For this tour we will examine a special sub-category of our last topic of discussion: the design of the state. In particular, we want to take a brief look at the question, “What should God’s minister on earth (Romans 13:4) look like? What is a proper form for this agency that is divinely appointed and commissioned to administer justice, punish evil, and encourage goodness among its citizens or subjects?” We will approach this task by considering the American Experiment.
From the beginning, Dr. Tackett lays down three ground rules for this study: first, we will not seek to deify America; and second, we will not seek to deify the Founding Fathers (the third ground rule will be dealt with at the end of the lesson). Having established these guidelines, he hastens to point out that there are compelling reasons for giving special attention to the subject of this tour. The American Experiment has the potential to prove unusually conducive to a deeper understanding of God’s design for the state precisely because it is unique in the history of the world. Here on these shores, and here alone, people with a strong Christian worldview have been afforded an unparalleled opportunity to create from scratch what they considered an ideal system of government – a system designed in careful conformity with the principles outlined in Lesson 9.
We begin by establishing the biblical character of that worldview. The New England Primer, the second best-selling book (after the Bible) of the colonial era, provides an intriguing window into the attitudes of early Americans. In particular, it reveals an outlook and a way of life powerfully shaped by the teachings of Scripture. The pervasiveness of this outlook is further demonstrated in statements made by America’s early political leaders, legal and social architects, and educational pioneers – people like Benjamin Rush, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, Noah Webster, and the founders of Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia Universities. In spite of the fact that not all of them were practicing Christians, these luminaries agreed with President John Adams that the success of America’s republican form of government would prove directly dependent upon the virtue and morality of her people, and that virtue and morality are necessarily founded upon religion – by which all meant the Christian religion. All of these early thinkers were convinced that the state must be held accountable to the authority of a higher ethical and spiritual standard – the “Natural Law” or the “Law of Nature’s God” – if the human rights abuses they had observed in Europe and throughout history were to be hopefully avoided on this continent.
Tragically, however, America is quickly turning away from these principles. It is hard to put a finger on the exact reasons, but one clear element came as Darwinian evolutionary theory made its influence felt in the field of law. In 1869, Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Langdell advanced the view that law is not based upon the transcendent standard of “Nature’s God,” but is rather a fluid and constantly mutating body of “doctrine,” a set of purely human ideas that inevitably change “by slow degrees.” In other words, law and ethics, like biological species, are continually “evolving.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expanded on this theme by declaring that the law is “simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of a society at a given point in its history,” thus effectively granting to the state the power to establish society’s ethical norms. John Dewey implemented these ideas in the realm of public education. “There is no God,” said Dewey (nicknamed “The Architect of Modern Education”), “and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion.”
These statements, says Dr. Tackett, bring us to the present moment. Today, America has largely forgotten God and denied the validity of her biblically based Christian roots. As a result, we see the power of the state expanding in our time. This, too, is a manifestation of the perennial Cosmic Battle, which is always fought most fiercely in the social realm. Ultimately, we must face the fact that the American Experiment is likely to fail altogether if we do not take intentional and deliberate steps to salvage it. This is a task which falls primarily on the shoulders of Christian people. As believers, we need to remember God’s call to prayer and repentance in 2 Chronicles 7:13-14. There is nothing to be gained, says Dr. Tackett, by casting blame on non-Christians (this is the third ground rule for our study).
This last point should be kept in mind throughout the entire discussion. From beginning to end, Dr. Tackett seeks to communicate the thought that the American Experiment makes sense only when understood as the brainchild of Christians who operated on the basis of a biblical worldview. Just as the experiment was instigated by believers, so it must be carried on by believers – believers who care deeply and passionately about their country – if it is to survive and continue to succeed.
Here is a preview of this weeks lesson:
You can watch the complete lesson here. Contact me (X-trials@BrianBorden.com) if you still need a Username and Password.
See you Thursday!
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Truth Project: The American Experiment: Stepping Stones
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Truth Project - The State: Whose Law?
In the southwest quadrant of our compass lie the spheres of the state, politics, and law. On this, the ninth of twelve worldview tours to be completed during the course of The Truth Project, we will take a close and careful look at how the spheres of state, politics, and law are interconnected and how they relate to other aspects of the social realm: family, church, labor, community, and the relationship between God and man. Special attention will be given to the design, structure, and role of the state, its place in God’s plan for human society, and the rightful extent and limits of its power. The state, as we will see, has the capacity to exert a tremendous power for good in the affairs of mankind as long as it operates within its proper boundaries; but it also has the potential to become the most horrendously pathological and abusive of all the social spheres if not kept in check.
Significantly, Dr. Tackett begins this tour with a look at older ideas about the relationship between the state and the ethical realm. According to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, law, politics, and the state are, among other things, concerned with the preservation and improvement of a people’s morals. Though few today would be inclined to accept this definition, a moment’s reflection is sufficient to demonstrate how important it really is. For as Dr. Tackett illustrates by considering a very simple question – “Can the state steal?” – human governments are capable of error and transgression and must be held accountable to a higher ethical law if they are to be prevented from wreaking havoc in the lives of the citizens entrusted to their oversight and care.
