Time to Finish the Job with the Confederate Flag

Ever since the Confederate Flag was removed from the top of the SC State House back in the year 2000 I had had it in my mind that it had been placed somewhere on the west side of the State House grounds. Last year on a visit to Columbia I was strolling around the university area and downtown and I walked up the stairs of the State House. I've always liked sitting up there.

It's hard for me not to envision that horrific photo taken from the same spot in 1865 looking out on the city burned and destroyed. I try to picture in my mind that horrible day and week, and I give thanks that the cause of so many of my great great grandfathers (and one great grandfather) did not in the end prevail.

It's perhaps part of the uniqueness of southern culture and identity that I have always had a tendency to consider myself first a southerner and South Carolinian, and then an American. I exaggerate somewhat but the association with my home state and region is deep.

And I always thought it a profound offense to the people of my home state to have the Confederate battle flag flying on top of our State House. I say that as a son of the Confederacy many times over.

What surprised me last summer sitting up top of the State House steps was finding the Confederate flag in such a prominent position on the grounds. Looking FROM the State House steps toward downtown it is the Confederate flag one mainly sees. Approaching the State House from Main Street the flag is perhaps even more prominent now than when it was on top of the dome. I had just been unaware of this the last ten years, and was quite taken back.

I wanted to write about it then but a SC friend suggested it would not be appreciated and might close doors for me as to work in my state. It's pretty sensitive stuff apparently.

Southern secession, the Civil War and the Confederate Flag are an unexcisable part of the history and heritage of South Carolina and many other states. I'm not sure these things should be celebrated, but they should be remembered, and there is a place for monuments and flags and exhibits in their memory. Just not in front of the State House. It its current position and prominence the Confederate flag's presence feels more like a celebration, or if not that a direct statement as to a current identification with the Confederate cause.

The Confederate flag is also, quite understandably and rightfully, a cause of profound offense to a very large part of South Carolina's population. Try as many do (in needful revisions to revisionist history) to disconnect slavery causally from the Civil War, well, it is just not credible. In fact the inordinate political turmoil and sectional politics of the latter first half of the 19th century was due largely to the slavery question and rooted deeply in and around the institution of slavery. There is a direct organic line of causality between the very first importation of African people's here as slaves and what eventually became our darkest hour as a nation. There is no way to disassociate the Confederate flag from the unspeakable inhumanity of the enslavement of millions of human beings by other human beings. I know the hundred objections that may follow. I also know that not one of them holds water.

The Confederate flag in its current placement and position is morally, socially, and spiritually oppressive. It is an unkindness of gargantuan proportions. It's time to finish the job and move the flag - again.

The Memorial honoring the Confederate dead is appropriate and quite prominent enough. One might like to see a Memorial honoring the enslaved dead given as much prominence. And I can see a Confederate flag placed on the west side of the Grounds perhaps, accompanied by a sober and non celebratory Memorial, one that honors the profound deep historical significance and human/cultural/economic cost of the War Between the States.

In the end the Confederate cause is one not worthy of celebration. The untold human stories of bravery and kindness in the midst of the conflict may well be worth celebrating, but not the cause itself.

To this day when I read books about the Civil War, and about battles where the Confederate side lost, I feel a kind of aching sadness. I cannot watch the Ken Burns documentary without coming to tears over and over again. At some visceral level I identify with the South even in her very worst moments. But waking up from pulling again for the military underdog (when I wish that we had taken Little Round Top and wished Lee had not sent Picket up that hill) I give thanks for defeat, and feel a deep sorrow for the centuries of oppression and enslavement that ultimately led to those two great armies clashing in the fields and woods and hills of Gettysburg.

And now, today, we need to stop poking our African American neighbors in the eye, or maybe more accurately, in the heart. The flag needs to move. Let's finish what we started in 2000. Love demands it.

Is Multi-Culturalism New?

I had just finished reading a rant sent from someone who was certain that multiculturalism meant the sure and certain demise of our nation, when I saw a link to a speech made by Howard Dean praising America as a multi cultural nation, and I wondered to myself, "Self, have we not always been multicultural?" And Self answered, "Yes, we have. There was the culture and language of African slaves, the culture of Southern plantations, the culture of upcountry Southern farmers, the culture and language of German and Irish and Swedish immigrants who didn't start speaking English when they stepped off the boats, the culture of Puritan New England, the culture of Spanish Florida and French Louisiana, the culture and language of many and various Indian tribes, the culture of Roman Catholic settlers in Maryland, the culture of young and old in the 1960's, etc. " I tend in this case to agree with Self. I don't always.

Granted we have never known such a massive influx of non English speaking people as we do today, but are we sure that second and third generation Mexican immigrants, say, won't speak English?

Seems we've always tended to blame our problems on the newest to arrive, or on the politically weakest around.

I went on a four mile walk today. I saw a lot of people working hard. They were all Hispanic. Just saying.

Why I Support Private and Non Governmental Universal Healthcare

I would like to take the next 45 minutes to write a stream of consciousness case for why I support universal health care. This is a quick draft, and I will edit as I get feedback. I wanted to put these thoughts out there while I was thinking them.

Let me say up front that I oppose nationalized health care, any sort of single payer plan, and Obamacare at least as far as I understand it so far. I am also, for the most part, a political and fiscal conservative.

Neither do I have a good working definition as to who gets to be included in the word “universal.” This in itself is a minefield. However that is resolved, I cannot see us turning our backs on the “strangers and aliens and sojourners” amongst us.

