"Centralized wealth equals concentrated power. And that—as the conservative critics of communism rightly used to point out—is dangerous. It is not surprising that the relatively small numbers of wealthy people who control the largest corporations, which in turn own the media [did he just say "own the media"?], also have vast political power. In the U.S., most of the private money for political campaigns comes from the richest 1 percent of the people. Not surprisingly, most politicians care more about the self-interest of their wealthy donors than about justice for the poor. Democracy is threatened and the poor suffer" (144).
So here's the idea that I don't think my wife would support (given that I would become completely unavailable). I'm going to go door to door around the country and sit down with everyone who will talk. (It's important to introduce myself in a way that they will actually talk to me.) We'll talk about their life and economic state and what they wish were better. We'll talk about the system that's in place (see Sider's assessment above). Then we'll talk about weaning ourselves off the media. We'll talk about genuine community conversation where we can get information from people we trust (where will they get it? not sure about that yet), rather than self-interested oligarchical plutocrats. The media empires will fall because the advertisers will see that it's not worth their money. We will get back to the day of candidates actually having to work, using more literal, but probably still figurative, stumps for their speeches. This will lead to a more actual democracy, rather than the joke that we have in America (or should I jibe the anti-democracy by saying "'Merica"?).
I am so darn idealistic, but I like to think that I have idea(l)s worth putting into practice, and ones that can be put into practice. My ethics professor wrote in his book "Just Peacemaking" (yeah, it's as great as it sounds) that we need to rid ourselves of our cancerous pessimism. We can actually do something about poverty. Yes, Jesus said we will always have the poor with us, but that doesn't mean we don't do great work to mitigate the disaster that is their life. We need to start having human concern for changing the world for the sake of the world, not our own. When can we start?
"Centralized wealth equals concentrated power. And that—as the conservative critics of communism rightly used to point out—is dangerous. It is not surprising that the relatively small numbers of wealthy people who control the largest corporations, which in turn own the media [did he just say "own the media"?], also have vast political power. In the U.S., most of the private money for political campaigns comes from the richest 1 percent of the people. Not surprisingly, most politicians care more about the self-interest of their wealthy donors than about justice for the poor. Democracy is threatened and the poor suffer" (144).
So here's the idea that I don't think my wife would support (given that I would become completely unavailable). I'm going to go door to door around the country and sit down with everyone who will talk. (It's important to introduce myself in a way that they will actually talk to me.) We'll talk about their life and economic state and what they wish were better. We'll talk about the system that's in place (see Sider's assessment above). Then we'll talk about weaning ourselves off the media. We'll talk about genuine community conversation where we can get information from people we trust (where will they get it? not sure about that yet), rather than self-interested oligarchical plutocrats. The media empires will fall because the advertisers will see that it's not worth their money. We will get back to the day of candidates actually having to work, using more literal, but probably still figurative, stumps for their speeches. This will lead to a more actual democracy, rather than the joke that we have in America (or should I jibe the anti-democracy by saying "'Merica"?).
I am so darn idealistic, but I like to think that I have idea(l)s worth putting into practice, and ones that can be put into practice. My ethics professor wrote in his book "Just Peacemaking" (yeah, it's as great as it sounds) that we need to rid ourselves of our cancerous pessimism. We can actually do something about poverty. Yes, Jesus said we will always have the poor with us, but that doesn't mean we don't do great work to mitigate the disaster that is their life. We need to start having human concern for changing the world for the sake of the world, not our own. When can we start?
Economic justice
A friend posted a link to a blog talking about the One Issue for Evangelicals: abortion. http://livelydust.blogspot.com/2008/09/plea-to-pro-life-voters.html
This sparked a conversation with my like-minded co-workers, and led to some rantalicious bloviation. Note: The class I refer to is Christian Ethics at Fuller Seminary. We join my conversation/monologue about abortion already in progress.
What would happen if Christians went about the country trying to change hearts through the Holy Spirit's power and their martyring (or witness as the case may be—our sacrificing ourselves in love so that it feels like we're being martyred)? At that point, maybe there would be a chance of outlawing abortion. But in the interim, the average evangelical will continue supporting the systemic injustice that causes abortion in the first place. I think if we had 30 years of Democrats who were serious about making a difference with their programs (fully funded with money not being dumped down the offense/war drain), poverty and abortion and Bristol Palin's situation would generally cease. Thank God Sarah Palin opposes this sort of remedy.