God’s perspective on the state, as we will discover through a careful examination of the relevant scriptural passages, is that it is strictly subordinate to His sovereign dominion and control. Just as the Son is subject to the Father, the wife to the husband, and the elders of the church to the headship of Christ, so the authority of the state, within the economy of the divine design for the political sphere, is subject to and dependent upon the authority of God Himself. Governors and magistrates hold their power purely as delegates and representatives of the King of all kings. They are appointed and armed with the sword in order that they might 1) punish evil and 2) condone good. Those who forget these principles and become puffed up with a sense of their own importance are, like Ahab (1 Kings 21), Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:20-30), Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26), and Herod (Acts 12:21-23), liable to swift and severe judgment.
This last point is worthy of special attention; for, as the Bible and history demonstrate, when human rulers overstep their bounds, deny the sovereignty of the various social spheres, and seek to establish state control over every other area of human life, tyranny, oppression, and violence are sure to follow. The godless expansion of the power of the state has reared its ugly head many times in the past, most notably in the 20th century regimes of rulers like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. It is raising its head again in our own time, says Dr. Tackett. Without God, truth, or any higher moral standard, people are increasingly looking to the state as savior and the supplier of every human need. In the face of this trend, Bible-believing Christians must have the courage to resist what Dr. Tackett calls “The Rise of the State” – to stand firm, draw a line in the sand, and say, “This far and no more.”
Dr. Tackett warns students at the outset of this tour that some may find themselves “conflicted” as they contemplate the implications of his message. This is because, as a result of the raging of the Cosmic Battle, many people in our day have been taken captive by the lie that the state, and not God, is to “go before us” as our savior and sustainer and the source of all good things. This discussion is calculated from beginning to end to expose and challenge this assumption. There are obvious implications here for the debate between proponents of “liberal” and “conservative” social policy (i.e., the “welfare state” and its opponents).
Here is a preview of this weeks lesson:
You can watch the complete lesson here. Contact me (X-trials@BrianBorden.com) if you still need a Username and Password.
See you Thursday!
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
$4,616,000,000,000 vs. $3,920,000,000,000
Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
Sunday, November 30, 2008
When in Doubt, Do Nothing!
We have been calling for a national energy plan since the early 70s and we still don't have one. We have wasted money, time, and ENERGY. We are so focused on short-term issues in order to get reelected or get some instant benefit that our nation is woefully going down a path leading to implosion. None of the long-term problems have been addressed and there doesn't seem to be any real will power to confront them. Oh, we'll give lip service to the problems but that's about it. The economy, the deficit, the trade imbalance, education, retirement, infrastructure, and energy all require long-term planning and current pain. Instead we admit there are problems but don't do anything about it until a CURRENT crisis rears it's head. Take the economy (please), we are talking about putting $7.8 trillion dollars at risk now because of short-term thinking! The same is true with our energy policy. The current energy plans (plural because there hasn't been a unified one), have been so politicized and special interest riddled as to have been a COMPLETE waste of funds with absolutely nothing to show for it. Read the Newsweek article below to get a sense of the do nothing attitude. No one wants nuclear waste in their state so for political reasons, not scientific, we tell the nuclear plants to store them onsite rather than in a more remote area. And President-elect Obama's answer to the problem...keep doing the same. Now I'll give him some slack...I'll even give him a lot of slack. First, he isn't President yet, so he doesn't have to have a plan yet. Secondly, the do nothing answer was used by all the proceeding presidents. My problem is that if we as Americans can't get over the me-first, me-only mentatlity then we are going to fall by the wayside. Obama is not the Messiah nor is he the anti-Christ so lets drop all that. Besides, he can't do anything, good or bad, without the willful Congress, Courts, and the people (us). Since politicians think only of the short-term (think reelection timeframes) we have to think for them. Let them know what we want; elect people that have the integrity and wisdom to do what is truly best for the country even if is not best for themselves or for special interest groups. Now is the time to fix these problems before they become insurmountable.
Newsweek article
"Obama’s Nuclear Reservations
By Daren Briscoe
It was one of Barack Obama's big applause lines. At nearly every campaign stop, the candidate promised to end our dependence on foreign oil and slash carbon emissions 80 percent by midcentury. "I will set a clear goal as president," he said in his speech accepting the Democratic
nomination. "I will tap our natural-gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power." He also promised to back biofuels and wind, water and solar power. The crowd cheered.
Now all he has to do is make good on the promise. But despite all the inspiring talk about windmills and solar panels, it's difficult to see how Obama will reach that goal without relying, in large part, on nuclear power. Commercial reactors currently provide 20 percent of the nation's power—but accounts for 70 percent of the country's emission-free energy. "We cannot get to the reduction of CO2 in a big way without relying on nuclear energy even more than we do today," says Mujid Kazimi, the director of MIT's Center for Advanced Nuclear Systems.
So does that mean Obama will become the nation's cheerleader in chief for nuclear power? Not likely. Obama has been cautious whenever he's been asked about the issue. In a "Meet the Press" appearance in May, he hedged when the subject came up. "I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense?"
Not exactly a full-throated endorsement. Obama's lack of enthusiasm is easy to understand politically, especially given the apprehension many voters have about the safety of nuclear-power plants. Three decades later, Three Mile Island still haunts—despite the pleas of industry advocates who say the technology has improved to the point that accidents are almost unheard of. Most Americans probably have no idea that there are 104 commercial nuclear-power plants currently operating in the United States today. None has suffered a malfunction that led to a major leak of radioactive material. Nuclear-power proponents often point to France, which depends on nukes for 80 percent of its power.