So how can I support such a notion? When I look around and see some people who live in huge houses in gated communities and others who live in relative squalor, it bothers me. Yet I know that “the poor will always be with us,” and, that pretty much any attempt to equalize things is doomed to failure, the cure being worse than the disease. I am OK with the fact that I live in a small house and one neighbor lives in a giant house and another rents a tiny apartment.

But when I look around and see that most people have some reasonably decent measure of health care and some people have none, and that many people are terribly sick and dying because of the lack of it, then I stand back and think, “wait a minute, this is just not right.” It is not unlike how I would feel going into a church,  with people who are poor and sick and dying on one side, and people who are healthy and well on the other side. I would be going into Amos mode if I witnessed that state of affairs. It would not be pretty. The very idea that the well-to-do side of the church could tolerate such a state of affairs would be evidence of deep and profound moral failure.

The city is not the church. The community is not the church. Yet it bothers me only a little less that the middle and upper classes (struggling as they [we] may be in their [our] own way) can sit back and be OK with the present state of affairs.

I am not a liberal and I am not of the mind to force the more well to do by governmental fiat to make this right, but it bothers me that WE, those that have healthcare, and who have some means, and WE, all us groupings and organizations of people who have a stake in this matter, aren't voluntarily offering solutions, solutions whereby each of us bears part of the load. That bugs me - a lot. And to the insurance companies, medical associations, the AARP, health care workers unions, hospitals, doctors offices, tort lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, and every other group, I say, get your butts to the table. You’re going to make less – profits, wages, down the line. Accept it. Start offering solutions. What can YOU do.

To my fellow insured Americans, let me say this. If you’re OK with all your neighbors standing in line at the emergency room to deal with flu and minor injuries and other common sicknesses, then shame on you. You should not be OK with that.

If we are NOT OK with that then we are going to have to give up something. What are you willing to give up so that our neighbors have some level of decent medical care? We’re going to have to have higher deductibles or higher co-pays - OR - someone is going to have to triage all the various needs somewhere somehow. We can’t keep the current state of affairs going. It is not just.

And to you cigarette companies who deal in sickness and death, how do you feel about all this? Do you sleep well at night? And you companies pushing soft drinks to our kids in schools, and any number of other things bad for their health, are you OK with things?

Just because a person is willing to buy something if you sell it doesn’t mean you should sell it. And it certainly doesn’t mean you should push it. How are you different than the drug pusher down at the corner?

And to all of us knowingly and willingly living high risk lives smoking, eating crappy food day in and day out, drinking too much, etc., how is it exactly that we have any “right” to have other people bail us out? How is it fair for a health insurance company not to “rate” us, and charge us more?

And you pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, hospital conglomerates, and so on, is your world really going to come crashing down if your margins are a little tighter.

The issue of health is a public issue. How we raise and feed cows and pigs, how we grow crops and bring them to market, what sort of poisons we put into the air and water, what sort of cars we drive – all this impacts the cost of medical care. The ground level ozone created by inefficient and gas guzzling and pollution spewing cars and trucks, and by industrial emissions, do you not think this is a health issue? Duh, it is, and it is driving up the cost of health care everywhere.

How can it be in our national and economic self interest to have so many people unable to be productive because they are sick, uninsured, victims of bad habits that decent preventative care could reduce, unemployable, missing days and days of work? How can that be good?

So what do I want? Do I want to see the government in charge of health care? No. Do I want our system to look like the one in Canada or Great Britain? No. What I want to see is groups and people voluntarily addressing their share of responsibility in the whole issue, and their share of responsibility in looking after their neighbor’s well being. Everybody needs to give up some “privilege” in order for the whole to be just and right. In the end I believe that we will all gain and live in a more healthy and just society.

As a postscript to my fellow conservatives. Obama is not correct about one important thing. This is not the last chance for a generation to pass health care reform. The tide is moving inexorably toward some sort of universal single payer plan in the absence of a private solution. If you don't want a universal single payer plan, then quit wasting your time screaming and yelling about socialism, and use your influence instead to get the private interests to the table. For if we cannot do this voluntarily it will be imposed, and through that imposition the very socialism you so abhor will become the status quo. Enough of the red herrings and scare tactics. Do something positive.

In Defence of Health Insurance Companies

I just got off the phone with my insurance company. I spend a lot of time on the phone with them. Somehow earlier this week there had been a miscommunication between CVS and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of SC, and CVS's computers keep telling them that I’m not insured anymore. It might have something to do with the switch to COBRA, I’m not sure. I’ve called four times this week about it.

I wish I had a dollar for every hour I have spent on the phone with health insurance related matters over the years. A lot of it has centered around my children. With my policy, Blue Cross only includes children over 19 in the family policy if they have proof of being full time students. We have had to provide that proof many many times. Half the time the letters get lost in the bureaucratic haze. It can be a pain.

Not only that but we have had to be very very careful during coverage transitions to understand and play the system right in order not to get stuck in the “pre-existing” condition limbo. I am very glad for laws which guarantee continued coverage during certain kinds of transition, but there is a life fear of being cast out into the “pre-existing” darkness. I feel deeply for people stuck there.

And we would certainly qualify as a family whose financial struggles have had more to do with medical costs than anything else. Some years it has been almost crushing. We’ve helped a lot of doctors make a living over the years. And now, in between careers as I am, medical insurance remains one of the most important things on my mind day to day.

But I want to speak up for the health insurance companies.

First of all in all the years of calling and holding and waiting the customer service people at Kanawha and at Blue Cross have been courteous and helpful. I would think that my family would be an insurance company’s worst nightmare. Nonetheless I have only ever had good service.