Last lesson and this one in my ethics class address exactly these issues. Glen Stassen, my professor, is an unbelievably clear-headed thinker. I also read an essay last night entitled "The Prolife Credibility Gap" by John Perkins' son, Spencer. And I quote: "As for answering the question, 'Where do black Christians stand on abortion?' it looks to me as if we are on the same side of a moral issue. But if, from where you stand, you insist the battle is against abortion, while we believe the battle is against injustice, our strategies must remain different. We believe your plans for an all-out -war on abortion will prove to be short-sighted. When and if you win the abortion battle, the war will be over for you and you will be able to return home [to the suburbs]. Then we will be left to undertake the reconstruction. Therefore, our strategy must continue to be the fight against injustice—a war with many battlefronts. Where abortion will rank in our battle plan will depend on the strength of the relationship we can establish in the future and on how much your burdens and concerns, because of that relationship, can become ours."
My first comment is, "Damn." My second is that I think he's exactly right. Let's eliminate injustice, and let's go with the people who already believe there is injustice: the Democrats. We should lobby them to take more reasonable governing approaches and more sustainable program practices so that there may come a day when we won't need the programs. Maybe the only program we'll need at that point is nursing care for old, white Republicans because the cursed, unjust economic system they've constructed for themselves has finally collapsed under the weight of its moral turpitude.
Btw, my professor notes that after the wall fell, the East Germans were absolutely flabbergasted at how much money America was swimming in (Texas ten feet deep in quarters anyone?), and how many people were completely shut out from a just and sustainable economic life. They set up a capitalistic/market system where mothers got two years off with 80% pay after the birth of their first child, and 18 months off with same pay after the birth of their second child. They actually had plans in place to prevent teen pregnancy, infant mortality, abortions and poverty in general. But the red scare makes us (meaning them, the Republicans) say that that smacks of communism to be avoided at all costs. There are so many other statistics and anecdotes that support the idea of a market economy with significant governmental intervention not only bringing economic justice to all, but actually sustaining economies more robust than 'Merica's. But that's all just liberal lunacy. Now what am I going to do with my next raise? Oh wait, our economy is too volatile for our company to afford that.
This sparked a conversation with my like-minded co-workers, and led to some rantalicious bloviation. Note: The class I refer to is Christian Ethics at Fuller Seminary. We join my conversation/monologue about abortion already in progress.
What would happen if Christians went about the country trying to change hearts through the Holy Spirit's power and their martyring (or witness as the case may be—our sacrificing ourselves in love so that it feels like we're being martyred)? At that point, maybe there would be a chance of outlawing abortion. But in the interim, the average evangelical will continue supporting the systemic injustice that causes abortion in the first place. I think if we had 30 years of Democrats who were serious about making a difference with their programs (fully funded with money not being dumped down the offense/war drain), poverty and abortion and Bristol Palin's situation would generally cease. Thank God Sarah Palin opposes this sort of remedy.
Last lesson and this one in my ethics class address exactly these issues. Glen Stassen, my professor, is an unbelievably clear-headed thinker. I also read an essay last night entitled "The Prolife Credibility Gap" by John Perkins' son, Spencer. And I quote: "As for answering the question, 'Where do black Christians stand on abortion?' it looks to me as if we are on the same side of a moral issue. But if, from where you stand, you insist the battle is against abortion, while we believe the battle is against injustice, our strategies must remain different. We believe your plans for an all-out -war on abortion will prove to be short-sighted. When and if you win the abortion battle, the war will be over for you and you will be able to return home [to the suburbs]. Then we will be left to undertake the reconstruction. Therefore, our strategy must continue to be the fight against injustice—a war with many battlefronts. Where abortion will rank in our battle plan will depend on the strength of the relationship we can establish in the future and on how much your burdens and concerns, because of that relationship, can become ours."