A bigger problem than the safety of the reactors themselves is what to do with the deadly waste they produce. Nuclear power is praised for its zero carbon emissions, but it comes at a price—radioactive fuel rods that remain toxic for thousands of years. If you're looking for a reason to feel queasy about building more nuclear reactors, this is it. While politicians bicker over where to put it all—nuclear waste is the ultimate "not in my backyard" dispute—the stuff is piling up. As things are now, a lot of it is simply stockpiled at the plants, submerged in open pools of water for as long as five years and eventually sealed in steel and concrete casks. "You have more than 100 reactors storing waste on-site, under what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calls a temporary license, in the worst of all possible places," says Rochelle Becker of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, a nonprofit that monitors the nuclear-power industry. "In California, it's stored next to earthquake faults. In the rest of the country, you find that most waste is sitting very close to water supplies."
Nuclear-power companies pay a fee to the Department of Energy to pick up and store the waste, which by law becomes government property once it leaves the plant. But Energy is already 10 years behind schedule, and has no place to put it. The Feds want to store it in a vast facility inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas, where it would be closely monitored and far away from neighborhoods, earthquake zones and water supplies. Shipping the nation's nuclear waste to Nevada sounds good to just about everyone—everyone, that is, who doesn't live in Nevada. The state's officials, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are against it and have kept it from opening. This is where Obama, who has strongly criticized the Bush administration for putting politics ahead of facts, could step in and provide leadership on a national problem that will only become worse as more nuclear plants are built in coming years: plans for 26 new reactors are currently awaiting approval.
But don't expect the new president to demand that Reid clear out of the way. Nevada was one of the states Obama fought hard to win, and he wooed its voters partly by coming out against opening Yucca Mountain. "[T]here are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be stored safely there," he wrote to a Las Vegas newspaper. "I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site at the reactors where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term solution that is based on sound science."
Sounds reasonable enough. Except that sound science already comes down firmly on the side of Yucca Mountain. "The best option is deep geologic isolation," says Per Peterson, a UC Berkeley professor who specializes in radioactive-waste management. "It's based on 50 years of research and development, and a very broad, widespread and strong consensus that it can provide appropriate and safe disposal of waste." Good luck finding a nuclear-waste expert who'll tell you Obama's stopgap solution—let it pile up and deal with it later —has anything to do with "sound science." Sound politics is more like it."
Obama to Nominate Clinton Secretary of State Monday
Are there any other conservatives that are OK with this. I really don't have a problem with this pick, much better than Kerry! My problem with Sen. Clinton is on her domestic agenda and not usually with her international stances which have been fairly conservative. Plus, she'll basically be towing the White House line and not setting her own agenda...well, not completely. This gets her out of the Senate where she could have parleyed her increased political clout into even more social/nationalization bills. I think that we are heading down that path anyway with both parties so the point may be moot. Of course the rumor is that former President Clinton is eying the Senate seat if it is vacated. That I would be against but then again I don't get to vote on it. I like the fact that President-elect Obama is bringing in a wide influence of people. I wonder if it will last for the long-term? There are a lot of differing opinions and coordinating a unified administration message may be difficult. Another note on the Clinton appointment made on the Sunday news programs was that she would be responsible for the administration of the State Department and all it's embassies and staff. She has only managed two large organizations before, her Senate campaign and her Healthcare committee, both of which were poorly run and leaked like sieves.
From FoxNews.com
"President-elect Barack Obama planned to nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state on Monday, transforming a once-bitter political rivalry into a high-level strategic and diplomatic partnership.
Obama will name the New York senator to his national security team at a news conference in Chicago,
a person close to Clinton confirmed to FOX News.
Obama will also name Susan Rice as UN ambassador, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as homeland security chief and Eric Holder as attorney general, Democratic officials told The Associated Press. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly for the transition team.
To clear the way for his wife to take the job, former President Bill Clinton agreed to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997. He'll also refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference, and will cease holding CGI meetings overseas.
Bill Clinton's business deals and global charitable endeavors were expected to create problems for the former first lady's nomination. But in negotiations with the Obama transition team, the former president agreed to several measures designed to bring transparency to his post-presidential work.
The Clinton pick was an extraordinary gesture of goodwill after a year in which the two rivals competed for the Democratic nomination in a long, bitter primary battle.
The two clashed repeatedly on foreign affairs during the 50-state contest, with Obama criticizing Clinton for her vote to authorize the Iraq war and Clinton saying that Obama lacked the experience to be president. She also chided him for saying he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like Iran and Cuba without preconditions.
The bitterness began melting away in June after Clinton ended her campaign and endorsed Obama. She went on to campaign for him in his general election contest against Republican Sen. John McCain.
Advisers said Obama had for several months envisioned Clinton as his top diplomat, and he invited her to Chicago to discuss the job just a week after the Nov. 4 election. The two met privately Nov. 13 in Obama's downtown transition office.
