Every election there are some board positions on my ballot. The local water system board, the school system board, and the community college board are all positions elected by the citizens. So, some time in October I start reading through campaign websites and social media pages to get a sense for what qualifies the people running for these positions. They definitely attract a type of person, but I genuinely don't understand that type.
It's fairly typical for a person running for a board position to highlight that they have multiple children, a job with some authority, and also hold multiple other board positions. This is ignoring other community and church volunteer positions that are typically listed. I want to know why. Why, if you are already being clearly pulled in fifty different directions would you want to add a fifty-first? At some point you trade quality for quantity. I don't necessarily want to elect someone to a board if they are already on four or five other boards that meet regularly.
I do understand wanting to be involved in decision-making when your life is more opened up. If you are a semi-retired educator and want to use the breadth of your experience to help guide your local school district or community college through difficult decisions, this makes sense to me. It also makes sense to me that a parent would want to join a board to have a voice. I just don't understand it being the fifth board you're on, at the expense of time with your children.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
1000
After nearly fourteen years, this is my 1000th article on this blog. Since another word for thousand is "grand" I've compiled a few "grand" facts.
- "Grand" originally came from the French "grant." Then, as now, it meant large or powerful. [source]
- The name for the 100 grand bar (originally, the $100,000 bar) was inspired by the popularity of quiz shows in the 1950s. [source]
- The Grand Slam tournament in tennis, which is a sport I hardly know anything about, includes four events across three continents. [source]
- Alex Rodriguez set the major league baseball record for grand slams with an astounding twenty-five during his career. This is one of those records that requires both individual skill and the fortune to have teammates who put you in a situation where a grand slam is a possibility. [source]
- While a Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming was founded in 1929, the current park includes large portions of land that were donated years later by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. [source]
- The Republican moniker "G.O.P." now stands for "Grand Old Party." However, it originally stood for "Gallant Old Party." [source]
- On average, two or three people die from falling into the Grand Canyon every year. However, since millions of people visit a year it has to be considered a safe place to visit, statistically speaking. That said, I would be uptight about the possibility if we visited it with our kids. [source]
- Gerald Ford grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He holds the distinction of being the only U.S. president to hold the office without having been elected either president or vice president. [source]
- There is a World War II power station underneath Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan, New York. It was placed there to protect it from German sabotage during the war. [source]
- The first piano created was a grand piano by Bartolomeo Cristofori in Italy in the late 1600s or early 1700s. It was originally known as the "pianoforte," which means "soft" and "strong." It differed from the harpsichord before it in that you could modulate the volume of the instrument based on how forcefully or lightly you struck the keys. [source]
- The "grand theft" in "grand theft auto" refers to the fact that what is being stolen is valuable. "Petty theft" refers to the theft of less valuable items. [source]
Monday, January 21, 2019
shutdown
"Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin." - Deut 24:14-15
"Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty." - James 5:4
---
This isn't intended to be extremely political, despite the topic. It's simply meant to be a doctrinal assertion. In the moment it's going to come across as political, however. While in any given situation this might target one party or government leader or another, there's no saying that the next situation won't involve the opposite party.
My assertion is simply that shutting down the government in the way it has been done recently very clearly violates Scripture. There are probably extreme situations where a government shutdown is the least sinful course, but those situations are limited. They certainly are not at play here.
I've been in an awkward place on this issue. I think it's important to acknowledge in the church that this is a sin, while it is also important not to get overtly political in a church setting. So, I keep to myself what I see as public sin by other believers. I feel like there's an unspoken obligation in church to make a stand in calling certain sins sin, but also a similar obligation not to take a stance on other sins because some people in the church disagree that they are sins for one reason or another. Clearly, if they are sins then this is a problem.
In reading the passages above, I don't know how a Christian can justify taking a public position that making government employees work without pay isn't sin. I don't know how a Christian government leader could ignore Scripture to force people to work without timely pay.
The natural defense a person might raise is that this is a different situation because it's addressing rich land owners exploiting their workers, but that's a semantic difference more than anything. It's looking for a loophole to lawyer out of God's instruction. These instructions/condemnations come from the fact that certain people exploit others, and this puts them at odds with God. Shutting down the government does the same thing, so it should follow that this puts the people who cause the shutdown at odds with God. If Scripture is true, doesn't this mean that the cries of unpaid laborers are reaching God, and that those responsible for the shutdown are ultimately under God's judgment?
That this shutdown and previous ones have involved individuals who claim Christianity should be seen as tarnishing our faith. To counter this more church leaders should be speaking about this situation in terms of its sinfulness. While I understand the motivation of doing something like shutting down the government as a negotiation tactic, believers should have a high standard for people who claim to represent them as Christians in the public sphere. For one, those representatives should abide by the Scripture they say they proclaim.
"Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty." - James 5:4
---
This isn't intended to be extremely political, despite the topic. It's simply meant to be a doctrinal assertion. In the moment it's going to come across as political, however. While in any given situation this might target one party or government leader or another, there's no saying that the next situation won't involve the opposite party.
My assertion is simply that shutting down the government in the way it has been done recently very clearly violates Scripture. There are probably extreme situations where a government shutdown is the least sinful course, but those situations are limited. They certainly are not at play here.
I've been in an awkward place on this issue. I think it's important to acknowledge in the church that this is a sin, while it is also important not to get overtly political in a church setting. So, I keep to myself what I see as public sin by other believers. I feel like there's an unspoken obligation in church to make a stand in calling certain sins sin, but also a similar obligation not to take a stance on other sins because some people in the church disagree that they are sins for one reason or another. Clearly, if they are sins then this is a problem.
In reading the passages above, I don't know how a Christian can justify taking a public position that making government employees work without pay isn't sin. I don't know how a Christian government leader could ignore Scripture to force people to work without timely pay.
The natural defense a person might raise is that this is a different situation because it's addressing rich land owners exploiting their workers, but that's a semantic difference more than anything. It's looking for a loophole to lawyer out of God's instruction. These instructions/condemnations come from the fact that certain people exploit others, and this puts them at odds with God. Shutting down the government does the same thing, so it should follow that this puts the people who cause the shutdown at odds with God. If Scripture is true, doesn't this mean that the cries of unpaid laborers are reaching God, and that those responsible for the shutdown are ultimately under God's judgment?
That this shutdown and previous ones have involved individuals who claim Christianity should be seen as tarnishing our faith. To counter this more church leaders should be speaking about this situation in terms of its sinfulness. While I understand the motivation of doing something like shutting down the government as a negotiation tactic, believers should have a high standard for people who claim to represent them as Christians in the public sphere. For one, those representatives should abide by the Scripture they say they proclaim.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
it can't happen here
Sorry, heavy topic alert.
I've been thinking about the Holocaust a bit lately because I recently listened to the audio version of Anne Frank's Diary, and also because I recently did some reading about Kristallnacht in memory of its eightieth anniversary. I used to be confused about how Nazism took hold, how Hitler was able to come into power, and how people could rationalize supporting a government that sent people to concentration camps. I've thought many times that it couldn't happen here. While it would be much harder for something like that to happen in the United States with the separated powers we enjoy in this country, in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that it can happen here. People are people, and they're prone to demonizing others if doing so supports their preconceived worldview.
That Internet conversations and debates frequently devolve into one side comparing the other to Hitler or the Nazis is so well established that it has its own informal law. The real shame of this tendency is that comparing everyone to Hitler and the Nazis makes it so that few really take it seriously when someone actually does things like Hitler would. If a real Hitler appears, anyone pointing it out would be seen as a crazy person triggering Godwin's Law.
My views on identifying nascent Nazism have changed some over the years. I used to think of it as a workers movement because this is the vibe that the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will gives, and I in turn thought that was what I needed to be wary of. However, workers movements elsewhere haven't had that same destructive tinge. Certainly, some have. The destructive ones are noteworthy because they're the exceptions, though. Most have not. Therefore, it has to be something deeper.
It could be that the key is that Nazism, like Fascism, was Nationalist. I know that belief is getting airtime nowadays more than in the past. It could also be that a deeper dig could reveal that this is unfair to some Nationalist movements which are not so destructive, if such movements exist. I simply don't know at this time.
I'm not calling anyone on the world stage a Hitler today. Even if I did, who would take it seriously? These are now the sort of accusations crazy people make, and so they are a red flag to most that the speaker wants to decry everyone who disagrees with his as a Nazi. I do see tendencies of what I do know about Hitler and Nazism in general in some modern political figures and movements that give me pause, though. Some of those figures are in other countries and some are in the United States. Since I'm no true expert, it would be unfair for me to call out someone as a Hitler based on a partial observation. I have to believe though, that it would also be right for me to be cautious about their statements and actions, and refuse to support or endorse those individuals and movements, wittingly or otherwise.
It is easy to see how an individual with similarities to Hitler could take power, and how horrible things could be justified in the name of whatever that man portrayed as the ideal. In 1930s Germany the ideal was a form of Eugenics supported by a host of conspiracy theories about Zionists. I'm certain that a lot of Germans figured the Jews were simply being sent to a camp where they couldn't harm anyone else, and whatever happened to them they had coming. Modern societies aren't immune to that sort of thinking. Someone today can mix a weird political philosophy with conspiracy theories about some other group of people and do the same thing. As long as a vocal minority (or even majority) believes the conspiracy theory, what's to stop them from doing horrible things? Those people probably won't even ever realize the negative things they enabled.
History can be scary when you stop thinking that it can't happen here.
I've been thinking about the Holocaust a bit lately because I recently listened to the audio version of Anne Frank's Diary, and also because I recently did some reading about Kristallnacht in memory of its eightieth anniversary. I used to be confused about how Nazism took hold, how Hitler was able to come into power, and how people could rationalize supporting a government that sent people to concentration camps. I've thought many times that it couldn't happen here. While it would be much harder for something like that to happen in the United States with the separated powers we enjoy in this country, in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that it can happen here. People are people, and they're prone to demonizing others if doing so supports their preconceived worldview.
That Internet conversations and debates frequently devolve into one side comparing the other to Hitler or the Nazis is so well established that it has its own informal law. The real shame of this tendency is that comparing everyone to Hitler and the Nazis makes it so that few really take it seriously when someone actually does things like Hitler would. If a real Hitler appears, anyone pointing it out would be seen as a crazy person triggering Godwin's Law.
My views on identifying nascent Nazism have changed some over the years. I used to think of it as a workers movement because this is the vibe that the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will gives, and I in turn thought that was what I needed to be wary of. However, workers movements elsewhere haven't had that same destructive tinge. Certainly, some have. The destructive ones are noteworthy because they're the exceptions, though. Most have not. Therefore, it has to be something deeper.