My first comment is, "Damn." My second is that I think he's exactly right. Let's eliminate injustice, and let's go with the people who already believe there is injustice: the Democrats. We should lobby them to take more reasonable governing approaches and more sustainable program practices so that there may come a day when we won't need the programs. Maybe the only program we'll need at that point is nursing care for old, white Republicans because the cursed, unjust economic system they've constructed for themselves has finally collapsed under the weight of its moral turpitude.
Btw, my professor notes that after the wall fell, the East Germans were absolutely flabbergasted at how much money America was swimming in (Texas ten feet deep in quarters anyone?), and how many people were completely shut out from a just and sustainable economic life. They set up a capitalistic/market system where mothers got two years off with 80% pay after the birth of their first child, and 18 months off with same pay after the birth of their second child. They actually had plans in place to prevent teen pregnancy, infant mortality, abortions and poverty in general. But the red scare makes us (meaning them, the Republicans) say that that smacks of communism to be avoided at all costs. There are so many other statistics and anecdotes that support the idea of a market economy with significant governmental intervention not only bringing economic justice to all, but actually sustaining economies more robust than 'Merica's. But that's all just liberal lunacy. Now what am I going to do with my next raise? Oh wait, our economy is too volatile for our company to afford that.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Wasilla
This is the "second-largest city in Alaska" that Karl Rove spoke about: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271557392?bctid=1772099431.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Palindrome: Sarah Palin runs for VP
[Alternate title: Capitalism brought us 24-hour news networks]
A co-worker forwarded this brilliant bit of journalism today: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html. Now the really sad thing is, I consider what Jon Stewart does to be journalism. I can't say the same thing for the "journalists" that he features. The gist of the clip is different conservative pundits saying something like, "Sarah Palin has great experience. She's been a governor [would that be governess? that sounds like something from one of those Jane Austen novels], and she was mayor of, like, the second largest city in Alaska." Stewart rejoins, "Let's see . . . she was mayor of a town of . . . 9,000 people!" He then plays a clip of the same person (Karl Rove) from a few weeks ago saying, "If Obama picks Tim Cain, that would be totally politically pandering. His only experience is as governor, lieutenant governor and as mayor of Richmond. That's the 102nd largest city in the country! There are only 200,000 people in that town! It's smaller than Chula Vista, California and Aurora, Coloraduh [actual pronunciation]!" Seriously. The rest of the clips were of very similar partisan asininity from a variety of conservative pundits.
[solidifying centrist position]
I need to make clear that I know both sides do this. I hate the activity and results of both sides. All my Christian bits are straining to keep me from hating the actual people. But this sort of stuff is destroying our country. The average American picks one or two pundits on whose every word they can hang. They go around spouting all kinds of crazy, because they haven't managed to listen to anyone giving a balanced perspective. And why are we destroying America this way? It sells. Sponsors know they can get their ad impressions on cable news networks. They keep sponsoring this schlock where the anchors and pundits are trying to come up with something original to say to gain viewership, only they don't actually do much real research; they only make ad hominem attacks in a whiny, strained voice for as long as the camera is on them. (This is not unlike how I would sound if I were speaking instead of writing this.) So the Glorious Capitalism has brought this upon us. Makes me very angry.
Back to Ms. Palin again. The liberals are trying everything they can to get dirt on McCain and Palin. The conservatives are doing everything they can to defend against these attacks, forgetting in their fervor that they used the exact same rhetoric against the Democrats a few weeks ago. And the fact that the VP candidate is a woman only makes it worse. I've never heard so much sexism (in a reverse sort of way). They keep reaching to make sure that everyone lays off Ms. Palin. "She's such a helpless little girl! Stop attacking her!" From the liberal side, they say things like, "She's such a helpless little girl! Destroy her!"
But then you hear what Palin says after a stupid question at a press conference. "Judge me on the job I do. It doesn't matter if I'm a woman; I'm still held to a high standard." This is exactly right. Can we stop making personal attacks and digging up dirt? We can ask things like, "Is he capable of being a good leader if his underage daughter goes out and gets smashed?" (That was so 2003.) "Is she capable of being a good leader when her teen daughter is pregnant and she has an infant with disabilities?" These are fair questions. But the tone of offense and defense between the parties makes reasonable assessment impossible. "Is it a good idea to have a freshman senator taking over the presidency?" I happen to know that Obama has some crazy cred, such as being top of his law class at Harvard, president of Harvard Law Review, a constitutional law professor for twelve years (refreshing after years of constitutional disregard), state senator for seven years, chair of foreign relations subcommittee, etc. I don't know the cred about the others, but they have theirs too. (Runner up Miss Alaska . . . ) But we still have to ask smart questions and listen for intelligent answers.