Clinton was said to be interested and then to waver, concerned about relinquishing her Senate seat and the political independence it conferred. Those concerns were largely ameliorated after Obama assured her she would be able to choose a staff and have direct access to him, advisers said.
Remaining in the Senate also may not have been an attractive choice for Clinton. Despite her political celebrity, she is a relatively junior senator without prospects for a leadership position or committee chairmanship anytime soon.
Some Democrats and government insiders have questioned whether Clinton is too independent and politically ambitious to serve Obama as secretary of state. But a senior Obama adviser has said the president-elect had been enthusiastic about naming Clinton to the position from the start, believing she would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations and the advantages to her serving far outweigh potential downsides.
Clinton, 61, a Chicago native and Yale Law School graduate, practiced law and served as the first lady of Arkansas during her husband's 12 years as governor of the state, from 1979-81 and 1983-1992.
Clinton was the nation's first lady from 1993 to 2001. The same year George W. Bush defeated Al Gore to succeed her husband in the White House, Clinton ran for the Senate as a New York Democrat. She won re-election in 2006 and was widely regarded as the favorite for her party's nomination for president in 2008.
In the Senate, Clinton served on the Armed Services Committee, the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions."
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Synchronized Presidential Debating
Why 3 debates when we really only needed 1? We need to change this and have real debates. I don't care if the networks don't want to carry true debates because they are too long and too boring. Let them tune out but we still need true debates not these sound bite infomercials.
The video uses footage from all 3 debates to show you the been-there-done-that spectacle that we call debates. Check out the video from www.236.com
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Please Sir...May I Have Some More
Newt Gingrich gives a depressing look at "his view" of the near future if Obama wins the Presidency. "His view" is based on statements from Pelosi, Frank, and Obama but it is quite possible. A possible $1.45 in new spending within 6 months. I don't want this, I will vote against this but I fear it will be to no avail. But if the people of the US of A want a spend all(spend all-even-if-we-don't-have-it-and-have-to-borrow-it-so-future-generations-have-to-pay-for-it) then we deserve what we get don't we? Sometimes it takes a screw-up for a generation to see for themselves what doesn't work. Unfortunately the ramifications may not be felt immediately. Just like when you live off of a credit card you don't feel the problem immediately. You only feel the pain when you can no longer make the payment. If our government spends and spends by borrowing and borrowing...we may not feel the pain until the bills can't be paid any longer.
Check out the conservative "Human Events" blog and read Newts article.
A Disturbing Look At a Very Near Future: Tax Cuts Vs More Spending at the Special Session
by Newt Gingrich
10/28/2008
We have a choice between two futures.
For the first, fast forward 23 days. It’s November 17. Congress convenes for a special session with a veto-proof Democratic majority Senate, an expanded Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House.
The sole item
on their agenda is to pass the $300 billion government spending package promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi back in October. There is no mistaking what is coming. Even before Democrats won sweeping, one-party control of Washington, they had made their intentions to increase taxes and spending clear.
Originally pegged at $150 billion, Pelosi’s spending package ballooned as time went on.
With 11 days to go before the election, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) fleshed out some details of the massive spending package. Frank called for a 25 percent cut in defense spending and conceded that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for new government spending. If they couldn’t get the votes in November, Frank was confident that they would have them in January.
And long before the election, President-elect Barack Obama had expressed his preference for wealth redistribution over wealth creation both on the campaign trail and in a startling radio interview in 2001, in which he claims the Warren Court was not radical enough. (Bill Whittle does an excellent job of dissecting this interview at National Review Online )
“You Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned”
The newly empowered Democratic majority passes the massive spending bill, confident that even a veto by President Bush can and will be overridden by their new Senate majority in January.
Before President-elect Barack Obama even takes office, government spending increases by $300 billion, bringing the grand total for the last six months of 2008 to $1.45 trillion.
And all center-right Americans can do is shake their heads and think, “You can’t say we weren’t warned.”
There is a Different Future: Make the Election About Big Spending Vs Big Economic Growth
For candidates, campaign managers, and consultants who are disturbed at this look at the very near future, there is another way.
But that way begins now. Today.
To avoid defeat on November 4 and avoid an out-of-control spending spree in the new Congress, the voters have to be given a real choice on Election Day.
• A choice between robust government spending and robust economic growth;
• A choice between higher spending and lower taxes;
• A choice between spreading the wealth around and increasing it through rapid economic recovery.
Because when Americans are asked to make these choices, our answers are clear and unequivocal.
We trust the private sector to grow the economy more than government. We favor keeping our money over giving it to Washington. We favor creating more wealth over redistributing the wealth we’ve worked for and saved.
We just have to be given the choice.
Three Times More Americans Believe In Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending
Newly released polling data show just how out of touch with Americans the REPO Team (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) pre-Christmas spending spree is.
By 60%-20%, Americans believe lower taxes, not higher government spending, will best ensure economic recovery, according to a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
By 86%-9%, Americans believe government should focus on jobs and economic growth over income redistribution, according to a New Models/Winston Group survey.
By 71%-25%, Americans believe that if you cut taxes on small business it will create new jobs, according to the New Models/Winston Group poll.
So What Are We Waiting For?