Second, my insurance company has helped to keep down health care costs more than my doctors have. Blue Cross is always rejecting the number submitted by the doctors’ offices and hospitals and such. If I were a doctor I don’t think I’d like insurance companies at all.

Third, though we have had more medical expenses than average, we certainly have paid a whole lot less in premiums (well, actually, until recently my employer paid the premiums, but the idea is the same) than has been paid out to us in coverage. Faced with several surgeries (mostly athletic) along the way, baby deliveries, wisdom tooth removals, prescriptions, physical therapy,, braces, contacts, dental costs, plus my recent stuff, well, we’d be out of luck and out of money for sure by now.

Fourth, I am often surprised that the insurance companies cover as much as they do. I do wish that we as a society had some sort of universal basic coverage for everyone, and this reflection is not (yet) addressing the issue of the uninsured. But we as individuals and as people do have high expectation that we should be able to have this and that treatment or procedure or medication and that it shoudl be convered. But do we really have any sort of fundamental right to “covered” medical care? Many of the things our family has paid for, and to which insurance has contributed, well, we could have lived without, suffered without like people have all through history. We simply cannot have the medical care expectations that we do and expect medical expenses not to be significant.

I think that most of us except perhaps the chronically uninsured and under insured have unrealistic expectations. It amazes me that the system can absorb as many of these expectations as it does.

I am grateful for the health insurance we have had. I don’t think health insurance companies are uniquely evil as compared with everybody else, including those of us who are insured. There is plenty of darkness to spread around.

I just don’t see the point in demonizing the insurance companies, doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, hospitals, the insured, those that are expensive to care for because of bad habits, or anyone. We’re all in this mess together and most every participant has a mix of good intentions/expectations and bad intentions/expectations, including me, and probably you too.

Each and every one of us who has had the privilege to participate in the benefits of our medical system needs to be willing to carry a portion of the burden in insuring the uninsured. I personally would rather see this shared burden take place through mutual agreement by all concerned. I am open to considering various plans as long as I am given reasonable chance to understand them. I wish Obama would quit demonizing the health insurance companies. I don't think that helps. If we really as a society want to see medical care extended to more people we will all have to pay for it one way or another, so let’s go into the process thinking and knowing that up front. Let’s spread the burden around as evenly as possible without making demons out of the other participants in the system. We will all have to pay a little more or make a little less. It's not very complicated.

That’s what I think.

Why Does It Itch Daddy?

Yesterday toward the late afternoon my 11 year old asked me if I would like to sit outside with her and "play" around with beads, jump rope, and maybe climb a tree. We had been inside for a while just hanging out. I told her that I would love to, but that I didn't really want to get eaten alive by mosquito's. she said they didn't usually bother her and I said I was a mosquito magnet.

She came in a little while later obviously uncomfortable, talking about the mosquito bites. Her legs were covered with large unevenly shaped bumps - almost like welts. The itching was driving her crazy. "Why do they have to itch so much Daddy?" she asked.

I had never really thought about that. It doesn't seem to be in the interest of the mosquito for its bite to be so uncomfortable for us. In fact, the chemicals it releases to slightly anesthetize the bite wound and thin our blood seem designed to avert our attention.

I offered the guess that our body had developed a chemical response to the mosquito that resulted in the itching as part of a defensive strategy to keep us from being sucked dry. I asked to her imagine what it would be like if the mosquito bite didn't itch and if we didn't run inside or into the sunlight or cover ourselves? We both decided that eventually we would bleed to death.

So, in a way itching is good in the same way that pain is good. Pain tells us something isn't right. Without pain warning us about this or that we would probably all be dead within days or weeks.

I don't want to see us go through a depression or severe recession, but it's like we've been on a decades long binge and the consequences are just setting in. We're in for a lot of pain I am afraid. I take no joy in the suffering that will come upon many people; it makes me want to weep to think about it. I hope that this pain will make us more sober minded, more frugal, more oriented toward producing real goods and services and less towards relying on asset appreciation and financial games.

It's going to itch like hell for a good while I'm afraid. I hope our community is up for the mutual help and love that will be required. I hope it pulls us together rather than tearing us apart. We will need each other (black and white, male and female, old timers and new comers, Christian and Jew, etc). "Every man for himself" scares me more than anything.

I hope the itching makes us wiser before it makes us insane.

Hyper Debate Analysis, O'Reailly Blows Stack

I have always liked Joe Biden. I disagree with him profoundly on very significant issues, but I like the guy, what can I say. I like Sarah Palin. I'm not goo goo over her, and prefer a southern accent :-) but she's plucky, and no pushover, and underestimated I think.

I thought they both did a good job in the debate. I didn't like Palin's question avoidance and I didn't like Biden's fact avoidance, but overall it was a nice, decent debate. And again I thought both did a good job.

My biggest problem with the debate was that I thought the time frame was too short and it made both candidates rushed. They had to talk extra fast and give rapid fire mini speeches more than thoughtful answers. I would much prefer a town hall meeting leisurely conversation myself.

I really don't think there is high drama in this election other than by how much Obama will win. We all pretty much know where the candidates are coming from, and if we don't we can find out online, including party platforms.

The endless media chatter I do find annoying. I remember in the late 1970's Jimmy Carter was having a new sconference. Bill Marshall, Van Kornegay and I were having a bible study of some kind in Bill's garage apartment. But we watched part of the news conference or whatever it was beforehand.

