It is the distant future . . .

There's outrage swirling in a very small portion of America, namely the portion that thinks James Dobson is still relevant but disagrees with him. His organization, Focus on the Family (which does a lot of wonderful things, and would be fine if they didn't talk about culture or politics or Bible translations), released a letter from a "2012 Christian" bemoaning life after Obama. As the fifth element of journalistic integrity, I have chosen not to read either the letter or even Jim Wallis's response to it before I respond. The very idea of a letter from the distant future gives me my own wonderful idea.

I'm going to write a letter as a 2008 Christian to all the chumps in 2000 (the year the robots sang the song "The Humans Are Dead"). Because I'm generous, I'll even address the letter to the chumps in 2004. (Chagrined confession: Generous epistolator=double chump.)

Dear Voter in, you pick, 2000 or 2004,

It's 2008, and we mercifully have an opportunity to try to salvage America. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of people here who want to continue destroying it. Does this greeting shock and appall you? Good. But let me explain.

There was a terrible attack on New York City in late summer 2001. Turns out some peevish Muslims hate us, and they changed the New York skyline forever. They killed 3,000 people in the process. I hate hate like that, and there probably wasn't a whole lot that could have been done to prevent it. I do know that President Clinton and the guy you're going to elect both ignored a quite a bit of intelligence that pointed toward the attack. But don't worry . . . your new President will respond appropriately. He'll invade Afghanistan to root out the terrorists who fostered this attack. The leaders won't have been captured by 2008, but whatever. The President will try to establish democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that will be somewhat questionable. It will be a pretty good effort, though.

The President will then follow faulty intelligence (this isn't irony juxtaposing this with the thing about the Muslims earlier; I'm serious) and invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons and harboring "terrorists." The awesome thing is, "terrorists" will come in and wreak havoc in Iraq after we invade and eventually capture Hussein and watch the "court" pop his head off (by hanging, not by a technical "beheading").

You might want to savor your civil liberties. There will be a significant trend to undermine established legal procedures for intel gathering in the interest of "national security." This includes eavesdropping on phone calls without warrants, monitoring internet traffic with impunity, and having access to library records.

Your new President will look into the souls of Vladimir Putin and Angela Merckel and discern that they are good people. I will hear a dude on the bus a few days ago saying that Putin will eat the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate alive if he's elected. Is that why your future President thinks Putin is a good man?

Your future President will pour something to the tune of a trillion dollars of your money into wars that, while they may make life better for some people, were entered into under faulty premises, particularly in virulent contravention of just war practices.

Under the President's watch, the national deficit will balloon to something like $7 trillion. (I'm just going from memory here. It's not like I'm the quintessence of journalistic integrity or anything. Sad thing is, I'm doing a lot better than most of the future media.) It might be worth noting that your President's party is symbolized by an elephant, just to give perspective on the whole spending thingy. What's that legend about elephants? Do they have really good memories or really bad memories? Either way, it's startling how little your future elephants will remember or pay attention to history. Also, if it happens that elephants legendarily have good memories, it doesn't matter if I can't remember that; I'm turning into more of a donkey every day.

There's a lot of water under the bridge. I don't remember if you've seen the Dow hit 10,000 yet or not. As shocking as that would have seemed to people just a few years ago, it happens. In fact, it'll get up to 14,000. But don't worry; all our future money is in the pooper now that the Dow has crashed to 8,500 or so. Yeah, the whole market system has crashed pretty well. And you have elephants who are scrambling to save the economy (read: rich people's backsides) by using government funds to buy stock in banks. Sound socialist? That's funny! There will be a campaign on right now, and the elephants are clamoring that the donkey candidate is going to bring socialism to America. They already did. A bunch of people are playing supposed laissez faire capitalism on a Monopoly board with my real money, and it's not working. It never will. So they resort to even more intervention in the markets, claiming that capitalism is the answer. Huh. Anyway, if there's any way to get rid of this two party system, take the opportunity. The party polarity really sucks here. Both sides are awful.

I'm gonna do a favor for you. I'm gonna tell you now that there will be a Republican running in 2008 who seems somewhat centrist. He's going to distance himself from your future two-term President because of all the awful stuff I've just told you and his abysmal approval rating. Yet all the same people who convinced me to vote for your future President twice are now clamoring for this guy. I don't know if I can trust them anymore. Christians bought into this future two-termer, because he prays and is a Republican who opposes abortion. Not a thing has been done about abortion other than create an economy that makes having a family pretty dicey. Go ahead and think through whether you should vote for him. Oh, by the way, depending on how you define a "valid" "ballot," he may will have never been elected in the first place.