So what are we waiting for? To counter the Reid-Pelosi-Obama massive $300 billion government spending spree, Republicans should offer a $300 billion tax cut package.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has proposed a rapid economic recovery program that should be the centerpiece of the campaign going forward. Instead of marrying new deficit spending with liberal special interests like the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan does, the Boehner plan marries sound economics with the small government, free market values of the American people.
Here are some of the reforms in the Boehner rapid economic recovery plan:
• Energy Independence: Creating jobs and reducing energy and food costs by enacting an “all of the above” energy plan. For more information, watch my new movie “We Have the Power” (watch the new trailer here and buy the movie here ) and read my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less .
• Creating Jobs: Bringing American jobs back home by lowering the tax rate on profits that companies bring back to the United States.
• Restoring Home Values: Encouraging home purchases by easing capital gains rules for homes purchased in the next 18 months and held for at least five years.
• Spurring Economic Growth: Immediately suspend the capital gains tax on individuals and businesses for equities purchased during the next two years.
• Encouraging American Companies to Assist in Recovery: Lower the tax rate on business income so American companies have an incentive to invest in distressed assets.
• Protecting Retirement: Suspend rules that require individuals at age 70½ to begin withdrawing from their Individual Retirement Accounts. This would spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks at just the time when the market is hurting the most.
I will have more to say about what we can do now to avert this impending massive government spending spree at an event this Friday at the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Energy, the Economy, and the Special Session of Congress.” For more details, go to www.aei.org.
In the meantime, there is no time to waste. Republicans and center-right independents and Democrats can give the voters a real choice in the election, or we can lose our choice in the congressional special session to come.
Either way, you can’t say we weren’t warned.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
P.S. Healthcare reform is a monstrous undertaking, but if we break it down to metrics - not financial discussions - we can see progress. And the best example of what I am talking about comes straight from baseball. To learn more, check out my op-ed co-written with Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane and Senator John Kerry at www.healthtransformation.net.
P.P.S. As I travel across the country, it has been encouraging to see more and more young people getting involved in politics and finding solutions to the challenges facing our nation. I met Ryan Minarovich this summer after a speech and he told me about his plans for a new blog called theunder30view.com that will engage more young Americans to be more active. It launched recently so I encourage all young Americans to take a look.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Vote Obama...AAAAAAYYYYY!!
Looks like Andy Griffith, Opie, and The Fonz are voting for Obama. Well that changes my vote. I wonder how the Beav is voting?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sometimes It Can Feel This Way
How does the big financial bailout...buyout...wayout...whatever... make you feel? Forget about the merits for the moment just think how the basic premise makes you feel. Over at Sinfest comics they have done a wonderful job of putting a thousand words (or is it 800 billion words) into a picture.
Monday, October 20, 2008
A Blogger Gives His 10 Reasons for Voting for Barack Obama
Brian Bailey in his blog "Leave It Behind" (very nice blog by the way...give it a read) lists his 10 reasons that he is voting for Barack Obama. Lets take a look at them.
10. The historical moment
When Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004, I said it was one of the best speeches I had ever heard. I also knew that I was hearing the first Democrat who I would ever consider voting for. When he decided to run for President 21 months ago, I was excited by the possibility, but knew like most that it was highly unlikely that an African-American with just two years experience as a senator could defeat the Clinton machine and be elected in a time of war. What he has accomplished already is historic, but it is nothing compared to what is to come. When my grandchildren ask me how I voted at this historic moment, I know what I want my answer to be.
Thank goodness this is only reason 10. It is just plain stupid. You don't vote for someone just to be a part of the moment, historic or not. It is weak. Sarah Palin would be the first woman Vice President...isn't that historic? Use your head and vote for who is best for the country not who is the IT for the moment. Part of our country's problem is that we live too much in the moments and don't think or vote with the longterm or the whole country in mind.
9. What it says about America
I want to live in a country where Barack Obama can be elected president. The entire world will look at the United States differently if he wins, yes partly due to his name and race, but also because of the clear contrast he presents to President Bush. We'd like to pretend that our popularity is not important, and obviously our national interest should always come first, but we as a nation are better off when the rest of the world sees us in a positive light and is willing to hear what we have to say.
I don't care what the world thinks. They don't run our country. The world is full of problems that they have gotten themselves into. I don't want to elect a President because they like a particular one. Remember...the world wasn't keen on the hick Governor from the backward state of Arkansas the first time he ran and then ended up loving him...well some of them did. The President, nor the US, up for popularity polls around the world. Europe hated Reagan as he brought an end to the cold war. The point is whether Democrat or Republican, how popular they are overseas should not concern us at all. That's not to say we shouldn't work with other countries its just that they too have short attention spans and are of "what have you done for me lately" attitudes.
8. The Republican Party
Political parties regularly rise and fall. Sometimes the best thing that can happen to a party is for it to be truly humbled, to be sent into the wilderness where it can rethink what it stands for and develop a new message for new times (see the Republican Party after Watergate or the current Conservative Party in Britain). The Republican Party deserves to be in the position it is in and could only benefit from starting over again. A quick aside: I don't think any Republican could have won this year and it is a testament to McCain's broad appeal that the race is as close as it is.