It could be that the key is that Nazism, like Fascism, was Nationalist. I know that belief is getting airtime nowadays more than in the past. It could also be that a deeper dig could reveal that this is unfair to some Nationalist movements which are not so destructive, if such movements exist. I simply don't know at this time.
I'm not calling anyone on the world stage a Hitler today. Even if I did, who would take it seriously? These are now the sort of accusations crazy people make, and so they are a red flag to most that the speaker wants to decry everyone who disagrees with his as a Nazi. I do see tendencies of what I do know about Hitler and Nazism in general in some modern political figures and movements that give me pause, though. Some of those figures are in other countries and some are in the United States. Since I'm no true expert, it would be unfair for me to call out someone as a Hitler based on a partial observation. I have to believe though, that it would also be right for me to be cautious about their statements and actions, and refuse to support or endorse those individuals and movements, wittingly or otherwise.
It is easy to see how an individual with similarities to Hitler could take power, and how horrible things could be justified in the name of whatever that man portrayed as the ideal. In 1930s Germany the ideal was a form of Eugenics supported by a host of conspiracy theories about Zionists. I'm certain that a lot of Germans figured the Jews were simply being sent to a camp where they couldn't harm anyone else, and whatever happened to them they had coming. Modern societies aren't immune to that sort of thinking. Someone today can mix a weird political philosophy with conspiracy theories about some other group of people and do the same thing. As long as a vocal minority (or even majority) believes the conspiracy theory, what's to stop them from doing horrible things? Those people probably won't even ever realize the negative things they enabled.
History can be scary when you stop thinking that it can't happen here.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
fruits and vegetables
I know I have to be getting irritating to those around me all I talk about food nowadays, but the last year has represented a huge shift in how I think about food so it's frequently on my mind. Believe it or not, this is keeping my thoughts on the matter short.
I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.
Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced. Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.
I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.
I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.
I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced. Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.
I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.
I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
unthinkable
I'm frequently guarded about the standards I use to determine whether a movie is appropriate to watch or not. Most things that make a movie appropriate or inappropriate are inherently subjective. So, if I refuse to watch something that doesn't mean that I condemn others who watch it. Likewise, I don't want others to condemn me for deeming something acceptable that they personally find inappropriate to watch.
On-screen violence is one issue that a lot of people find inappropriate. This is difficult because while I genuinely dislike seeing violence in movies--I never watch a movie excited to see realistic violence--it is often necessary to make the point of the movie. One oft-cited example is The Passion of the Christ. Another example that I want to consider here today because it touches on a topic currently in the news is a movie called Unthinkable.
The reason for my lead-in to this is that I'm hesitant to acknowledge that I've watched Unthinkable or to recommend it to others because it's violent in a genuinely disturbing way. Much like The Passion of the Christ, it is not enjoyable to watch, but it is important in the issue and questions it presents. I have no desire to re-watch either of these movies, though I consider both to be extremely important works that have affected me in a positive way.
The protagonist in the movie is an FBI agent played by Carrie-Anne Moss, and she is told to oversee the work of an interrogator played by Samuel L. Jackson. He's attempting to extract information from a terrorist who claims to have planted bombs in major cities. We're meant to work through the moral trade-offs involved with enhanced interrogation through the decisions that Moss' character is forced to make. Throughout the movie, she constantly has to decide whether to allow the torture we're witnessing to continue and escalate further or potentially allow thousands to millions to die in a nuclear incident. Some of the questions forced on the audience follow.
The reason I "like" (not enjoy) this movie is that I didn't believe it forced the audience to believe one way or the other on torture. Where 24* or Zero Dark Thirty* may extol the effectiveness of torture, or where Rendition* may present it as something that will be abused, my take on Unthinkable was that the movie intended for audiences to simply understand the trade-off for taking either a pro- or anti-torture position**. I didn't finish the movie believing that being for or against torture was an easy choice. I finished the movie believing that every option in such situations is a bad option, and the real question is determine which the least bad option is***.
So, I'm sort of recommending the movie without recommending it in the same way I would do so with The Passion of the Christ. If you're not up to watching a violent and disturbing movie don't watch this. If you could stomach Mel Gibson's movie, though, and want to see a movie that handles the subject of torture against terrorism in an unflinching and honest light, it is worth a consideration.
* I actually have only watched a little bit of 24, and none of Zero Dark Thirty or Rendition. You can discredit my opinion related to those movies if you like, since I'm only going off second-hand information.
** Full disclosure, I have been anti-torture for a few years now after having believed for a while that it was an acceptable trade-off to stopping acts of terrorism. This being said, I am genuinely torn on some of the moral conundrums certain scenarios present.
*** I do also think I should acknowledge that one criticism I've seen of the movie is that it may actually be slanted pro-torture. There is real dispute as to whether torture is effective in getting accurate information from individuals, and while this is somewhat addressed in the movie, the audience may still walk away thinking that torture is more effective than it is.
On-screen violence is one issue that a lot of people find inappropriate. This is difficult because while I genuinely dislike seeing violence in movies--I never watch a movie excited to see realistic violence--it is often necessary to make the point of the movie. One oft-cited example is The Passion of the Christ. Another example that I want to consider here today because it touches on a topic currently in the news is a movie called Unthinkable.The reason for my lead-in to this is that I'm hesitant to acknowledge that I've watched Unthinkable or to recommend it to others because it's violent in a genuinely disturbing way. Much like The Passion of the Christ, it is not enjoyable to watch, but it is important in the issue and questions it presents. I have no desire to re-watch either of these movies, though I consider both to be extremely important works that have affected me in a positive way.
The protagonist in the movie is an FBI agent played by Carrie-Anne Moss, and she is told to oversee the work of an interrogator played by Samuel L. Jackson. He's attempting to extract information from a terrorist who claims to have planted bombs in major cities. We're meant to work through the moral trade-offs involved with enhanced interrogation through the decisions that Moss' character is forced to make. Throughout the movie, she constantly has to decide whether to allow the torture we're witnessing to continue and escalate further or potentially allow thousands to millions to die in a nuclear incident. Some of the questions forced on the audience follow.
- Is there a way to weigh the moral values of torture against the life that would be lost without it?
- Is a little bit of torture okay if it saves lives?
- Is more extreme torture okay if it saves lives?
- Is there ever a point where the actions necessary to save lives are so unthinkable (hence the movie's name) that it's preferable not to take them?
- *Spoiler (highlight to reveal)* Is it acceptable to torture an innocent if that could save lives? *Spoiler*
The reason I "like" (not enjoy) this movie is that I didn't believe it forced the audience to believe one way or the other on torture. Where 24* or Zero Dark Thirty* may extol the effectiveness of torture, or where Rendition* may present it as something that will be abused, my take on Unthinkable was that the movie intended for audiences to simply understand the trade-off for taking either a pro- or anti-torture position**. I didn't finish the movie believing that being for or against torture was an easy choice. I finished the movie believing that every option in such situations is a bad option, and the real question is determine which the least bad option is***.
So, I'm sort of recommending the movie without recommending it in the same way I would do so with The Passion of the Christ. If you're not up to watching a violent and disturbing movie don't watch this. If you could stomach Mel Gibson's movie, though, and want to see a movie that handles the subject of torture against terrorism in an unflinching and honest light, it is worth a consideration.
* I actually have only watched a little bit of 24, and none of Zero Dark Thirty or Rendition. You can discredit my opinion related to those movies if you like, since I'm only going off second-hand information.
** Full disclosure, I have been anti-torture for a few years now after having believed for a while that it was an acceptable trade-off to stopping acts of terrorism. This being said, I am genuinely torn on some of the moral conundrums certain scenarios present.
*** I do also think I should acknowledge that one criticism I've seen of the movie is that it may actually be slanted pro-torture. There is real dispute as to whether torture is effective in getting accurate information from individuals, and while this is somewhat addressed in the movie, the audience may still walk away thinking that torture is more effective than it is.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
the same old
The last couple of years have felt rather different from any I've experienced in my short adulthood, at least politically. This is partially because we do live in odd political times where standards that applied before no longer do. However, that being acknowledged, many of the issues being argued in politics and the problems with the political system are as old as the country is.
I am just now wrapping up listening to the audio book version of David McCullough's biography of John Adams. In this, I have been struck by the number of issues that are still resonant today.
Foremost among the problems in the political system are people's loyalty to party over country. Adams himself is presented in the book being aghast at the party-ism he saw, though he did represent a party when in office. The book goes to great lengths to illustrate that his fellow Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, caused him as much trouble as the Republican-Democrats did. Hamilton was to Adams like the modern-day tea partiers to establishment Republicans or Bernie supporters to establishment Democrats. The sense is presented that many Federalists didn't believe that Adams was enough on their side on some matters.
Another issue McCullough presents is how many people picked and chose their media coverage based on whether they presented the political slant that they agreed with. Furthermore, the papers that sided with one party over the other were ruthlessly savage to the opposition, and one gets the sense that they weren't overly concerned with accuracy.
It is partially because of the savage press that Adams committed what many consider to be his most shameful act in signing the Alien and Sedition Act. This was partially anti-immigration legislation, which apparently is not a new thing, and partially legislation to limit what was called seditious speech against the government in power. I personally believe that this act is a black mark on Adams' legacy, but it is interesting that recent immigration actions by the current administration that feel like a new thing are not new at all.
It's almost only mentioned in passing in the book, but one of the early debates in the country was whether having a national bank was reasonable. This sounds very much like the Libertarian and somewhat Trumpian rumblings today of, "Wouldn't it be better if markets ran themselves rather than being managed by the Fed?" That view toward the national bank was more mainstream then than the anti-Fed view is today.
The Federalists were seen as the war-mongering party of their day, as there was a major push by Hamilton to go to war against post-revolution France. Adams was called a monarchist in part because he favored a good trade relationship with Britain that was imbalanced against the Americans, which was the equivalent of decrying someone as unpatriotic today. Likewise Jefferson, the figurehead of the Republican-Democrats, was labeled as an irreligious and immoral person. These are still go-to attacks for some candidates.
The book spends time discussing the work put into establishing trade deals, and at least one ill-conceived embargo that backfired on Adams' son when he voted for it in Congress. Those are both scenarios that are salient today.