I remember how the media got all over Carter after the news conference and felt compelled to offer their endless mind numbing analysis. And I remember just wanting to scream. Why can't we, the American people, listen to our President without the media having to inject themselves into a mediating position (hmmm) and tell us what we should have heard and should have thought. I liked Carter, and at least thought that as President he should be able to speak to us without the seeming required mediation. I have thought the same about every president since.

I scanned all the post debate blabber I could find last night and it was the same old stuff. I just don't know why we can't watch debates and such and let it sink in and come to some of our own tentative conclusions. That usually takes more the the 13 seconds before the media jumps in and tries to spin it this way or that way.

Perhaps some bipartisan or non partisan group could run some commercials telling the people exactly where they can find each candidates stated positions, voting records, and party platforms. I hardly know the point of having an opinion if we don't read that stuff first.

I like Bill O'Reilly. I think his interview with Obama remains one of the high water marks of this election. I often don't like his fill ins (Laura Ingram) and I am not a fan of either Hannity or Colmes. But overall I think O'Reilly does a good job. Deep in his heart he seems to be a populist who does have "the folks" in mind and there are some things that just make his blood boil.

I like Barney Frank and we certainly disagree on a lot of subjects! I think his oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has not been splendid. But I don't think he is being honest about his culpability. I think he was BS-ing O'Reilly, though I give him credit for going toe to toe. But I don't think it is either good theater or edifying for anyone for O'Reilly to blow his stack. He's been a volcano ready to erupt for weeks on this financial crisis issue, but somebody just needs to cut to commercial when he goes that way.

He did it once with Geraldo Rivera over immigration, but Geraldo stood his ground and gave it back pretty much as good as he was getting it. That was decent theater since they were colleagues who seem to liek and respect each other, but the O'Reilly Barney Frank blow up was not. I think O'Reilly should apologize "to the folks."

Time to Turn the Pointy Finger Our Way

I hope the House passes the bill approved by the Senate, though the inclusion of candy on the Senate side is only going to invite the same on the House side, and this could end up taking weeks to finalize.

It will be a hard pill for moderate democrats and fiscal conservative republicans alike.

After the bill passes I hope we enter into a bipartisan review and investigation (if such is possible) as to who did what to contribute to this mess.

And then I hope every American will start looking at their own lives.

Its time we all bought Personal Finance for Dummies, or books by Dave Ramsey or Suze Ormond or whomever, and started taking responsibility for our own financial houses.

Yes, it is true, many of us got into to debt because of medical expenses. That happened to me. But we're not going to socialize medical care and we each have to factor those costs into the equation of our own lives. And if it makes us feel better we can continue blame the whole mess on the health care system, or the oi industry or any particular thing outside of our own tendencies to buy what we don't need with money we don't have. But things won't get better.

And from my point of view home ownership is over rated from a financial standpoint, unless you're riding a housing bubble. But then, bubble's burst...So let's quit enticing people who can't really afford to own their own homes into mortgages they cannot maintain.

Deep down in the American psyche, for reasons that are complex and varied, we have this idea that if you don't own a house you're a loser. I know men and women who are wonderful and mature people and do great things for others and they don't own their own homes. So what?

But since this whole week has been about "available credit" who is going to say the obvious: for all too many of us credit is TOO available, and we're TOO tempted to rely on it. We all know we shouldn't pull out those cards so often, but we do...

And then we have financial scammers in effect ripping off the least wealthy among us so as to extend super expensive credit for a few days - you know those check cashing kiosks all over the place? Criminal I think.

It's time to revamp our economic preparation system to equipp people to have the skills to take useful jobs in the new 21st century economy. Not everyone really needs to read and write papers on Emily Bronte and James Joyce. We'd be better off with more machinists, computer designers, aircraft mechanics, and people who actually design, build, make, and fix things.

And the two waves of the future now present are Bio Tech and Green Tech, so maybe we could be helping people to ride those waves and not phony financial schemes and bubbles.

Old school environmentalism is dead. The future of the environmental movement is with high tech alternative energy and a new wave of biological/agricultural practices that are more in sync with our climate and local ecologies, and which are more renewable.

But none of that will matter if we don't get our financial houses in order. It's time to start blaming Wall Street less and and start blaming Courtfield Drive more.

Joel

Sarah Dumb and Backwards Tee Hee

As pointed out by Nancy Mclaughlin over at The Front Pew (with a detectable snicker of disdain), we read at the San Francisco Chronicle, the words which were prayed over Sarah Palin by Kenyan Bishop Thomas Muthee in the pulpit of Palin's home church, the Wasilla Assembly of God Church,

"Come on, talk to God about this woman. We declare, save her from Satan," Muthee said as two attendants placed their hands on Palin's shoulders. "Make her way my God. Bring finances her way even for the campaign in the name of Jesus. ... Use her to turn this nation the other way around."

Tee hee, ha ha, isn't she so backwards and quaint.

I am no Pentecostal, but, Jesus certainly believed in a real Satan and real demons and prayed for his followers to be protected from them. So have Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians from their beginnings. If someone wants to pray over me for protection against their influence then I am all for it. 301 S Elm room 516...Maybe Wall Street, Madison Avenue, Congress, and Main Street could use some of those prayers too. No, they're all great. Isn't it obvious?

And if you have ever talked to folks that have come out of animist religious backgrounds, the presence of overruling and evil spirits is a extremely concrete part of their past experience. So maybe the good Bishop knows more about that stuff than you or I do.

"Make her way" is no different than what the Psalmists say and pray over and over, that God would make our paths straight or direct our steps.

And from our standpoint as Christians no matter what we do, whether we are campaigning or working at a bank or selling cars or teaching school or fund raising or praying we are to do everything "in the name of Jesus." Duh. So how is that news?