Sincerely,

Your Radical Centrist Friend Who Is Voting Democrat for President for the First Time

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

For you FotC fans out there (not to be confused with FotF), it's time for the binary solo: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one, one; zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, one, one, one, one!

Trickle-down economics

I've been thinking about said Reaganomics lately, since one of my conservative friends has been asking me about such things. Rather than doing substantive research about why it doesn't work (because I don't have time), I've been using my idle time on my bike to come up with lame, pithy sayings denigrating trickle-down economics. I take full responsibility for them.

"The only thing trickling down in trickle-down economics is urine down the leg of the conservative fat cats laughing so hard at how stupid America is that they can't control their spigots."

After a more biblical fashion (though piss is very KJV):
"Why would anything having to do with economic justice be good or sufficient if it trickled down when Amos says, 'Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!'?"

My apologies. I'm concerned that no matter what, extra money ends up in the hands of corporations. Competition may drive prices down at some points, and less tax may allow that a bit more. But there's plenty that a company can do to help us realize that we need their product, and that we are desperate to pay way more than it should be worth for it. Marketing cancels out the good effects of trickling.

I'm not sure why, but Starbucks sounds really good right now!

Pusillanomie

A liability of mine is that I play with words in my head all the time. Thus merged pusillanimous and anomie, a word which now means a purposelessness and lack of direction brought on by lack of courage. Or perhaps it could mean a lack of courage brought on by aimlessness.

This relates tangentially to a thought I had yesterday. What is it about our entertainment in the decade before a giant market collapse? In the twenties, the markets we hot, and people were cocky and hedonistic. This was the early heyday of slapstick comedy and vaudeville. These forms of comedy were brought on by roaring boredom. For sure, the poor were left mostly out, but I'm talking about the pleasure class here, the ones with plenty of money to burn.

The last five to ten years have shown the same type of boredom. Let's see my day consists of taking obscene risks in the market, eating way too much and taking it for granted, watching p0rn/having sex with a stranger, and then watching ordinary people do stupid things on TV. I think that's an accurate picture of life in the twenties and in the last ten years. To a large degree the forms of entertainment carry on after the collapse, but it's a form of forgetfulness therapy rather then boredom therapy. People now need something to assuage their acute pain rather than their dull pain.

I admit, I smile and chuckle at Wipeout or I Survived a Japanese Game Show. There's something inherently funny to me about that kind of slapstick. But the sheer preponderance of these shows (throw in Survivor and all other reality TV as well) belies a sickness in our culture. We can't need that much "funny."

This is where pusillanomie comes in. People haven't been courageous enough to take appropriate risks, such as engaging in relationships, finding their calling, and loving and serving others. Instead, they do the bored thing. They take giant risks with money and while away their time hoping for something better. Only nothing better is coming. They have to take a courageous and purposeful step to kick the anomic ennui.

Why don't your ride your bike, mister?

Today was a strenuous commuting day. I woke up a bit late. I was hustling to make the bus on time, and I got caught in a gutter area. There was a lot of sand collected from storm runoff, and for all I know, from sanding last winter. I started to swerve a lot, and I finally decided to attempt a stop by putting my foot down. That sent me for a pretty good tumble. My chain fell off, but my heart wasn't free. I had to put that puppy back on and keep moving. I knew I was a bit behind schedule, so I pushed pretty hard. A little more than a quarter mile from the stop, I saw the bus turning to wind its way around to the stop. I pushed even harder. I had to stand up to pedal as hard as I could up the hill. With about 50 yards to go, the bus pulled up to the stop. I finished the course by riding in the bus's lane, so that he wouldn't leave. Turns out he wouldn't have left for about two minutes. And I was beat.

I got to work and had a pretty good day. I left with a good amount of time to make it to the bus stop. However, my rear tire was flat. I had 13 minutes to make it about a mile. No time to change/repair the flat. So I started walking briskly. I kept watch on the time, and I realized a little less than half way there that I would need to run. So I ran pushing my bike and carrying my 20-some pound backpack. I stopped to walk a couple of times, but I knew where the bus was in relation to the stop (having seen it go by). So I had to push hard. Again, the bus pulled into the stop when I was about 50 yards away. Thankfully, the driver paused for me. I don't recall being quite so worn out. Today's treks to the bus stop were two of the four hardest I've ever had. And they happened on the same day. Ugh.