One final thing unrelated to politics that has struck me about the book is the different amounts of time that Adams spent with his different children. He spent a lot of time in Europe, and his oldest son--John Q. Adams--was there with him much more than any other member of the family. Later, Adams' two other sons turned out to have very significant issues, with one dying of cirrhosis of the liver, and one wonders if this is partially due to them being left behind when their dad traveled away. This makes me feel fortunate that I have not had to travel away from my family for work as many others have had to.
I am just now wrapping up listening to the audio book version of David McCullough's biography of John Adams. In this, I have been struck by the number of issues that are still resonant today.
Foremost among the problems in the political system are people's loyalty to party over country. Adams himself is presented in the book being aghast at the party-ism he saw, though he did represent a party when in office. The book goes to great lengths to illustrate that his fellow Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, caused him as much trouble as the Republican-Democrats did. Hamilton was to Adams like the modern-day tea partiers to establishment Republicans or Bernie supporters to establishment Democrats. The sense is presented that many Federalists didn't believe that Adams was enough on their side on some matters.
Another issue McCullough presents is how many people picked and chose their media coverage based on whether they presented the political slant that they agreed with. Furthermore, the papers that sided with one party over the other were ruthlessly savage to the opposition, and one gets the sense that they weren't overly concerned with accuracy.
It is partially because of the savage press that Adams committed what many consider to be his most shameful act in signing the Alien and Sedition Act. This was partially anti-immigration legislation, which apparently is not a new thing, and partially legislation to limit what was called seditious speech against the government in power. I personally believe that this act is a black mark on Adams' legacy, but it is interesting that recent immigration actions by the current administration that feel like a new thing are not new at all.
It's almost only mentioned in passing in the book, but one of the early debates in the country was whether having a national bank was reasonable. This sounds very much like the Libertarian and somewhat Trumpian rumblings today of, "Wouldn't it be better if markets ran themselves rather than being managed by the Fed?" That view toward the national bank was more mainstream then than the anti-Fed view is today.
The Federalists were seen as the war-mongering party of their day, as there was a major push by Hamilton to go to war against post-revolution France. Adams was called a monarchist in part because he favored a good trade relationship with Britain that was imbalanced against the Americans, which was the equivalent of decrying someone as unpatriotic today. Likewise Jefferson, the figurehead of the Republican-Democrats, was labeled as an irreligious and immoral person. These are still go-to attacks for some candidates.
The book spends time discussing the work put into establishing trade deals, and at least one ill-conceived embargo that backfired on Adams' son when he voted for it in Congress. Those are both scenarios that are salient today.
One final thing unrelated to politics that has struck me about the book is the different amounts of time that Adams spent with his different children. He spent a lot of time in Europe, and his oldest son--John Q. Adams--was there with him much more than any other member of the family. Later, Adams' two other sons turned out to have very significant issues, with one dying of cirrhosis of the liver, and one wonders if this is partially due to them being left behind when their dad traveled away. This makes me feel fortunate that I have not had to travel away from my family for work as many others have had to.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
men in space
I have noted before that I am extremely excited about the New Horizons Pluto flyby that is coming in the upcoming weeks. Something that I've taken note of is that, while some people express some interest when I mention it, most people they don't seem to have too much interest at all. I sort of get it. It's a bit of a nerdy topic, and if you're not naturally interested in planets and moons and such why would you care that we're going to see pictures of another dwarf planet. To me, this just seems like such a big deal, but I do not decide what should or should not be a big deal. After some contemplation, I think I understand where my interest departs from mainstream. I'm more interested in the planets than the astronauts.
Every once in a while I will hear a line of thinking that states that the United States has slouched in the space race since the seventies when we sent men to the Moon. The rationale goes that we haven't even put together a credible plan to put a man on Mars three or four decades since we stopped visiting the Moon, and we do not even have the equipment to get a man to the Moon today. This must mean we're stagnating in space. This line of thinking makes me think the real thing that interests a lot of people about space isn't space, but is rather astronauts.
Honestly, I don't know why so many people focus on sending men or women to the Moon or to Mars. I don't understand why sending a person to another planet is much more exciting than sending a lander/rover to a nearby planet or a probe to a further-away planet, for those of us who are not astronauts. In both scenarios I am not on the planet, but I am experiencing it through pictures. In both scenarios very similar scientific data is gathered about the planet. Why should I care if a human set up that camera on the surface or it is attached to a rover controlled from the earth? All that does is increase the gravity of mistakes made on the mission.
The U.S. has not slouched in space in the last few decades. In the time since the first man landed on the moon we have sent robotic equipment to gather pictures and measurements to all of the planets, at least one comet, and a few asteroids. This year alone there are two missions that will send back details about dwarf planets (Ceres and Pluto). Multiple Mars landers have already sent pictures from the planet, and performed tests to determine the compositions of areas of the ground. A lander was also sent to one of Saturn's moons that returned images and measurements of a cool and alien world. Complete maps have been created of all of the three other inner planets' surfaces. Two spacecraft have been sent into the heliosphere (the area where the Sun's influence gives way to the galaxy's influence), and one more is on it's way. This says nothing of what has been photographed and detected by telescopes in recent years.
This is a great time to be alive if you're a space nerd like me who is unconcerned with whether we get our Mars data from a rover or a human! That would be me.
Every once in a while I will hear a line of thinking that states that the United States has slouched in the space race since the seventies when we sent men to the Moon. The rationale goes that we haven't even put together a credible plan to put a man on Mars three or four decades since we stopped visiting the Moon, and we do not even have the equipment to get a man to the Moon today. This must mean we're stagnating in space. This line of thinking makes me think the real thing that interests a lot of people about space isn't space, but is rather astronauts.
Honestly, I don't know why so many people focus on sending men or women to the Moon or to Mars. I don't understand why sending a person to another planet is much more exciting than sending a lander/rover to a nearby planet or a probe to a further-away planet, for those of us who are not astronauts. In both scenarios I am not on the planet, but I am experiencing it through pictures. In both scenarios very similar scientific data is gathered about the planet. Why should I care if a human set up that camera on the surface or it is attached to a rover controlled from the earth? All that does is increase the gravity of mistakes made on the mission.
The U.S. has not slouched in space in the last few decades. In the time since the first man landed on the moon we have sent robotic equipment to gather pictures and measurements to all of the planets, at least one comet, and a few asteroids. This year alone there are two missions that will send back details about dwarf planets (Ceres and Pluto). Multiple Mars landers have already sent pictures from the planet, and performed tests to determine the compositions of areas of the ground. A lander was also sent to one of Saturn's moons that returned images and measurements of a cool and alien world. Complete maps have been created of all of the three other inner planets' surfaces. Two spacecraft have been sent into the heliosphere (the area where the Sun's influence gives way to the galaxy's influence), and one more is on it's way. This says nothing of what has been photographed and detected by telescopes in recent years.
This is a great time to be alive if you're a space nerd like me who is unconcerned with whether we get our Mars data from a rover or a human! That would be me.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
foreign policy
I am thirty-five now, and I will be thirty-six later this year, so I cannot use age as an excuse any more as to why I haven't become president of the United States yet. The only excuses I have left are simply not wanting it enough and not having a strong enough get-out-the-vote machine built up in the swing states.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
the great war
Recently, there has been quite a bit of news regarding the one-hundred-year anniversary of Ottoman destruction of the Armenian people during World War I. This got me to thinking about something that has been on my mind some over the past few years. Why does World War II hold a significant place in American memory and consideration, but World War I does not?
I figured for a long while that the reason for World War II's place in the American heart when compared to other wars was due to the fact that it came into being when film-making was in a bit of a golden age. There is a lot of reasonable-quality film of everything from the battles over the Pacific to D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge to the dropping of the atomic bombs, so this was the first opportunity people had to really experience the war. I now think it is something different.
When it comes to war people like to know that they are on the right and noble side. They like to know that the sacrifices that are being made are virtuous stands against a grievous evil, and that there is no question that what is being done is necessary. Unlike most conflicts, World War II has this in spades. Between the genocide committed by the Nazis and the atrocities of the Japanese, it is easy to see the Allies as the white knight against the obvious Axis evil. I believe this is also why so many movies have been created using World War II as a setting. The story teller doesn't have to waste any effort at all establishing who the good and the bad guys are. It is also a nice shortcut to positive feelings of patriotism.
World War I was completely different, though. Countries were dragged into war, not because of some overwhelming moral imperative, but rather because they had treaties allying them with other countries that had already declared war. The United States was only drawn in when its trading interests to the United Kingdom were threatened by Germany, so the primary purposes of entering the war were economic (and revenge for the sinking of the Lusitania). To an objective observer there was no honorable side. Looking from the outside, there were only sides who sent millions of soldiers off to die horrible deaths in order to protect their political and economic interests.
Had I understood this about the Great War I think I would have been more interested in it. The complexity of the politics leading up to the war, and the ludicrous inability of nations to take appropriate steps to avoid their own destruction is fascinating. The fact that World War II can be blamed on the economic fallout that followed World War I indicates that the one only happened due to the other. The entirety of history and everything that has happened in the world in the last hundred years has been a direct result of the poor decisions that were made in the lead-up to World War I.
It is simply astounding that the shape of the world today can be directly tied to decisions a few world leaders and diplomats made over one hundred years ago. You never know how far-reaching one decision or series of decisions will be.
I figured for a long while that the reason for World War II's place in the American heart when compared to other wars was due to the fact that it came into being when film-making was in a bit of a golden age. There is a lot of reasonable-quality film of everything from the battles over the Pacific to D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge to the dropping of the atomic bombs, so this was the first opportunity people had to really experience the war. I now think it is something different.
When it comes to war people like to know that they are on the right and noble side. They like to know that the sacrifices that are being made are virtuous stands against a grievous evil, and that there is no question that what is being done is necessary. Unlike most conflicts, World War II has this in spades. Between the genocide committed by the Nazis and the atrocities of the Japanese, it is easy to see the Allies as the white knight against the obvious Axis evil. I believe this is also why so many movies have been created using World War II as a setting. The story teller doesn't have to waste any effort at all establishing who the good and the bad guys are. It is also a nice shortcut to positive feelings of patriotism.
World War I was completely different, though. Countries were dragged into war, not because of some overwhelming moral imperative, but rather because they had treaties allying them with other countries that had already declared war. The United States was only drawn in when its trading interests to the United Kingdom were threatened by Germany, so the primary purposes of entering the war were economic (and revenge for the sinking of the Lusitania). To an objective observer there was no honorable side. Looking from the outside, there were only sides who sent millions of soldiers off to die horrible deaths in order to protect their political and economic interests.