That he would want her to be used of God to help turn her nation around, well, our American culture is not really so envied all over the world in case you haven't noticed. And I would assume, if Obama is the Christian he says that he is, and I am not doubting it, that he has prayed for God's strength and enabling to help bring change to America.

And as the spiritual center of Christianity moves away from the Wonderful West to Africa and South America and parts of Asia, our brethren are praying for us and sending missionaries to us, because they see us caught up in greed and sex and drugs and war mongering and infanticide and general godlessness and they're not real cool with that. I hope they come over in waves.

Can you imagine the outrage if this were footage from a synagogue or mosque or wiccan service with the associated withering and disdainful commentary?

It's Time to Fish or Cut Bait

Wednesday I wrote a piece called I'm So Tired. It was about my frustration over the inability of our elected officials to compromise in order to make progress on the issues that face us. It was about the delight I sense from politicians and bloggers (oh, yes, especially) as they revel and take joy in the supposed failures of the other party or other party's nominee. It seems that bloggers and pundits are as purely partisan as our elected officials. Events of the last two days pretty much prove the point.

In fact, the President, the Democratic Leadership, and the Republican Leadership each and all have legitimate concerns. There was no bipartisan deal sunk by McCain because there was no bipartisan deal that included House Republicans. But there must be a bipartisan deal or there won't be a deal. McCain has some leverage with a sector of the Congress that impacts this matter in a big way. I think he is trying to help a bipartisan deal happen. I have no idea why people cannot give him the benefit of the doubt. It may be that Obama's roll is less crucial right now, unless perhaps it would be to persuade his party leaders to listen to the House Republicans.

All the cynical dishonest slander about McCain's motives is just that. The smug criticism that a President needs to be able to "multi-task" and deal with more than one thing is silly, as if the debate were a matter of national security. It is just a dig, maybe aimed at McCain's age. There is often great virtue in uni-tasking, in not being all over the place.

Several debates will happen whether this one does or not. The timing for this one is bad. It would be good if their purpose were to join hands and show us that even now in the midst of a election campaign two candidates can suspend their arguing and show common cause. They will probably do the debate because it would be political suicide for McCain not to; I just think it's a bad idea.

The people of America are unsure and divided over the best course of action. There are strong and divergent opinions. Each party has a legitimate concern. Bipartisan legislation cannot pass if it is not bipartisan. The Republicans have to be on board.

I don't know if the debate should go on tonight or not. Personally I think it is not wise. If they focus on foreign policy then it would seem disconnected from the most pressing matter. If they focus on the bailout (causes of the problem, disagreements about solutions, etc), then it would seem that they would doing what folks are accusing McCain of doing, that is,of politicizing the debate (as if it isn't already - what a laugh). It would be like talking about an extremely delicate matter to the press and public while it is still being negotiated. I think the debate should wait a week. Unless a real deal is reached - very soon - maybe even I type. Otherwise, to me anyway, the debate just seems unseemly.

Now is the time for our elected representatives not only to defend their partisan base and their precious political principles, but also to compromise and reach a deal before it is too late to matter.

If they cannot do it we should vote all the bums out - each and every one of them - and start over. Fish (come up with compromise legislation now), or cut bait (as in, go home, for good).

I Don't Think It's a Stunt

Right after I posted "I'm So Tired" I clicked on Drudge Report and saw the headline about McCain suspending his campaign until a bipartisan agreement is reached on the bail out legislation.

I know, I know, you think me naive and stupid, but I don't think this is a stunt. I think it's McCain being McCain, and I think it's the right thing do to.

Fact is, what happens this week or next will have more far reaching consequences on the American people and the American way of life than whoever wins the election. This matter, simply put, is more important. I applaud McCain, and I hope Obama joins him. They will get to debate plenty enough in due time.

I understand Obama's supporters taking this as a stunt and it does not bother me that he does. The way things are I would be wary too. I just don't think it is. The President's proposal is dead in the water. This is time for a a bipartisan compromise where each side sacrifices some of its principles and where each side gets some of what it wants.

McCain says...

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

I think it is a good idea. Give Obama the election for all I care. This is simply massively significant and important, more so even than the election.

I'm So Tired

Ideologues on the right and left feed the worst in our civic selves. Neither the ideological left nor the ideological right represent the American people.

When it comes down to it I don't think that it is really principle per se that keeps our congress from working together and addressing problems in a pragmatic manner which gives neither side all it wants but gives both sides something. So what is it? Pride? Power? Money?

The US Congress disgusts me.

I want a pragmatic solution oriented compromise-able Congress with a pragmatic solution oriented compromise-able President.

I can't think of any issue where a pragmatic working spirit of compromise would not bring progress as compared to where we are today on that issue. I wish a spirit of consensus could sweep over our national leadership, and the party system would crumble. It just does not work. It isn't essential to our form of government or our constitution but it is entrenched. It really pretty much totally sucks.

Bill Clinton was a pragmatist. He loved Bill Clinton, and his self love drove him to do many things that were in our national interest. I think George Bush was or would have been a pragmatist. But his presidency got hijacked by the neo-cons who brought out the worse side of Bush, and using him they tried to impose their ideology upon a country they did not represent. Had Bush started out with a Democratic congress I think he would have been a much better president.

We can blame our problems on the military-industrial complex, on Wall Street, on corporate greed, on unions, on special interests, lobbyists, or whatever. Eventually we get what we want and deserve. We have power that we won't use.