Frankly, I think either ticket would be quite capable of governing the country well. I may not agree with all the policies of one or the other, but then again, I don't remember getting my DNA extracted so they could make my clone president. We must get back to intelligent dialogue. It's unfortunately absent, first in the media, and by extension in the campaigns and politics in general.
A co-worker forwarded this brilliant bit of journalism today: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html. Now the really sad thing is, I consider what Jon Stewart does to be journalism. I can't say the same thing for the "journalists" that he features. The gist of the clip is different conservative pundits saying something like, "Sarah Palin has great experience. She's been a governor [would that be governess? that sounds like something from one of those Jane Austen novels], and she was mayor of, like, the second largest city in Alaska." Stewart rejoins, "Let's see . . . she was mayor of a town of . . . 9,000 people!" He then plays a clip of the same person (Karl Rove) from a few weeks ago saying, "If Obama picks Tim Cain, that would be totally politically pandering. His only experience is as governor, lieutenant governor and as mayor of Richmond. That's the 102nd largest city in the country! There are only 200,000 people in that town! It's smaller than Chula Vista, California and Aurora, Coloraduh [actual pronunciation]!" Seriously. The rest of the clips were of very similar partisan asininity from a variety of conservative pundits.
[solidifying centrist position]
I need to make clear that I know both sides do this. I hate the activity and results of both sides. All my Christian bits are straining to keep me from hating the actual people. But this sort of stuff is destroying our country. The average American picks one or two pundits on whose every word they can hang. They go around spouting all kinds of crazy, because they haven't managed to listen to anyone giving a balanced perspective. And why are we destroying America this way? It sells. Sponsors know they can get their ad impressions on cable news networks. They keep sponsoring this schlock where the anchors and pundits are trying to come up with something original to say to gain viewership, only they don't actually do much real research; they only make ad hominem attacks in a whiny, strained voice for as long as the camera is on them. (This is not unlike how I would sound if I were speaking instead of writing this.) So the Glorious Capitalism has brought this upon us. Makes me very angry.
Back to Ms. Palin again. The liberals are trying everything they can to get dirt on McCain and Palin. The conservatives are doing everything they can to defend against these attacks, forgetting in their fervor that they used the exact same rhetoric against the Democrats a few weeks ago. And the fact that the VP candidate is a woman only makes it worse. I've never heard so much sexism (in a reverse sort of way). They keep reaching to make sure that everyone lays off Ms. Palin. "She's such a helpless little girl! Stop attacking her!" From the liberal side, they say things like, "She's such a helpless little girl! Destroy her!"
But then you hear what Palin says after a stupid question at a press conference. "Judge me on the job I do. It doesn't matter if I'm a woman; I'm still held to a high standard." This is exactly right. Can we stop making personal attacks and digging up dirt? We can ask things like, "Is he capable of being a good leader if his underage daughter goes out and gets smashed?" (That was so 2003.) "Is she capable of being a good leader when her teen daughter is pregnant and she has an infant with disabilities?" These are fair questions. But the tone of offense and defense between the parties makes reasonable assessment impossible. "Is it a good idea to have a freshman senator taking over the presidency?" I happen to know that Obama has some crazy cred, such as being top of his law class at Harvard, president of Harvard Law Review, a constitutional law professor for twelve years (refreshing after years of constitutional disregard), state senator for seven years, chair of foreign relations subcommittee, etc. I don't know the cred about the others, but they have theirs too. (Runner up Miss Alaska . . . ) But we still have to ask smart questions and listen for intelligent answers.
Frankly, I think either ticket would be quite capable of governing the country well. I may not agree with all the policies of one or the other, but then again, I don't remember getting my DNA extracted so they could make my clone president. We must get back to intelligent dialogue. It's unfortunately absent, first in the media, and by extension in the campaigns and politics in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)