Had I understood this about the Great War I think I would have been more interested in it. The complexity of the politics leading up to the war, and the ludicrous inability of nations to take appropriate steps to avoid their own destruction is fascinating. The fact that World War II can be blamed on the economic fallout that followed World War I indicates that the one only happened due to the other. The entirety of history and everything that has happened in the world in the last hundred years has been a direct result of the poor decisions that were made in the lead-up to World War I.
It is simply astounding that the shape of the world today can be directly tied to decisions a few world leaders and diplomats made over one hundred years ago. You never know how far-reaching one decision or series of decisions will be.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
state of the union
I noted earlier that I wouldn't post on politics again for a while. What I should have rather said is that I won't take a political position in a post for a while. What's worse is that I don't know how to right this in a way that doesn't sound snobbish. Forgive me for this.
I generally pride myself on keeping up with political policy news, as well as the implications of different political positions. However, I decided many years ago that I detested watching the State of the Union address as well as the rebuttal, so I have refused to watch either speech for the past ten years or so. I also largely avoid televised political debates and political speeches. No matter who is giving the speech I always feel like the sketchiest logic is used to score political points, and I get the sense that these events are meant to appeal to the people who care about the drama of politics rather than the nuances of policy. Since this turns my stomach—and it truly does—I do my civic-duty research elsewhere.
I do typically read up on the highlights of the State of the Union and its rebuttal after it occurs. I am also usually very interested in reading about the highlights of political debates they occur. However, I am less concerned about the drama that frequently creates headlines ("Politician so-and-so drew applause by issuing a killer jab to his opponent," or, "Idiot politician thought the capital of North Dakota was Helena."), and more interested in whether they gave hints to the nuances of their policy positions or proposals.
I always feel a little like I am not doing my civic duty by refusing to watch these events. I can imagine the groans of a thousand social studies teachers at what appears to be my apathy or cynicism at this part of the process. It does my emotional health good to avoid them, though. With that, I think that not watching the State of the Union has to qualify as a very specific guilty pleasure of mine.
I generally pride myself on keeping up with political policy news, as well as the implications of different political positions. However, I decided many years ago that I detested watching the State of the Union address as well as the rebuttal, so I have refused to watch either speech for the past ten years or so. I also largely avoid televised political debates and political speeches. No matter who is giving the speech I always feel like the sketchiest logic is used to score political points, and I get the sense that these events are meant to appeal to the people who care about the drama of politics rather than the nuances of policy. Since this turns my stomach—and it truly does—I do my civic-duty research elsewhere.
I do typically read up on the highlights of the State of the Union and its rebuttal after it occurs. I am also usually very interested in reading about the highlights of political debates they occur. However, I am less concerned about the drama that frequently creates headlines ("Politician so-and-so drew applause by issuing a killer jab to his opponent," or, "Idiot politician thought the capital of North Dakota was Helena."), and more interested in whether they gave hints to the nuances of their policy positions or proposals.
I always feel a little like I am not doing my civic duty by refusing to watch these events. I can imagine the groans of a thousand social studies teachers at what appears to be my apathy or cynicism at this part of the process. It does my emotional health good to avoid them, though. With that, I think that not watching the State of the Union has to qualify as a very specific guilty pleasure of mine.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
political drug season over
We just went through an election, and while I am as politically fascinated and informed as anyone you will meet, I hate election time more than most anything else. Politics is a drug that sucks people in then causes them to exhibit the worst of themselves, myself unfortunately included. I prefer not to make a fool of myself, and I prefer not to have my opinions of others I respect damaged as well.
The one thing that I have been thinking of lately is the assertion that I often hear that it is a citizen's, and more so a Christian's, duty to vote. I have also heard this couched in terms like thinking about who Jesus would have voted for.
Almost every conversation Jesus had was striking, but one that especially sticks out to me is his interaction with Pilate when the Jewish leadership was angling to get him crucified. The charge they brought was that Jesus threatened the political structure that was in place. He was to be the king of the Jews! However, if Jesus' threat to Roman rule was even a remote possibility Pilate had every reason to want to punish, destroy, and make an example of Jesus. After Pilate's personal interaction with Jesus, however, he took every opportunity available to a cowardly ruler such as himself to avoid sending Jesus to the cross. Pilate had a reputation for brutality, but he was the one trying to save Jesus.
That speaks to me more than any other interaction Jesus had regarding what his political bent was. More than Jesus paying the temple tax or explaining that we give to God and Caesar what they are owed, this points to how unimportant in the scheme of things politics was to him. The one person who should have been the most concerned about a politically-motivated leader rallied to save him. Based on what I have read from Scripture like this, not only do I not believe that it is our civic duty to vote, I do not believe that Christ would have voted either.
I will do a bit of an about face, though. I am not Christ. While getting involved with politics may have interfered with Jesus' ministry, that does not mean that I should not vote or be involved in politics. There are worthy issues that Christians have addressed through the ballot box. I say that with trepidation, however. Political involvement and self-righteousness go hand-in-hand and both are addictive drugs that can very easily interfere with a Christian's purpose of being on this earth. I have such a hard time avoiding both every election cycle.
The one thing that I have been thinking of lately is the assertion that I often hear that it is a citizen's, and more so a Christian's, duty to vote. I have also heard this couched in terms like thinking about who Jesus would have voted for.
Almost every conversation Jesus had was striking, but one that especially sticks out to me is his interaction with Pilate when the Jewish leadership was angling to get him crucified. The charge they brought was that Jesus threatened the political structure that was in place. He was to be the king of the Jews! However, if Jesus' threat to Roman rule was even a remote possibility Pilate had every reason to want to punish, destroy, and make an example of Jesus. After Pilate's personal interaction with Jesus, however, he took every opportunity available to a cowardly ruler such as himself to avoid sending Jesus to the cross. Pilate had a reputation for brutality, but he was the one trying to save Jesus.
That speaks to me more than any other interaction Jesus had regarding what his political bent was. More than Jesus paying the temple tax or explaining that we give to God and Caesar what they are owed, this points to how unimportant in the scheme of things politics was to him. The one person who should have been the most concerned about a politically-motivated leader rallied to save him. Based on what I have read from Scripture like this, not only do I not believe that it is our civic duty to vote, I do not believe that Christ would have voted either.
I will do a bit of an about face, though. I am not Christ. While getting involved with politics may have interfered with Jesus' ministry, that does not mean that I should not vote or be involved in politics. There are worthy issues that Christians have addressed through the ballot box. I say that with trepidation, however. Political involvement and self-righteousness go hand-in-hand and both are addictive drugs that can very easily interfere with a Christian's purpose of being on this earth. I have such a hard time avoiding both every election cycle.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
bush v gore
While everyone has a political slant, I am trying very hard to come across as objectively as possible here because the observation this is built on is objective in nature. I'm very interested when I see similarities between people who others see as diametric opposites. I've reworded several portions already to try to avoid sounding like I'm taking one perspective or the other, but word choice is almost never completely apolitical.
For a very long while, and definitely before Obama was elected in 2008, I have viewed George W. Bush and Barack Obama as very similar candidates. Sure, they are very different in many respects to the point where Obama essentially ran against Bush's record in 2008, but I do think their similarities actually outnumber their differences. I even believe this when looking at points of policy rather than personality. Both men have campaigned at the opposite extremes of the political spectrum at one time or another, but aside from issues that almost every nationally-elected Republican and Democrat are obligated to disagree on, they ultimately ruled similarly. This is especially the case when Bush's second term is the object of comparison rather than his first (a fact I'd attribute to Bush to asserting himself more in contrast to certain specific advisers).
For example, monetary policy under at least the second half of Bush's term and throughout Obama's term has been nearly identical. Some may point to the Fed and Ben Bernanke as the reason for that, but I think it has more to do with Treasury Secretary Geithner and his similarity to the multiple treasury secretaries that served under Bush.
Since I think Obama sort of fills a "Bush" role, I was interested to see Mitt Romney nominated on the GOP side. If there has ever been a Republican that reminded me of Al Gore, Romney is it. So, without being too political, the following are the similarities I see between Bush and Obama, and also Gore and Romney.
Bush and Obama
Both saw enormous spikes in popularity in their first year in office
This is sort of a fluke for both of them. Bush was popular because he was the central stabilizing figure in the wake of 9/11. Obama was popular because he literally and figuratively represented change from a system that a lot of people had become cynical about. Neither of them saw their incredible levels of popularity last, but that's the way these things go.
Both more well liked personally than politically
This ties in to the last one. Each presents himself as the type of person the average person would enjoy shooting the breeze with. Both are very likable on a personal level. Once they start making their policy positions known, however, they become more polarizing.
Both were lauded in their home state for being unifiers but were eventually seen on the national stage as being polarizing
I don't know if anyone else remembers this, but Bush sold himself in the first election as a "unifier, not a divider." Obama, likewise, was supposed to usher in a new way of doing things in Washington. Statements could be made defending or accusing either or both in this regard, but the point remains that this was a major selling point for both men at one point, and it was a way they attempted to contrast themselves with their political opponents.
Both initially ran on specific significant tax cut proposals, but were largely vague about other policy stance details
Enough said.
Both started their terms inheriting an economy headed south
Where a president's responsibility starts and stops regarding the economy is beyond the scope of this comment. However, the seeds for the dot com bust were sown in the nineties and the seeds for the Great Recession were sown in the preceding decade. Again, arguments can be made about who was responsible for how the economic situations progressed, but not here right now.
Both selected VP candidates with extensive resumes who could not realistically be elected president
Most VP choices in the last few elections have baffled me. While Dick Cheney and Joe Biden may have been among the best choices made in the last twelve years, (depending on your opinions of Lieberman, Edwards, and Palin), they both confused me. Cheney is smart and very good in debates, but he did not have apparent political aspirations, did not excite many people, and proved easy to cast as the villain. Biden did, and probably still does, have political aspirations, and has a history of working through complicated foreign policy issues. He also has a long history of saying very dumb things. If nominated as a presidential candidate his odds of winning would be extremely long and would nearly rely on the GOP candidate being indicted for a felony.
Both, for good or for bad, increased access to and the size of the healthcare system by expanding the government's role in it
I'm not saying more on this right now. There are positives and negatives that could be stated here, but my role at the moment is not to make value judgments.
Both were bailed out of a bind by General Petraus
Without General Petraus and his 2007 military surge, the odds are that the Middle East would look dramatically different now. The geopolitical problems there that the surge addressed in this reality may have impacted the global economy by this point in a different reality due to the constraints on getting oil if the surge had not happened. If Bush ever proves to have a legacy, the person who single-handedly saved it would be General Petraus.