Right now, as I see things, the American people are dividing out as usual, falling behind their guy or gal, pushing for their party's vision as opposed to the other party's vision, enjoying media and blogging slander of the opponent, and pretty much just supporting and continuing the pattern that does not and will not work.

Until the American people themselves reject the system as it stands things will not get better.

It's time for another American Revolution, a revolution against the two party system, a rejection of the status quo, a rejection which will be evidenced by a massive turnover of our elected representatives.

Until then I just pray for divided government, whoever is President. Divided government in the form we are familiar may not get much done but it does force us toward the middle.

I think Obama is going to win. The left will over reach, the right will win back the House, and we'll pay the same old game all over again.

John Lennon comes to mind:

I'm so tired....

I Have Seen the Enemy - And, Yes, It Is Us Too

I have had several conversations in the last few days trying to understand the current financial crisis and its relationship to the housing crisis of the last year or more. It is clear to me that aspects of this issue are simply beyond my understanding at this time, but I am trying. Given the Congress' decision to adjourn it seems it may be beyond its understanding as well.

It seems that a part of the problem lies with an earnest desire on the part of well meaning folks to see more and more people own their own homes. But beyond that it just seems that banks and mortgage companies pushed too hard, and handed out too many risky loans, and that when this problem became such that could impact everyone in a significant manner, there was no adequate watchdog, whether that watchdog be the media or the government.

And from what I can tell it seems like the government simply has to establish some regulatory boundaries or set up some tripwires so that we can all know when we're close to the edge of such a crisis again.

Having said all that, what has been on my mind the last few days is the role that American home buyers have played in this crisis. It seems everyone is pointing his or her finger at the congress, the President, the regulatory agencies, the bank executives, and all sorts of other nefarious people and entitries, but to some degree we should also be pointing our fingers at ourselves.

There being so many people who give lip service to Jesus, or who don't really believe in Him as Son of God, yet like to quote the Sermon on the Mount as their personal ethic, try this on for size: "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

Without countless ordinary american people signing on to risky and presumptuous loans we would not be in this mess. And to blame the whole thing on the government or on corporate executives is a failure to accept personal responsibility.

Years ago when we were trying to move so as to keep our kids in the NW Guilford school district (we eneded up being able to without moving due to a grandfatehr clause), I talked to various banks and lending institutions. I was appalled, APPALLED, at the loans that these banks were happy to extend to me. It would have been foolhardy in the extreme for me to take on one of those loans, and it was foolhardy for them to offer them to me. Oh yeah, they had all their little tricks of variable rates and such to draw me in. And sure, I could have done it, and then had no money for anything else.

In my own opinion a fair amount of greed and presumption on the part of the American people has also driven us into this crisis. The greed is the craving for bigger and better - in this case housing. The presumption is the idea that house prices would forever appreciate.

I know, some of the peopel defaulting are first time homeowners just trying to own a house. In many cases family crisis, job loss, and divorce has excerbated the problem on the personal level. Many people have defaulted on perfecrtly resonable loans due to such circumstances.

And I can hardly fault peopel for wanting to own their own home (though the merits of home ownership may be overrated).

But way too many risky loans were peddled to people who had no business accepting them - lower income people AND higher income people alike. In the latter case, in my judgment, greed, the need to say that one lives in such and such a neighborhood, covetousness for bigger and better, drove people into outright foolish financial committments.

I keep wondering, "Why weren't bells ringing or red flags waving?"

So before we chastise George Bush, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, John McCain or whomever else, maybe we should all as citizens take a deep breath and look at ourselves. We're over extended. Our personal debt is too high. In too many cases we have bought what we don't need with money we don't have. What is it it that has driven so many of us into risky, unwise, and in all too many cases, downright foolish financial decisions? Do we the people bear no blame?

I think we do.

Jews Invade GSO

I was scanning we101 to see what I'd missed the last few days when I came across this blog title, "Christians Invade GBO." Fec's a funny guy, so I read it. He makes me laugh even when he is very nasty. I even thought his comments on the Christian tour bus were funny:

"I spent the afternoon doing chores so boring as to be indescribable. My diabetes meds and lack of food gave me the shakes, so I ran over to McDonald’s on HP Road for a burger. As I arrived in the drive-thru lane, I noticed two large Christian Tour buses in the parking lot. The sadly dressed occupants were wandering around like rejects from a bad George Romero movie. Actually, I’m not aware of any good Romero movies, but that’s not the point. The good people of GSO should not have to put up with such people in our public places. Don’t they have churches or something for these extremely stupid and unattractive people, except for one scrumptious thing who is, undoubtedly, on her last Christian Tour? I was not aware the McD’s on HP Road was a shrine. They almost ruined my appetite."

Now it's no skin of my nose really, but I did wonder....suppose we substituted "Jews" for "Christians" in the post. I have no doubt that Jewish people do bus tours too. They probably even stop to eat, well, somewhere.

Imagine reading:

"Don’t they have synagogues or something for these extremely stupid and unattractive people, except for one scrumptious thing who is, undoubtedly, on her last Jewish Tour? I was not aware the McD’s on HP Road was a shrine. They almost ruined my appetite."

My guess is if I wrote an article entitled "Jews Invade Greensboro" I'd be roundly condemned. I would called hateful and many other awful things.

But Fec didn't get of that. So why not?

These double standards reveal much about us. And they should bother all of us.

Contentent Equals Recession

Well, any day now I should get my tax relief check. I don’t begrudge the people who hatched this plan though it seems very shallow and superficial. Mine will go right into paying off a small part of a line of credit. Sorry, no economic stimulus from me.