Ahhh...finally a good reason. I agree with this one. The Republicans have dropped the ball and if there was more of a conservative Democrat running, I myself could easily switch. I am not a fan of John McCain and I don't hate Barack Obama. The country is not going to hell in a hand basket with either of them. I just fear that we are slipping more and more in to a quasi-socialist state and need to reverse quickly. But the Republicans, Senate, Congress, and 8 years of Bush have shown that they have lost their way. They are no longer Republican but are a party afraid to fight the tough battles. They have become the party of big spenders and the party of pork. They differ from the Democrats not in their ultimate destination but in their slower pace to get their. Maybe the threat of becoming obsolete will show that they have to find their ideals and fight for them. I respect sticking to your principles regardless of whether I agree with the principle.
7. Personal identification
All of us like to identify with our leaders, but it is rare that average Americans can relate to a president. However, Obama's age, smart, beautiful, professional wife, adorable children, family finances (until recently), and love of writing are all things that make Obama the first candidate I have actually felt a connection with (as funny as that sounds).
Again...STUPID. I like him because he's like me!!! whine whine whine. Don't vote for who is best...vote for who I would like to hang out with. How moronic! If that was the case then who should the average Joe Six-pack vote for? Someone like themselves? Or how about we just break it down for everybody. Whites vote for whites, black for black, Hispanic for Hispanic, women for women, men for men, young for young, elderly for elderly, rich for rich, poor for poor, beautiful people for the beautiful, and the ugly for the ugly. And you people with the non adorable children...you know what you have to do. As for being rare...how is Obama's background much different from Bill Clinton's. He came from modest means, worked hard and received a very good education on his own merits with very little outside help, and eventually became President for 8 years. It's not rare.
6. Eloquence
The ability to write an eloquent speech and deliver it is a critical skill for a leader. Do speeches make a candidate? Certainly not. As a president, though, the ability to make the case to the country and the world, to inspire, challenge and convince us, is profoundly important. When Obama delivers a State of the Union address, or speaks to the nation from the Oval Office, his skill and eloquence will demand our attention. Speeches are a huge part of who we are, and they are worth doing exceptionally well.
Valid point here. Obama doesn't just speak well but speaks with authority. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about. This is vital for the President. McCain,to me, falls short in this area. I have never cared for his oratory skills. He comes across as lacking an understanding in a subject. That may not be the case. He may have sound knowledge but the ability to communicate that knowledge or at least communicate the appearance of understanding is critical as the leader of the free world.
5. Being smart is a good thing
How strange that it's left to the Democratic Party to make the case for exceptionalism (see The Incredibles). Obama is a very smart man who has surrounded himself with accomplished advisors. He is open to ideas from different sources and has proven himself to be thoughtful and careful in his thinking, almost to a fault. His primary debate flaw was been his insistence on being careful in his word choices and exploring every nuance of an issue.
Intelligence is not the same as wisdom or good judgment, but nor is it the character flaw that the Republican Party seems to think it is. David Brooks wrote an, um, incredible piece on this exact subject.
I haven't come across any Republicans that think it is a flaw. But there is a difference between people thinking you are intelligent and people being told that you are intelligent...over and over again. Obviously intelligence is important, but how do we really know how intelligent someone is? And as stated wisdom is supreme. Who is more intelligent McCain or Obama? Or does Obama "sound" more intelligent? Remember, we are more likely to think someone is intelligent if they are saying things that we agree with. George W. Bush is laughed at as being on the verge of utter stupidity but is he really? He graduated from an ivy league college, got an MBA from Harvard University, learned to fly fighter jets and became a governor and the President. Yet people label him as stupid. I remember hearing Larry Hagman (whom I am a fan...go Dallas and I Dream of Jeannie) call Bush stupid and I thought...Larry, what have you done the was so intelligent? You dropped out of college after a couple of semesters...became an actor...became a drunk...and had to get a liver transplant.
I don't know who is more intelligent, Obama or McCain. But I can judge who I believe is wiser based upon their plans and ideas and I...well I'll take McCain...but just barely.
4. One America
From his initial speech in Boston four years ago to this endless race, Obama has reached out to all parts of the country. I believe he has great respect for our nation as a whole and all political persuasions within it (more so than many of his supporters actually). He has spoken about the role of faith in politics better than most Republicans and attended a Rick Warren forum long before he was a candidate for president. I believe he truly wants to unite us a country and has resisted endless opportunities in the campaign to exploit our differences. I'm not so naive to think a new political era is coming, but I believe we can and will do better.
I don't care for this whole One America thing. There's no such thing. On every issue the country is divided and the populous that makes up those divisions differs with each issue. There will never be One America. The notion that there needs to be One America is politics as usual in my opinion. It's campaign rhetoric. The important issues of our past come from a divided country electing a leader (or leaders) who have a strong opinion on an issue. It is through their wisdom or lack of that determines what succeeds and whether the country unites behind them (sometimes after the fact). Think Lincoln and slavery, Roosevelt and the US involvement in Europe (later WWII), Reagan and the Cold War, Clinton and the Budget, etc.
On political unity, Obama rarely reached across the aisle and McCain has a large history of doing so. McCain is known to vote how he believes even if it doesn't suit the Republican party.
I won't go to religion because I don't know either of their hearts. They both profess to being Christian and I haven't heard of anything that would bring doubt to mind. I also, don't get the feeling that either of them are manufacturing a faith for the campaign.