Likewise, when President Obama had to replace General McChrystal in Afghanistan more or less overnight, the only person qualified in that short of notice to fill in the gap was Petraus. Obama's opinion of Petraus' job must be good since he was nominated to be director of the CIA roughly a year ago. Quite a change for someone Moveon.org targeted as a military stooge just a few years prior.
Gore and Romney
Both have boring personalities to a fault
In contrast to Bush and Obama, few people would want to chew the fat with Gore or Romney. They are both monotone speakers who like to shift topics to things people in general are not interested in. It blows me away that either have had any success in a field like politics, where personality matters more than most anything else.
That is me understating how uncharismatic both men are.
Both were originally elected to office in states that leaned the opposite political way
This may seem random, but I think that both of them being politicians from states that lean the opposite direction made them both more calculating.
Both selected VP candidates that separated them from the previous president of the same party
Joe Lieberman was on record severely criticizing President Clinton and was seen as the most morally aware option available to Gore. Paul Ryan is to many conservatives the anti-Bush, someone who will deliver on a small-government promise that Bush did not.
Both had wives who were involved with awkward attempts to make their husbands seem more human
Here for Gore, and here for Romney.
Both had fathers who preceded them in political office
Okay, so did Bush. The difference I see is that George W. Bush was not very similar to his dad in leadership style, and differed on policy as well. Think about it this way: the younger Bush made a decision on a question only his father had faced to that point in whether to invade Iraq, and his dad chose very differently for the reason that Iraq might turn into a quagmire.
Romney's father was a moderate GOP governor from the north and Gore's father was a Tennessee senator. I would argue that both lived in their fathers' shadows more than George W.
Both have made a lot of money in hedge fund management
Not merely investing in hedge funds, mind you, but taking leadership and founder roles.
More than in most election years, my main hope this election period is simply that whoever wins actually wins it on the night of the election rather than how the Bush/Gore election ultimately played out. I am unequivocally ready for this to be over.
For a very long while, and definitely before Obama was elected in 2008, I have viewed George W. Bush and Barack Obama as very similar candidates. Sure, they are very different in many respects to the point where Obama essentially ran against Bush's record in 2008, but I do think their similarities actually outnumber their differences. I even believe this when looking at points of policy rather than personality. Both men have campaigned at the opposite extremes of the political spectrum at one time or another, but aside from issues that almost every nationally-elected Republican and Democrat are obligated to disagree on, they ultimately ruled similarly. This is especially the case when Bush's second term is the object of comparison rather than his first (a fact I'd attribute to Bush to asserting himself more in contrast to certain specific advisers).
For example, monetary policy under at least the second half of Bush's term and throughout Obama's term has been nearly identical. Some may point to the Fed and Ben Bernanke as the reason for that, but I think it has more to do with Treasury Secretary Geithner and his similarity to the multiple treasury secretaries that served under Bush.
Since I think Obama sort of fills a "Bush" role, I was interested to see Mitt Romney nominated on the GOP side. If there has ever been a Republican that reminded me of Al Gore, Romney is it. So, without being too political, the following are the similarities I see between Bush and Obama, and also Gore and Romney.
Bush and Obama
Both saw enormous spikes in popularity in their first year in office
This is sort of a fluke for both of them. Bush was popular because he was the central stabilizing figure in the wake of 9/11. Obama was popular because he literally and figuratively represented change from a system that a lot of people had become cynical about. Neither of them saw their incredible levels of popularity last, but that's the way these things go.
Both more well liked personally than politically
This ties in to the last one. Each presents himself as the type of person the average person would enjoy shooting the breeze with. Both are very likable on a personal level. Once they start making their policy positions known, however, they become more polarizing.
Both were lauded in their home state for being unifiers but were eventually seen on the national stage as being polarizing
I don't know if anyone else remembers this, but Bush sold himself in the first election as a "unifier, not a divider." Obama, likewise, was supposed to usher in a new way of doing things in Washington. Statements could be made defending or accusing either or both in this regard, but the point remains that this was a major selling point for both men at one point, and it was a way they attempted to contrast themselves with their political opponents.
Both initially ran on specific significant tax cut proposals, but were largely vague about other policy stance details
Enough said.
Both started their terms inheriting an economy headed south
Where a president's responsibility starts and stops regarding the economy is beyond the scope of this comment. However, the seeds for the dot com bust were sown in the nineties and the seeds for the Great Recession were sown in the preceding decade. Again, arguments can be made about who was responsible for how the economic situations progressed, but not here right now.
Both selected VP candidates with extensive resumes who could not realistically be elected president
Most VP choices in the last few elections have baffled me. While Dick Cheney and Joe Biden may have been among the best choices made in the last twelve years, (depending on your opinions of Lieberman, Edwards, and Palin), they both confused me. Cheney is smart and very good in debates, but he did not have apparent political aspirations, did not excite many people, and proved easy to cast as the villain. Biden did, and probably still does, have political aspirations, and has a history of working through complicated foreign policy issues. He also has a long history of saying very dumb things. If nominated as a presidential candidate his odds of winning would be extremely long and would nearly rely on the GOP candidate being indicted for a felony.
Both, for good or for bad, increased access to and the size of the healthcare system by expanding the government's role in it
I'm not saying more on this right now. There are positives and negatives that could be stated here, but my role at the moment is not to make value judgments.
Both were bailed out of a bind by General Petraus
Without General Petraus and his 2007 military surge, the odds are that the Middle East would look dramatically different now. The geopolitical problems there that the surge addressed in this reality may have impacted the global economy by this point in a different reality due to the constraints on getting oil if the surge had not happened. If Bush ever proves to have a legacy, the person who single-handedly saved it would be General Petraus.
Likewise, when President Obama had to replace General McChrystal in Afghanistan more or less overnight, the only person qualified in that short of notice to fill in the gap was Petraus. Obama's opinion of Petraus' job must be good since he was nominated to be director of the CIA roughly a year ago. Quite a change for someone Moveon.org targeted as a military stooge just a few years prior.
Gore and Romney
Both have boring personalities to a fault
In contrast to Bush and Obama, few people would want to chew the fat with Gore or Romney. They are both monotone speakers who like to shift topics to things people in general are not interested in. It blows me away that either have had any success in a field like politics, where personality matters more than most anything else.
That is me understating how uncharismatic both men are.
Both were originally elected to office in states that leaned the opposite political way
This may seem random, but I think that both of them being politicians from states that lean the opposite direction made them both more calculating.
Both selected VP candidates that separated them from the previous president of the same party
Joe Lieberman was on record severely criticizing President Clinton and was seen as the most morally aware option available to Gore. Paul Ryan is to many conservatives the anti-Bush, someone who will deliver on a small-government promise that Bush did not.
Both had wives who were involved with awkward attempts to make their husbands seem more human
Here for Gore, and here for Romney.
Both had fathers who preceded them in political office
Okay, so did Bush. The difference I see is that George W. Bush was not very similar to his dad in leadership style, and differed on policy as well. Think about it this way: the younger Bush made a decision on a question only his father had faced to that point in whether to invade Iraq, and his dad chose very differently for the reason that Iraq might turn into a quagmire.
Romney's father was a moderate GOP governor from the north and Gore's father was a Tennessee senator. I would argue that both lived in their fathers' shadows more than George W.
Both have made a lot of money in hedge fund management
Not merely investing in hedge funds, mind you, but taking leadership and founder roles.
More than in most election years, my main hope this election period is simply that whoever wins actually wins it on the night of the election rather than how the Bush/Gore election ultimately played out. I am unequivocally ready for this to be over.
Friday, March 16, 2012
kony
I figure that most people reading this know about the "Kony 2012" video that has been circulating the web, but in case you haven't seen it, it is below. As a warning, this is a half hour long so it requires a bit of a time commitment to watch.
For the uninitiated who don't have a spare half hour to watch the film, the video details the goal to capture Joseph Kony, a warlord from the region around northern Uganda, so that he can be tried for war crimes. The goal is a noble one, at least in intent. Many will disagree with the notion that the U.S. should get more involved in foreign affairs, but a scant few would disagree with the assertion that the world would be a better place with Kony put away for a long time.
I get some positives out of this. First, I do believe that the nations that are the "haves" have a moral obligation to assist in dealing with the issues that the "have-nots" deal with that result in massive suffering and death. Second, while I am not technically a neo-conservative or a pacifist, I get some pleasure seeing something targeted to the people most likely to be pacifists making what amounts to a neo-con's argument.
Two negative things strike me about this too, and I don't know right now whether these two things are mindless gut reactions or valid concerns.
First, this video seems like it is promoting slacktivism, which is something that seriously bugs me. On some level I have always believed that purposeful people work to accomplish tangible goals and lazy people who want to feel good about themselves spend the mere seconds it takes to share a video to raise awareness. I know that is an unfair generalization, and I know that this post could be construed as slacktivist as well. However, generalizations usually have some grain of truth, and issues such as this do not exist for the sole purpose of allowing people to feel good about themselves for taking a popular stance on them. You're against a warlord stealing children from their families to use in his child army? You must be a wonderful, caring person!
Second, it occurs to me that Kony's victims may have different ideas regarding the best policy for capturing Kony than the video presents. Indeed, the following video from Al Jazeera—I know, the source isn't the most trusted with a U.S. audience, but bear with me—and the reactions they captured to a screening of the Kony 2012 video at least appeared overwhelmingly negative. Video can be cut to prove nearly any point, but I still have the open question in my mind regarding the best way to deal with Kony.
If I were in a decision-making role on this issue I would probably support the current course of action. I don't know if it is the right action, but on it's face it appears to be the best. That said, if the locals did not support it, how could we, the foreigners?
I don't really have many more opinions to add. I think this is one of those topics where people bring their own opinions and really aren't going to be easily swayed from them. The issue genuinely is worth serious thought, though.
Update (3/17/2012): I feel I should note that the Ugandan government has responded to the video with what at least appears to be a reasonable point that Kony hasn't been in Uganda since 2006 when he was forced out by the Ugandan military, so U.S. involvement in the country may not be the best targeted. I don't know any better than anyone else if the military assistance that the U.S. is providing does any good or not.