This whole “economic stimulus package” deal has brought back into my mind one of my greatest disappointments with the present administration, which really is a disappointment with our culture, and points to one reason that it is in decline.

When, after 9/11 we were exhorted as “patriots” not to let the terrorists cause us to be afraid or to change our way of life, and instead show them how undeterred we were and go "shop until we drop," well, my heart sank. Here, in the face of what I believe was a real war and a real enemy, we’re challenged not to sacrifice or volunteer but to shop. Well, it trivialized the whole deal.

As a Christian pastor I have often said to my congregation that if Christians in the United States were to hear and listen to their own Scriptures the nation would almost certainly enter into recession. Our economy is built upon the foundational principle of normal everyday people being discontent with what they have and thus spending money on what they don’t need.

What if, I wonder, those who profess to be Christians really listened to and heeded words such as the following:

“Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you’” (Hebrew 13:5).

“Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs” (I Timothy 6:6-10).

"Therefore, do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?" For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you" (Matthew 6:31-33)

So imagine people refusing to buy what they don’t need, keeping things longer without upgrading or trading in, living on less, doing without, living in smaller houses, driving smaller cars, God forbid, not even having the full cable package, and, gasp, even saving some money and having more money to give away to others in need. The economy would tank.

But in the end we would be stronger and better off I think. I'm tired of the trivialization of life by those who profit by creating a sense of discontentedness, these drug dealers and pushers selling the rush that comes with imagining and buying shiny new things.

Enough is enough already.

I think we the American people, despite the growing demand for oil in China and India, could impact the price of oil by buying less of it. But we’re drunk on it. We can’t stop. We scream and yell at the big bad oil companies, and maybe they are, but we can’t let ourselves off the hook. We the people have power if we would use it. We could buy less.

We scream and yell at the big bad mortgage companies and banks for letting us borrow more than we should. Well, we don’t have to borrow to the limit of what we are allowed by the banks. They tell me I could afford a $350,000 house. Are you kidding? Are they crazy?

I don’t know much about monetary policy but I would imagine that our dollar would be stronger if we all saved more money and borrowed less.

I am one of those folks right in the economic “class” that Barach Obama likes to talk about. Even doing pretty well I have a bunch of kids and we have incurred a lot of medical debt. I am thankful I have insurance or we’d be really sunk. I realize that when it comes to medical policy normal supply and demand rules don’t apply, since the doctors and insurance companies in some ways both control supply and dictate demand. But even here we the people are not helpless. If we got serious about how we’re killing ourselves with obesity and tobacco and sugar and lack of exercise, and if we ourselves took more responsibility for preventative care, we could take back some power in the supply/demand monopoly held by the power brokers of the medical world.

And back to contentment. There is a joy that comes with living within one’s means, a great sense of satisfaction. We’ve lost that joy. We need to reclaim it.

We’re not lab rats and Pavlovian dogs. We don’t have to say “how high” when the merchants of discontent say “jump.” We need to tell them to go to hell.

We the ordinary American people have power; let’s use it. We control more than meets the eye. Let’s tell Madison Avenue where to stick it and start living like we are responsible and free moral agents.

I know, we the people can’t by ourselves allocate billions of dollars for R&D for alternative energy. We can't build refineries. We can't do a lot of things. There are things only elected officials can do. But we can send pretty powerful signals, not just by words and votes, but even more perhaps by actions.

When patriotism is reduced to “shopping” we’re in deep trouble. Enough is enough. Let’s give ourselves a bitter pill of a good recession on purpose. We’ll get through it. On the other side we’ll be stronger if in fact we have taken back more power and responsibility.

So, damn the torpedoes, let's swallow the bitter pill together. We'll be better off in the long run.

Those Pesky Bonds

I don’t get to vote in the primaries (being neither Republican or Democrat) but I do get to vote on the bond issues. I’ve been thinking about them for weeks, going back and forth in my mind. There was a time when I approved almost all local bond referendums. The slight increase in taxes didn’t impact me much, and I figured that the local leaders knew what we needed. Well, things are different now.

Here's what I think I am going to do. Feel free to try to change my mind!

1. Parks and Recreation (20.2 million). In terms of bang for the buck I think Parks and Recreation dollars serve the public good more than most other items that appear on bond issues, and I think the particular projects in this bond issue are worth the relatively small price tag. I vote yes.

2. Guilford County Jail (114 million). I am all for more people downtown :-) and I am sympathetic to the plight of folks having to bunk in hallways, but I am not convinced either that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, that the reason not to renovate has been adequately made clear, or that the impact on downtown parking and ongoing upkeep costs have been fully explained. I wonder too if the entire governmental complex needs a makeover. It is so ugly it is a blight upon a downtown makign a great comeback. I am hesitant on this, but for now, I vote no.

3. GTCC (79.5 million). I think GTCC holds many keys to the success of our area. Both our public schools and our colleges and universities are failing to provide the technical education needed for so many in our area to have the skills needed for decent jobs, and for us to be able to provide skilled workers for a growing and changing economy. I vote yes.

4. Guilford County Schools (412 million). I know of little else other than police and fire protection, and building and highway safety that is more important for a local government to provide than quality education for its citizen’s children. I am a huge advocate of a strong public school system, and the need for quality education for our children, especially in reading. Yet I find it ironic that a project deemed so necessary for our children will burden them with so much debt down the line. Personally, if we had to invest 412 million dollars in our schools I would put it elsewhere than in brick and mortar. In the end, good teachers, good curriculum, and good parent-school communication, and not nice buildings, are the most important things. I taught public school for five years myself. I think I was in five different rooms of greatly varying quality!