3. The campaign
Obama has run a phenomenal campaign and proven to be a truly impressive candidate. A campaign is no substitute for substantial political experience, but it reveals a lot about a person and his or her management style. Bill Clinton's chaotic campaign filled with emotional highs and lows, hints of scandal, and the relentless pursuit of every vote hinted at the early years of his presidency. Bush's campaign showed his tunnel focus and lack of openness. Hillary's campaign problems were traced back to her lack of decisiveness and tolerance of infighting. McCain's campaign has also been chaotic, constantly reaching for a new message or line of attack and lacking a consistent theme or underlying philosophy. His White House would likely be similar.
Obama's campaign, on the other hand, has been more impressive than any I've seen, especially during the primaries. It has been incredibly consistent, largely mistake free, and innovative in its fund raising and use of the web. Its success is one of the most remarkable achievements of modern politics and it speaks to what kind of leader Obama will be.
There may be some logic there...but earlier you were stating that no Republican could have won this race and it was to McCain's credit that he is doing as well as he is. There are two campaigns here. Obama's was his to lose and McCain was the underdog. You campaign differently with each. The underdog is continually trying to find something to work which may come off as being chaotic. Obama's on the other hand was trying to maintain which requires a steady campaign. To judge either of them by this basis is naive. You have to see how Obama would handle a campaign on the losing side to determine this. As for McCain...look at his successful Senate campaigns for how he would run a campaign that is ahead in the polls.
I will give you that McCain has tendency to fly off the handle too often but though his reactions may seem impulsive his decisions are usually much more thought out. This is not necessarily a bad thing. He is passionate and you know were you stand but he is also able to be reasoned with. Obama, you don't always know where he stands personally because he has a lack of a reaction. Because of this he can sometimes come off as complacent, lacking passion, and going where the political wind is blowing strongest.
2.Temperament
The campaign has also shown Obama to be a steady force, driven and consistent. He speaks often of never getting too high or low based on polls or the state of the campaign and the past two years have proven that to be the case. He has generally avoided pandering to one group or another (except for a leftward turn during the primaries). Instead of Bill Clinton's somewhat desperate need for approval, Obama seems remarkably self-assured and comfortable with who he is. These are the characteristics I want in a president.
The campaign has shown no such thing. What he has been doing has worked so there has been no need to waiver. When has his polls ever been problematic? It's McCain that has had to adapt and even if McCain loses, he had a pretty good run at considering the polls for George W. Bush. The question is this...what would Obama have done if he was on the losing side of the campaign? Would he try a different tact or would he remain steady? And as for the leftward turn during the primaries you need to do a little research. There wasn't a leftward turn. He did make a rightward turn (though I would call it a moderate turn) after the primaries. He does pander to individual groups like most politicians...just look at the hundreds of billions of dollars he has proposed to all the different groups...that is pandering. McCain is not exempt but I don't think its to the same degree as Obama. This could also be because Republican crowds are usually OK hearing we need to spend less compared to Democrat crowds who want more spending.
1. When I turn on the television on January 20, 2009 to watch the inauguration, who do I want to see?
Even when I was closest to voting for Senator McCain, this question made me think twice because I knew in my heart what the answer was.
I want Senator Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.
That's it? Your whole 10 reasons are based on appearance and how it makes you feel! That's your reasoning? Nothing about their plans for the country? Their vision? Their goals? What they would do? How they would handle the budget, the debt? How they will handle education, health care, our infrastructure, defense, retirement? In other words...nothing of substance...and we wonder why our country has so many problems! We don't look at the issues...we don't care how good the President will be but whether he looks good doing it!! Using your criteria above, you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln...in fact slavery wouldn't have even been considered since issues don't even matter...maybe they were number 11 on your list.
The Yo Betcha Rap Lyrics
And here are the lyrics to Sarah's Rap
one two three
my name is sarah palin you all know me
vice president nominee of the gop
gonna need your vote in the next election
can i get a ‘what what’ from the senior section
mccain got experience, mccain got style
but don’t let him freak you out when he tries to smile
cause that smile be creepy
but when i be vp
all the leaders in the world gonna finally meet me
how’s it go eskimo
eskimos
tell me what you know eskimo
eskimos
how you feel eskimo
ice cold
tell me tell me what you feel eskimo
super cold
i’m jeremiah wright cause tonight i’m the preacher
i got a bookish look and you’re all hot for teacher
todd lookin fine on his snow machine
so hot boy gonna need a go between
in wasilla we just chill baby chilla
but when i see oil lets drill baby drill
my country tis of thee
from my porch i can see
russia and such
all the mavericks in the house put your hands up
all the mavericks in the house put your hands up
all the plumbers in the house pull your pants up
all the plumbers in the house pull your pants up
when i say ‘obama’ you say ‘ayers’
obama. ayers. obama. ayers.
i built me a bridge - it ain’t goin’ nowhere.
[ohhh]
mccain, palin, gonna put the nail in the coffin
of the media elite
she likes red meat
shoot a mother humpin moose, eight days of the week
[three gunshots]
now ya dead, now ya dead,
cause i’m an animal, and i’m bigger than you
holdin a shotgun walk in the pub
everybody party, we’re goin on a hunt
la la la la la la la la
[six gunshots]
yo palin, i’m out
Sarah Palin on SNL....You betcha!!!