Also, in case anyone reading this is wondering why I have not mentioned it, I know very well that Jason Russell, who was behind the creation of the Kony video, was recently arrested for pointedly embarrassing behavior in public. I just don't think that the incident is relevant to the question of whether the Kony video itself is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
For the uninitiated who don't have a spare half hour to watch the film, the video details the goal to capture Joseph Kony, a warlord from the region around northern Uganda, so that he can be tried for war crimes. The goal is a noble one, at least in intent. Many will disagree with the notion that the U.S. should get more involved in foreign affairs, but a scant few would disagree with the assertion that the world would be a better place with Kony put away for a long time.
I get some positives out of this. First, I do believe that the nations that are the "haves" have a moral obligation to assist in dealing with the issues that the "have-nots" deal with that result in massive suffering and death. Second, while I am not technically a neo-conservative or a pacifist, I get some pleasure seeing something targeted to the people most likely to be pacifists making what amounts to a neo-con's argument.
Two negative things strike me about this too, and I don't know right now whether these two things are mindless gut reactions or valid concerns.
First, this video seems like it is promoting slacktivism, which is something that seriously bugs me. On some level I have always believed that purposeful people work to accomplish tangible goals and lazy people who want to feel good about themselves spend the mere seconds it takes to share a video to raise awareness. I know that is an unfair generalization, and I know that this post could be construed as slacktivist as well. However, generalizations usually have some grain of truth, and issues such as this do not exist for the sole purpose of allowing people to feel good about themselves for taking a popular stance on them. You're against a warlord stealing children from their families to use in his child army? You must be a wonderful, caring person!
Second, it occurs to me that Kony's victims may have different ideas regarding the best policy for capturing Kony than the video presents. Indeed, the following video from Al Jazeera—I know, the source isn't the most trusted with a U.S. audience, but bear with me—and the reactions they captured to a screening of the Kony 2012 video at least appeared overwhelmingly negative. Video can be cut to prove nearly any point, but I still have the open question in my mind regarding the best way to deal with Kony.
If I were in a decision-making role on this issue I would probably support the current course of action. I don't know if it is the right action, but on it's face it appears to be the best. That said, if the locals did not support it, how could we, the foreigners?
I don't really have many more opinions to add. I think this is one of those topics where people bring their own opinions and really aren't going to be easily swayed from them. The issue genuinely is worth serious thought, though.
Update (3/17/2012): I feel I should note that the Ugandan government has responded to the video with what at least appears to be a reasonable point that Kony hasn't been in Uganda since 2006 when he was forced out by the Ugandan military, so U.S. involvement in the country may not be the best targeted. I don't know any better than anyone else if the military assistance that the U.S. is providing does any good or not.
Also, in case anyone reading this is wondering why I have not mentioned it, I know very well that Jason Russell, who was behind the creation of the Kony video, was recently arrested for pointedly embarrassing behavior in public. I just don't think that the incident is relevant to the question of whether the Kony video itself is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
Friday, March 09, 2012
something light
I actually have a very difficult time coming up with light topics for this blog. The deeper or more involved ones take some time to type, but I usually have several in the back of my mind that I am mulling. The problem with that is I expect that most people wanting to read a blog are not looking to commit a lot of time reading through multiple treatises that simply state the blogger's personal viewpoint, and are instead looking for something light.
So, here's a random list of statements about light.
So, here's a random list of statements about light.
- I used to think that foods labeled as "lite" were labeled using an improper spelling to get around FDA rules. At least today, there are FDA rules for what can be labeled as "lite," so I was probably wrong.
- Thomas Edison did not create the world's first incandescent light bulb. He created the world's first economically viable incandescent light bulb.
- A lightsaber's colors are determined by the crystal used in its creation.
- The person who was struck the most times in his life by lightning was Roy Sullivan, who was struck seven times over a period of thirty-five years and change. He died at his own hand due to relationship troubles rather than directly due to the lightning.
- A boxer who is in the official Lightweight class weighs between 135 and 140 pounds. The limit for heavyweight is a mere sixty pounds more than the upper bound of this at 200 pounds.
- About ten years ago some researchers successfully stopped and restarted light by forcing it through a super cold cloud of atoms. This all occurred in the span of a thousandth of a second, which makes you wonder if the validation process was the researchers asking each other, "You saw that, right?" and responding in the affirmative to make each other feel good.
- The poem Charge of the Light Brigade retells the true story of a cavalry charge in the Crimean War that occurred due to miscommunication. The poem supposes that the soldiers knew the charge was a mistake, but gave their lives for it anyway.
- Hasbro has an online Lite-Brite that you can use to make and print designs.
- The first traffic light in a form similar to today had two colors (red and green) and used a buzzer as a warning of light change rather than a yellow light.
- Gordon Lightfoot's Wikipedia page lists his various musical styles as, "folk, folk-rock, and country music." I could have sworn that was three different ways of saying the same thing.
- The word, "lite," in Swedish means, "a little."
Friday, October 21, 2011
politics: chosen
I am pretty sure that this is the last in my current political series. Maybe I'll hit on a lighter topic shortly.
I have already quoted from this passage twice in the last few posts, but that is only because it is such a relevant, yet under-appreciated, piece of Scripture. I have bolded the relevant points for this post.
Depending on your politics, it may be difficult to imagine that God technically voted for George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I do not really have any ill will toward either of them, but if I did I would have to acknowledge that it was God who put both into their respective positions of power. This passage is far more challenging when I consider that is means that in the last century God also cast a vote for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and innumerable other despots. Paul certainly knew that he was saying that God put objectively evil people in power, as it is likely that Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the early years of Nero's reign, and only about a decade-and-a-half after Caligula's reign. This was not Camelot.
This is not to say that the people God has chosen are blessed people because of it. In the Old Testament God used pagan rulers to punish Israel and Judah, then He punished those same rulers for their violence and sin. Even the people who God used who trusted Him were typically horribly flawed, and frequently paid for their sins (Samson, Jephthah, David, et al).
While I do not like the idea that people who I personally believe were bad rulers were put into position by God, I can accept that this is because God ultimately orchestrates things in the way that is most likely to draw people to Him. I do not say this lightly. Horrific things happen in many of these administrations implemented by God—things much worse than my Western mind can even imagine. I am sure if I were to witness some of those atrocities, I would strongly question God's wisdom or care. If I am to accept Scripture, though, I have to accept God's control of who is in power in the world as a hard truth.
So, what does this all mean? What is the respect and honor that we owe to government leaders with whom we disagree? How can we even know what is owed? Are dissenting opinions wrong? Does this mean that any form of protest is wrong? Should political satire be off-limits? I personally believe the answer to this is in the following passage from Titus.
Can I hold a strong political opinion without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? Probably, but I have to be on guard. Can I have a political debate with friends or acquaintances without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? That is more difficult, but probably not impossible. Can I join a peaceful political protest without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? This is pushing the envelope, but could conceivably be okay. Obviously, this is a subjective standard, but it does function as a Scriptural red flag.
I think the real danger here is to underestimate what counts as disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. Political name-calling, while appearing to be merely immature, is inconsiderate and prideful. Assuming the worst about those we disagree with and allowing that to color our political conversations, while appearing to be merely strong-minded or informed, is slanderous and divisive. Violating laws in passive ways through civil disobedience, while appearing to be selflessly pushing forward a cause, is still disobedient.
This is not to say that I have achieved the level that Paul commanded. It is simply something that I must continually strive for.
I have already quoted from this passage twice in the last few posts, but that is only because it is such a relevant, yet under-appreciated, piece of Scripture. I have bolded the relevant points for this post.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:1-7A few years ago I saw an online poll that asked whether Jesus would have been a Republican or a Democrat. While the question itself seems ludicrous to me since Jesus went out of his way to avoid the politics of His day (Matt 17:24-27, Luke 20:20-26), it eventually got me thinking along a broader point that God does technically vote in elections, coups, rebellions, puppet governments, and every other process that brings people to power. Any time I stop to contemplate that I am astounded.
Depending on your politics, it may be difficult to imagine that God technically voted for George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I do not really have any ill will toward either of them, but if I did I would have to acknowledge that it was God who put both into their respective positions of power. This passage is far more challenging when I consider that is means that in the last century God also cast a vote for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and innumerable other despots. Paul certainly knew that he was saying that God put objectively evil people in power, as it is likely that Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the early years of Nero's reign, and only about a decade-and-a-half after Caligula's reign. This was not Camelot.
This is not to say that the people God has chosen are blessed people because of it. In the Old Testament God used pagan rulers to punish Israel and Judah, then He punished those same rulers for their violence and sin. Even the people who God used who trusted Him were typically horribly flawed, and frequently paid for their sins (Samson, Jephthah, David, et al).
While I do not like the idea that people who I personally believe were bad rulers were put into position by God, I can accept that this is because God ultimately orchestrates things in the way that is most likely to draw people to Him. I do not say this lightly. Horrific things happen in many of these administrations implemented by God—things much worse than my Western mind can even imagine. I am sure if I were to witness some of those atrocities, I would strongly question God's wisdom or care. If I am to accept Scripture, though, I have to accept God's control of who is in power in the world as a hard truth.
So, what does this all mean? What is the respect and honor that we owe to government leaders with whom we disagree? How can we even know what is owed? Are dissenting opinions wrong? Does this mean that any form of protest is wrong? Should political satire be off-limits? I personally believe the answer to this is in the following passage from Titus.
"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy."- Titus 3:1-5aApart from the fact that God established the authorities that exist, the main reason we are to act with respect toward the governing authorities is that disrespect is a symptom of the former life. It is more consistent with foolishness, disobedience, and slavery to passions than it is to consideration and humility. I therefore believe that the Biblical line for respecting authorities is the point at which we become disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. That sounds like a low bar, but my observation is that it is a very difficult standard for anyone with strong political opinions or for anyone who wants to fit in with a group of people who have strong political opinions.
Can I hold a strong political opinion without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? Probably, but I have to be on guard. Can I have a political debate with friends or acquaintances without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? That is more difficult, but probably not impossible. Can I join a peaceful political protest without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? This is pushing the envelope, but could conceivably be okay. Obviously, this is a subjective standard, but it does function as a Scriptural red flag.
I think the real danger here is to underestimate what counts as disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. Political name-calling, while appearing to be merely immature, is inconsiderate and prideful. Assuming the worst about those we disagree with and allowing that to color our political conversations, while appearing to be merely strong-minded or informed, is slanderous and divisive. Violating laws in passive ways through civil disobedience, while appearing to be selflessly pushing forward a cause, is still disobedient.