Like a good neighbor

I'm calling with a question about an account we have with State Farm. On the recording before any bidness happens, I hear, "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. This call may be monitored or recorded."

If investing is a highway . . .

I'm gonna park it like it's ho-o-ot.

On Saturday, I had some time in the car, so I listened to the radio. When I listen to the radio, I only listen to our local NPR affiliate, KRCC. It so happened that This American Life was on. They were helpfully parsing the economic crisis. (Anyone want to second my observation that the word "crisis" comes from the Greek word meaning "judgment, under judgment"?) You can listen here.

My travel took me on the highway, shortly after I heard how these investment firms engaged in frenzied "credit default swaps" with hedging and not regulating. Then I started to get that sick, disappointed feeling as I watched drivers around me whip into the right lane to get ahead, then whip back into the left lane when they realized that no cars were in the right lane for a reason. And it clicked. I had had that feeling moments before as I listened to the description of people whipping into the other lane to gain a few bucks, then whipping back when they realized it wasn't going to work out, then gunning it when they had a few yards, then cutting somebody off, all to get a little bit ahead.

I myself engage in a bit of lane changing, depending on my mood. But I don't think I ever get manic about it. Once I realize what I'm doing, I ground myself to the right lane for a bit, if for no other reason than to give up more than the little bit of ground I gained with less than sane driving.

I don't recommend that in financial markets, but it turns out that we've lost 20% of our initial investment anyway. To stay in? To not stay in? I kind of want to buoy the markets with our paltry investment, by not pulling it out. It's in there for the long term anyway, so why pull it out? Maybe the markets will recover. Maybe we'll make our "killing" someday.

Now there's exactly the problem. On another vehicular foray this weekend, I listened to the Thomas Jefferson Hour. Clay Jenkinson represents Jefferson with some very strong language about those shystery, gambling followers of Alexander Hamilton. Never worked an honest day in their life. They're gambling, merely trying to create false demand to rip off the honest people who fall into the economic wrangling at the wrong time.

I've been conflicted about stock markets and mutual funds for a while, but these reflective times have cemented a desire for me to be more agrarian, keep a little money in CDs or some such non-gambling instrument to keep pace with inflation. The more I see, the more I realize that getting ahead involves either frugality or luck. Frugality's a sure thing that steals from no one. Luck is . . . well, luck, and it means that someone else is unlucky. The money that's rotting away in mutual funds right now was gained by frugality, and it's now being lost by a certain inverse of luck. I don't feel bitter about it; I saw it coming. I do wonder if it's time to cut losses and pull out, or if we should just leave it in. I imagine we'll leave it in and hope for a modest return over the next couple of decades.

This big mess does make me want to pull the car off at the next exit and take a bike or a horse or travel by foot. Some good ol' honest conveyance.

Evangelical gospel

I was just talking to a co-worker about the previous blog post and how sad I get when people talk about the great news of going to heaven when they die—forever. It's good news that we're in God's presence after we die, sure. But if we look forward to the resurrection, and live anticipatorally today, the good news that Jesus preached makes sense: captives are set free, the poor are fed and the oppressed are liberated. All creation will be liberated from sin permanently at the resurrection.

When I hear "Christians" damning the creation to fire as if it is a bad thing, they haven't read enough. And I mean they ignored the next sentence. What people know as 2 Peter 3:10–12 says: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." It's an awesome and fearsome thing to read those sentences. But we evidently get lost in the awe, because we completely ignore the next sentence: "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells." Can it be more clear? This righteousness that Peter is referring to is the good news: liberation and plenty for all. Hebrew righteousness has everything to do with equality and justice and almost nothing to do with the Roman idea of the gavel falling condemning a prisoner to a sentence.

Of late, I've taken to calling what Evangelicals preach the "evangelical gospel." I have felt that it defines things well enough, and distances the Scripture from that heresy sufficiently. But I just realized that if you translate the roots of "evangelical gospel," you get "good newsical good news." That's an injustice at the very least, since it gives too much credence to the "goodness" of that news. At other times I speak of "kakangelion," the opposite of "euangelion." Maybe I need to stick with that.