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Hey Uncle Sam! Can you make that bailout $85,000,440,000?
You are an executive at AIG and you have royally messed up your company. Of course you don't blame yourself there are plenty of others who are at fault. But lets not play the blame game; let's work together with the government to fix this. $85 billion should do the job. And when the government says sure, why not; you roll up your sleeves and get to work right? Nope, you and a few other execs spend a week at a spa at a cost of $440,000! Maybe Las Vegas for the next bailout! It's a sign of the times...stupidity. Did they really think that this would'nt leak? Did they not know how this would look? It doesn't matter. The company will still get its $85 billion and the execs will still get their salaries or parachutes. There are consequences to AIG and to Congress for this debacle. And there are consequences to our inaction in taking responsibility for our own futures.
Check out the ABC article for more on the story.Less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out AIG, executives of the giant AIG insurance company headed for a week-long retreat at a luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California, Congressional investigators revealed today.
Two AIG CEOs testify to Congress about their use of taxpayer bailout money.
"Rooms at this resort can cost over $1,000 a night," Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said this morning as his committee continued its investigation of Wall Street and its CEOs.
AIG documents obtained by Waxman's investigators show the company paid more than $440,000 for the retreat, including nearly $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 in spa charges.
"They're getting their pedicures and their manicures and the American people are paying for that," said Cong. Elijah Cummings (D-MD).
"This unbridled greed," said Cong. Mark Souder (R-IN), "it's an insensitivity to how people are spending our dollars."
Appearing before the committee, Martin Sullivan, the AIG CEO until June, said the company was overwhelmed by a "financial global tsunami," and that "no simple or single cause" was to blame.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Hurry up and Wait
In President Bush's radio address today he said that this bailout (you remember that little $800 billion package that had to be approved the day Secretary Paulson requested it...oops, well how about by the end of the weekend at the latest...oops, well how about by the end of the next week for sure) will take time to implement. So if that's true then why was it so important for this huge bill to be passed with very little discussion, discretion, or scruples? He also stated that, "The Federal government will undertake this rescue plan at a careful and deliberate pace to ensure that your tax dollars are spent wisely." I wish that tact was used for passing this bill as well. But I guess the government has our money now so what can we do? Well...how about we REMEMBER THIS! I am not, nor do I advocate a one issue decision when choosing who I vote for, but we now need to look beyond our pet issues and look at how these politicians will safeguard us for the long term and whether they have the character and strength to follow through. We don't need wussies in government anymore. We need people with backbones! So remember this when we vote. Who got us to the brink...how ramrodded this bill through...who kowtowed to pressure? Then ask yourself, who allowed them to?
Friday, October 03, 2008
mmmm...Pork....does a body good!
Looks like the $700 billion financial rescue bill (along with over $100 billion in nothing-to-do-with-the-bailout items) has passed the Senate (and the House (263-171)and will shortly be signed into law by the President. Let's see how some of our Florida Congressmen voted:
Sen. Bill Nelson (D) no
Sen. Mel Martinez (R) yes
Rep. Cliff Sterns (R) no
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R) yes
and of course both McCain and Obama voted for it.
Thanks guys!
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Christmas in October! Pork as Usual from OUR Representatives?
Politicians can't help but be politicians and if you don't believe that look at the latest bill from the Senate. A $700 billion bail out...that's $700,000,000,000...bailout that they claim is need in this time of emergency to save America is a perfect opportunity to sneak in some good ol'fashioned pork. And with over $100 billion...that's $100,000,000,000...they can buy a lot of pork. Now to be fair, I don't know if all these items are really pork or not...it just wanted to add a little hyperbole. The point is...the Senate is pushing a huge spending bill of $700 billion through with very little discussion. A 451 page document was created and in less than a day Senators were supposed to read it, analyze it, and vote on it. Needless to say, most would not read the whole thing. In a time of "emergency" such as this why would you throw in over $100 billion in spending that has nothing to do with the bailout? Of course you want to seize an opportunity to get your agenda passed with out having an honest discussion on the issue. It's like asking a drowning man "Do you want me to get you a life jacket and take $100 bucks from your wallet?" What is the drowning man going to say? That is why they are politicians. That is why they lack character. But do we really care? Do Americans really care? Will we remember this when it comes time for reelection. I don't care if what they were asking for would benefit me or my state directly or not; it was cheap, sleazy, backroom politics and they need to be held accountable. Unfortunately both Obama and McCain vote for it and Bush likes it. Here is a list of some of them:
* $223M for Alaskan Fisherman
* $192M for Rum Producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
* $128M for Auto Racing
* $33M for companies operating in American Samoa
* $10M for film & TV production
* $6M for producers of Wooden Arrows
* Tax credit for employees in Hurricane Katrina disaster area
* Tax incentives for investments in poor neighborhoods in D.C.
* Increased rehabilitation credit for buildings in Gulf area
* Reduction of import duties on some imported wool fabrics, transfers other duties to Wool Trust Fund to promote competitiveness of American wool
Here's an interesting bit...the Bush bill was 3 pages long, the House's bill was 100 pages but the Senate not wanting to be outdone decided to add 350 more pages!
Posts