This is not to say that I have achieved the level that Paul commanded. It is simply something that I must continually strive for.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
politics: taxes and welfare
I struggled mightily with how to write this one. I think it is an extremely important topic for Christians to consider, but one of the reasons it is important is that it hits on some hot-button issues where a firm stance can alienate people pretty quickly. I have to look no further than my Facebook friends news feed where I have seen plenty of articles posted that either harp on the dangers of a large tax burden or on the unconscionability of allowing the down-and-out to go without basic needs to know the gravity of taking or stating an opinion.
I definitely do have some opinions about what a proper tax system should look like and what the government's role should be in assisting the poor. Those opinions are informed by Scripture as well. That I have opinions or what those opinions ultimately are is not the point, though. The point is that I believe that on this specific issue there is an extraordinary temptation to bend Scripture to an already held position, whatever it happens to be, and ignore the foundational Scriptural principles.
First, I should address why I chose taxation and welfare versus any other spending category. Generally speaking the question of taxation in the United States boils down to an argument over the rights of the rich to their money and the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of the poor. Occasionally, I'll see an argument regarding balancing taxation and the size of the military, but it's not as popular an argument now as it was during our last presidency. Republicans not named "Ron Paul" generally don't argue to reduce the size of the military and the Democrats who argue for greater taxation generally aren't the same people who would want to grow the military.
There are serious pitfalls on all sides of this issue for Scripture-following Christian. The mistake that I have observed people on all sides of the issue make is to forget that it is God who provides. This foundational flaw is exposed in almost all of the rationales I have heard for this issue.. The people who argue against higher taxes do so under the guise that the money was earned and is theirs rather than the government's. The people who argue for government support do so under the guise that God will not provide, so therefore only the government is left. Going even deeper than that, though, is that the question is never about what my responsibility is, but rather it is about whether someone else is exploiting me in my position. This is a tempting, but very anti-Scriptural position to take.
A defense that we do not have the luxury of espousing is that such-and-such tax or government assistance policy will be economically better for the country. God is not concerned with the economics of the decision, but rather with the devotion and trust of His followers. From the Bible's standpoint, it is better to trust God in an impoverished economy than to trust self in an environment of wealth.
It is probably the easiest to argue Scripturally against the anti-tax people because the relevant verses are more straightforward. God did not leave room for debate regarding whose money taxes are. That money belongs to the government authority.
There is a further argument that is made that the government should only have a limited role in assisting those in need for a variety of reasons. This technicality is where Scripture gets a little foggy and the underlying principle is lost in the vagueness. A valid argument can be made for or against government being the proper proxy through which we support the poor, but a valid argument cannot be made that we should not sacrificially provide for the poor. If a Christian believes that the government is not the proper means to provide to the poor that is fine IF that same Christian in practice gives sacrificially to those in need. Sacrificial charity is serious business, too. It's enough to be the deciding factor in your salvation, as you should be able to tell from the verses referenced below.
First, while I personally believe that laziness accounts for a very small percentage of people who are down and out, there is no Biblical support for choosing not to work. Solomon was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (Prov 13:4). Paul was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (2 Thess 3:6-12). Paul also encouraged the Thessalonians to work and have a manageable standard of living so that they would not have to rely on others (1 Thess 4:11-12).
Probably the most important passage to argue against the idea that we should rely on government support, though, is one that illustrates on whom we should rely. In The Sermon on the Mount Jesus made the following famous statement.
Ultimately, my responsibility is to trust God and care for those in need regardless what others do. If I goad others into caring for the needy simply because if I am sacrificing others ought to as well, my motives are less than pure. Likewise, if I do so out of a sense of self-righteousness rather than humility my pride is sin. If I take this position because I trust in government more than God, then I am not right with God. Finally, if my motivation is so that others bear their share of the burden rather than having an undue burden fall on me, I am simply passing off my selfishness as duty or as equity.
In summary, no matter our lot in life, our focus cannot be on griping about being exploited by the tax system or by society in general. Our focus has to be on trusting God enough to handle our finances and everything else in our lives.
I should be clear that I am not better than anyone else on any of these counts. I have somehow espoused both anti-Scriptural parts of the anti-tax philosophy and of the trust-in-the-government philosophy at one time or another. My position here is only to point to pitfalls of the attitudes behind these philosophies as described by Scripture.
In conclusion, thanks to those who put the effort in to read this treatise. Politics is an uncomfortable topic anyways, and to make something I have one more post that will be much shorter than this one to conclude this series. I have had fun with this, but I know I should limit these sorts of posts because political topics are difficult to converse about with tact.
I definitely do have some opinions about what a proper tax system should look like and what the government's role should be in assisting the poor. Those opinions are informed by Scripture as well. That I have opinions or what those opinions ultimately are is not the point, though. The point is that I believe that on this specific issue there is an extraordinary temptation to bend Scripture to an already held position, whatever it happens to be, and ignore the foundational Scriptural principles.
First, I should address why I chose taxation and welfare versus any other spending category. Generally speaking the question of taxation in the United States boils down to an argument over the rights of the rich to their money and the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of the poor. Occasionally, I'll see an argument regarding balancing taxation and the size of the military, but it's not as popular an argument now as it was during our last presidency. Republicans not named "Ron Paul" generally don't argue to reduce the size of the military and the Democrats who argue for greater taxation generally aren't the same people who would want to grow the military.
There are serious pitfalls on all sides of this issue for Scripture-following Christian. The mistake that I have observed people on all sides of the issue make is to forget that it is God who provides. This foundational flaw is exposed in almost all of the rationales I have heard for this issue.. The people who argue against higher taxes do so under the guise that the money was earned and is theirs rather than the government's. The people who argue for government support do so under the guise that God will not provide, so therefore only the government is left. Going even deeper than that, though, is that the question is never about what my responsibility is, but rather it is about whether someone else is exploiting me in my position. This is a tempting, but very anti-Scriptural position to take.
A defense that we do not have the luxury of espousing is that such-and-such tax or government assistance policy will be economically better for the country. God is not concerned with the economics of the decision, but rather with the devotion and trust of His followers. From the Bible's standpoint, it is better to trust God in an impoverished economy than to trust self in an environment of wealth.
It is probably the easiest to argue Scripturally against the anti-tax people because the relevant verses are more straightforward. God did not leave room for debate regarding whose money taxes are. That money belongs to the government authority.
"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:5-7It doesn't matter if the tax is egregious or simply seems unfair. It was never our money to begin with. We only had the money because of opportunities, abilities, and drive that God provided to us, and He explicitly states that the percentage of this money—His money—the government claims should indeed be paid in taxes.
There is a further argument that is made that the government should only have a limited role in assisting those in need for a variety of reasons. This technicality is where Scripture gets a little foggy and the underlying principle is lost in the vagueness. A valid argument can be made for or against government being the proper proxy through which we support the poor, but a valid argument cannot be made that we should not sacrificially provide for the poor. If a Christian believes that the government is not the proper means to provide to the poor that is fine IF that same Christian in practice gives sacrificially to those in need. Sacrificial charity is serious business, too. It's enough to be the deciding factor in your salvation, as you should be able to tell from the verses referenced below.
- God made it clear that true fasting was providing for those without: Isa 58:5-11
- At least one of the sins that led to Sodom's destruction was neglecting the poor: Ezek 16:49-50
- We all know about the sheep and the goats: Matt 25:31-46
- Our love is shown in how we value our possessions versus providing for brothers in need: 1 John 3:17-18
First, while I personally believe that laziness accounts for a very small percentage of people who are down and out, there is no Biblical support for choosing not to work. Solomon was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (Prov 13:4). Paul was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (2 Thess 3:6-12). Paul also encouraged the Thessalonians to work and have a manageable standard of living so that they would not have to rely on others (1 Thess 4:11-12).
Probably the most important passage to argue against the idea that we should rely on government support, though, is one that illustrates on whom we should rely. In The Sermon on the Mount Jesus made the following famous statement.
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."- Matt 6:24This sounds like an indictment of the rich, but Jesus immediately follows this with a command not to worry about food or clothing because God will provide these things. If there is something the rich do not worry about, it is whether they are fed and clothed. He concludes with the following promise.
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."- Matt 6:33To serve God is to not worry about the necessities, and to refuse to trust Him regarding the necessities is to seek something before God. This theme of trusting God comes up a lot in Scripture, to the point where it really is foundational to God's ultimate message to us.
- God orders our paths and blesses us if we trust in Him: Prov 3:5-10
- Abraham trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness, and Paul notes that this promise is for us as well: Romans 4:18-25
- We cannot expect anything from God if we doubt Him: James 1:6-8
Ultimately, my responsibility is to trust God and care for those in need regardless what others do. If I goad others into caring for the needy simply because if I am sacrificing others ought to as well, my motives are less than pure. Likewise, if I do so out of a sense of self-righteousness rather than humility my pride is sin. If I take this position because I trust in government more than God, then I am not right with God. Finally, if my motivation is so that others bear their share of the burden rather than having an undue burden fall on me, I am simply passing off my selfishness as duty or as equity.
In summary, no matter our lot in life, our focus cannot be on griping about being exploited by the tax system or by society in general. Our focus has to be on trusting God enough to handle our finances and everything else in our lives.
I should be clear that I am not better than anyone else on any of these counts. I have somehow espoused both anti-Scriptural parts of the anti-tax philosophy and of the trust-in-the-government philosophy at one time or another. My position here is only to point to pitfalls of the attitudes behind these philosophies as described by Scripture.
In conclusion, thanks to those who put the effort in to read this treatise. Politics is an uncomfortable topic anyways, and to make something I have one more post that will be much shorter than this one to conclude this series. I have had fun with this, but I know I should limit these sorts of posts because political topics are difficult to converse about with tact.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
politics: the game
I haven't paid significant attention to politics as of late, so this isn't targeted to anyone in particular. I am sure there are plenty of people in politics who are fully committed to God and will not budge on their morals or ethics, so this isn't a complete indictment on everyone in the system. It is merely an observation of the contrast between the life we should live and the actions some see as necessary in politics.
Most American politicians claim some flavor of Christianity to accept portions of some version of the Christian Bible as God-breathed. Certainly there is a wide range of beliefs within this group Christian politicians, but I believe that most of them are largely genuine in their stated beliefs. If you threw out the politicians who claim non-Christian religions or no religion and also those disingenuous about their claimed beliefs, I believe that a strong majority would still be people who believed in Christ as their Savior. It is therefore very unfortunate that the political game is so opposite what Scripture teaches. If most of the political players accept Scripture on some level, and a large percentage of the electorate does as well, how could we end up with a system that encourages such abhorrent behavior?
One politician I will mention because he has dropped out of the presidential race, and because I was not strongly for or against his campaign, is Tim Pawlenty. When he dropped out of the race a few weeks ago something I read in a few places was that he was too much of a "good guy" who wouldn't go for the jugular enough. I read further that this works in some election cycles, but apparently not in this one. While I know that a lot of the explanations for why things happen in politics are storylines invented to sell news, it does not say much for the electorate if the reason some people turned from Pawlenty was because he didn't have enough bloodlust.
I think the Pawlenty storyline illustrates my point fairly well. Simply put, the strategies and games that politicians of all political stripes play, whether they feel they have to or not, are anti-Scriptural. This is no shock to anyone, I am sure, but what gives me pause is how easily the behavior is rationalized by those who support that specific candidate. It's unconscionable when a political opponent does X sleazy thing, but when it's someone I agree with then there is an excusable reason for it, or it's a personality quirk, or it's a personal matter, or...
The truth be told, a Christian who completely follows Scripture does not bend the truth to suit a need. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not craft his or her belief system for maximum political gains. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not grandstand. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not game the system for their own personal gain, whether it be financial (pay for play) or political (gerrymandering). A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not sell hate to get elected or push an agenda. I know there isn't a person alive who completely follows Scripture, but if there were that person would not be at all compatible with our current political system.
I would assert that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag opponent than it is to win using questionable means. I don't think that many people would disagree with that statement, but I again think that most would rationalize or write off political games as a necessary evil to keep even worse people from getting elected. So, I would assert once more that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag than to win it through questionable means.
I cannot hold someone who does not accept Scripture to the standard of Scripture, but I can hold those who claim Christ to Scripture. A Christian has to be a different kind of politician. I would like to conclude this with a passage from 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul is writing to the Corinthian church about handling legal disputes internally. Certainly, if read outside the context of a legal dispute as I am doing, I have failed this passage myself. Even so, imagine if Paul were writing about a political debate rather than a legal argument. I am sure he would still ask, "Why not rather be wronged?"
Most American politicians claim some flavor of Christianity to accept portions of some version of the Christian Bible as God-breathed. Certainly there is a wide range of beliefs within this group Christian politicians, but I believe that most of them are largely genuine in their stated beliefs. If you threw out the politicians who claim non-Christian religions or no religion and also those disingenuous about their claimed beliefs, I believe that a strong majority would still be people who believed in Christ as their Savior. It is therefore very unfortunate that the political game is so opposite what Scripture teaches. If most of the political players accept Scripture on some level, and a large percentage of the electorate does as well, how could we end up with a system that encourages such abhorrent behavior?
One politician I will mention because he has dropped out of the presidential race, and because I was not strongly for or against his campaign, is Tim Pawlenty. When he dropped out of the race a few weeks ago something I read in a few places was that he was too much of a "good guy" who wouldn't go for the jugular enough. I read further that this works in some election cycles, but apparently not in this one. While I know that a lot of the explanations for why things happen in politics are storylines invented to sell news, it does not say much for the electorate if the reason some people turned from Pawlenty was because he didn't have enough bloodlust.
I think the Pawlenty storyline illustrates my point fairly well. Simply put, the strategies and games that politicians of all political stripes play, whether they feel they have to or not, are anti-Scriptural. This is no shock to anyone, I am sure, but what gives me pause is how easily the behavior is rationalized by those who support that specific candidate. It's unconscionable when a political opponent does X sleazy thing, but when it's someone I agree with then there is an excusable reason for it, or it's a personality quirk, or it's a personal matter, or...
The truth be told, a Christian who completely follows Scripture does not bend the truth to suit a need. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not craft his or her belief system for maximum political gains. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not grandstand. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not game the system for their own personal gain, whether it be financial (pay for play) or political (gerrymandering). A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not sell hate to get elected or push an agenda. I know there isn't a person alive who completely follows Scripture, but if there were that person would not be at all compatible with our current political system.
I would assert that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag opponent than it is to win using questionable means. I don't think that many people would disagree with that statement, but I again think that most would rationalize or write off political games as a necessary evil to keep even worse people from getting elected. So, I would assert once more that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag than to win it through questionable means.
I cannot hold someone who does not accept Scripture to the standard of Scripture, but I can hold those who claim Christ to Scripture. A Christian has to be a different kind of politician. I would like to conclude this with a passage from 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul is writing to the Corinthian church about handling legal disputes internally. Certainly, if read outside the context of a legal dispute as I am doing, I have failed this passage myself. Even so, imagine if Paul were writing about a political debate rather than a legal argument. I am sure he would still ask, "Why not rather be wronged?"
"Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another--and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?"- 1 Corinthians 6:4-9a
Sunday, September 11, 2011
politics: 9/11
Today is the ten-year anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. It is one of those events where you know where you were when you heard the news, which for the majority of people in the East and Midwest was probably work or school because it was business hours on a weekday. Feel free to share what you were doing when you found out or other related memories in the comments. My greatest memory of that time was that for a short period there was a bit less political divisiveness in the country.
Something that I have noted in the time since is that this incident was one that has a remarkable ability to reaffirm to people what they already believed about whatever topics involved. Somehow, both people who think Islam is inherently peaceful and inherently violent find evidence for their worldview in 9/11. People who think the U.S. should take a more active role or less active role against rogue states both find evidence to support their worldview in 9/11. Some see the event as an indictment of the Western lifestyle and others see it as proof that our freedoms are so great we're worth attacking for them. It's telling that one of the big conspiracies from the past decade is that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. If I deep down want to hate the government why not invent some blame for one of the most significant events in recent history?
Maybe some of the arguments that use 9/11 as an illustration are valid. Most are probably just an excuse to trumpet a viewpoint. I would guess that all miss the gravity of the sacrifice that so many people experienced. I wonder how I would want the day honored if I had lost a loved one in the attack.
Something that I have noted in the time since is that this incident was one that has a remarkable ability to reaffirm to people what they already believed about whatever topics involved. Somehow, both people who think Islam is inherently peaceful and inherently violent find evidence for their worldview in 9/11. People who think the U.S. should take a more active role or less active role against rogue states both find evidence to support their worldview in 9/11. Some see the event as an indictment of the Western lifestyle and others see it as proof that our freedoms are so great we're worth attacking for them. It's telling that one of the big conspiracies from the past decade is that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. If I deep down want to hate the government why not invent some blame for one of the most significant events in recent history?
Maybe some of the arguments that use 9/11 as an illustration are valid. Most are probably just an excuse to trumpet a viewpoint. I would guess that all miss the gravity of the sacrifice that so many people experienced. I wonder how I would want the day honored if I had lost a loved one in the attack.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
politics: alienable rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."- The Declaration of IndependenceTypically, if a writer quotes one of the Founding Fathers or founding documents of this great nation the purpose is to prove that the Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom agreed with whatever point the author is trying to make. I have seen this done many times by people on the Right and on the Left in the political arena, and I have also seen it done by pundits, preachers, non-profits, and anyone else who is selling an opinion.
I have a different question for Christians, though. Why do we put the writings and opinions of fallible people nearly on par with Scripture, even if they helped found one of the greatest nations ever established? Patriotism is good when it involves paying honor, respect, and obligation due to our nation as the one under which God placed us. It is bad when our love of the nation or certain national ideals is in conflict with Scripture.
While I love my country and believe it is the greatest ever established (possibly second greatest to David's Israel) on this earth, I also acknowledge that its founding principles are not all Biblical. As a Christ-follower before I am an American, I have to refuse any American principles that contradict Christian principles.
In this case, the sentence above from the Declaration of Independence describes very accurately the underlying philosophy of our nation that all men are created equal and that certain rights are unalienable. The first part about all men being created equal is very Biblical (Gal 3:28). Unfortunately, that is where the Biblical agreement ends. The second part about unalienable rights is contradicted many places in Scripture as illustrated below.
The following passage is regarding the rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. The rich man had neither the right to live beyond his appointed time nor the right to pursue happiness in the way he saw fit.
"Then [Jesus] said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.' And he told them this parable: 'The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, "What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops." Then he said, "This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, 'You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.'" But God said to him, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself ?" This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.'"- Luke 12:15-21Jesus also more explicitly demanded that His followers relinquish their right to life in the following passage.
"Then [Jesus] said to them all: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?'"- Luke 9:23-25Another passage regarding our non-existent right to life is from Psalm 44. Paul quoted this in Romans 8 to essentially say that we might face death, but even that cannot separate us from the love of God.
"Our hearts had not turned back; our feet had not strayed from your path. But you crushed us and made us a haunt for jackals and covered us over with deep darkness. If we had forgotten the name of our God or spread out our hands to a foreign god, would not God have discovered it, since he knows the secrets of the heart? Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."- Psalms 44:18-22This next passage is regarding liberty. There is no such thing. We are either slaves to sin and death or slaves to righteousness and God. The only true Christian freedom is freedom from sin rather than freedom from dictatorial authority.
"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."- Romans 6:15-18A proper response to the previous passage may be that liberty in a political sense is different than liberty in a spiritual sense. Even if this is the case, which is not a position that I hold, we don't have the inherent right to political freedom either. This passage should also offer some discomfort for those of us who believe that some revolutions have occurred for good rather than evil.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:1-7Regarding the pursuit of happiness, is there anyone who truly reads the Bible with the intent of understanding it rather than cherry-picking verses who actually believes that pursuing happiness is a Christian right? Paul's following words to Timothy regarding people who are "lovers of themselves" and "lovers of pleasure" should dispel that notion if anyone actually has it.
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."- 2 Timothy 3:1-5Finally, James hit on all three of these inalienable rights in the following passage. God has the right to, and may, take our lives tomorrow. We do not have the liberty to stake out our long-term plans apart from God, especially as it relates to fulfilling our wants.
"Now listen, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.' Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, 'If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.'"- James 4:13-15Seriously, this is something that I could do for days with passages from all of the major sections of Scripture if I was willing to commit the time to do it. There is no shortage of Bible passages that imply or outright state that these unalienable rights are very alienable for the sincere Christian.
I feel compelled to restate my point in this. I am not attempting to denigrate the great nation to which I owe so much. I am attempting to establish that the Founding Fathers were entirely capable of contradicting Scripture, and so nothing they said should be considered to carry equal weight with Scripture. On occasion we will have to make the choice whether we will accept national and cultural philosophies as our own worldviews even when they contradict Scripture. For my worldview, God's Word has to trump all else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