The quality of the room or facility was way less important than my knowledge of and love for the subject, my creativity, and my interest in, indeed my earnest care for the students. For me, the bottom line is that I do not trust our school board or central office to allocate and spend our bond money in an efficient and effective manner. Perhaps it is Terry Grier hangover. And we know the way the system works that this 412 million can easily become much greater, and we also know that plans can change and we may not get what we approve anyway. Until we somehow break the stranglehold that the great triumvirate (the teachers “union” – even if it isn’t really, the college education departments, and the local school districts have over teacher certification, until we shake off “One Child Left Behind” which has killed teacher creativity and morale, until we start paying teachers as if we really think what they do is significant, until we stop doing stupid stuff to boost the reputation of our superintendents rather than the well being of our students (like making students take AP classes), and until we offer more and better schooling options for families in the most ill served areas, I won’t approve any more large school bond referendums. I vote no.

5. Eastern High school (45 million). I can’t see 45 mil for a high school, and why it is that we do not have our major infrastructure facilities insured at replacement cost I have no clue, but the folks in the eastern part of our county need a new high school – it’s not their fault they are without a school building, and rented facilities will only work for so long. With suspicion about the cost, I vote yes.

Charles Barkley Is Stupid (Can I Say That)

I am not one to lump together Christians and Republicans, or necessarily even Christians and conservatives, since "conservative" covers all kinds of views about all kinds of things...

Having, said that, what Charles Barkley said is just stupid.

Based on the fact that many conservatives, and many Christians, whom he simply lumps together, are opposed to abortion and gay marriage, he says that they are fake Christians, because, as we all know, Jesus says we aren't to judge. Barkley goes on to say that he is for abortion and for gay marriage.

Since he said that "we are not to judge," and also says he is for gay marriage, does he think that gay marriage is wrong, but it's not his place to judge it. I'm confused.

But to the the main point. In fact, Christians (or non Christians - there are many atheists who oppose abortion) don't oppose abortion because they are being judgmental in any negative sense. They oppose abortion because they believe that children in the womb are human beings and that it is not our place to kill them. Being pro-life is not a matter of being "judgmental" at all. Well, except that we judge the lives of the unborn to be precious and significant.

Christians (or non Christians) who oppose gay marriage aren't being judgmental either regarding the public policy matter of gay marriage. According to Barkley's logic I think it would be "judgmental," and therefore wrong, to oppose any sort of marriage arrangement between consenting adults. I wonder, are there any marital arrangements that he would, in judgment, oppose? I suspect that there are.

Again, the issue of marriage per se, legally, is something that comes under the jurisdiction of the civil authority. We're talking public policy here, not private attitudes towards our neighbors.

There is truth to the notion that Christians are not to judge those outside of the faith. The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in 1 Corinthians 5. Specifically he is talking about Christians who are "not associating" with people outside the faith who are "sexually immoral people...or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." There are many Christians who really need to take those words to heart (I just made a judgment - oh my!).

There is an appropriate judgment that is to take place inside the faith. Paul made one about Christians failing to associate with non Christians for the reasons cited above.

Yes, we as Christians are all "in progress" but we're all in progress towards a serious goal of holiness and Christlikeness and honesty and purity and love and goodness. We are called over and over, not just to forgive, but to exhort, to encourage, to admonish if necessary, so that we won't be deceived and dragged down by the enemy of our souls, whom we believe to be real. We are to bear one another's burdens when we fall, and when we fail, and we are to be careful not to be haughty, and to realize that we are each and every one weak and prone to fall. . It's a serious business being a Christian, and no walk in the park.

But of course we together in community as Christians have to exercise judgments of all kinds. In fact, Barkley himself brings out one of the judgments we are to make. For example, I think we are to make a judgment as to whether people are being unduly judgmental. How can we call a person on being judgmental without making a judgment about his being judgmental? But mere "making judgments" is not the point of Jesus' words about judgment anyway. He makes clear what he means. He does not want us as Christians to be going around looking for the faults in others while not considering our own faults. We are to have a much greater concern about our own sin than the sin of others. We are not to be proud or holier-than-thou or look down upon others.

We cannot be asked to forgive if there is not something to forgive, if there is not an offense. But again, Jesus there is talking more about sins committed by one person against another. I think he said something about forgiving 7 times 7 times, or was it 70 times 7? I forget.

But none of this has anything to do with public policy. It IS the role of the civil authority to judge, to bring justice, to establish laws and to enforce them. In a representative democracy, we the people (for better or for worse) are part of that process of making laws and enforcing them. We vote. We speak freely. We even make judgments about public officials. Well, at least bloggers do that, and news people, and talk show hosts, and Hollywood personalities.

In effect, we as Christians wear two hats, the private Christian person hat, and the public policy participant hat. Sometimes the hats get confused. Barkley and others need to understand this. How we view the issue of abortion is not the same as how we think or feel or act personally toward those who are pregnant and in need. How we view the issue of gay marriage is not the same thing as how we treat, act toward, and deal with our gay neighbors.

I think Barkley was being terribly judgmental in what he said. I am SO deeply offended.

Maybe I shouldn't say "Charles Barkley is stupid." I'll try to remember to change that title sometime. Sounds kind of judgmental.

And may God help the good people of Alabama.

Evolution and Racial Variety

There is an interesting article in The Independent today regarding comments by the famous Dr. Watson (of Watson and Crick fame) regarding differences in intelligence between African and other peoples.

I am not writing to defend his conclusions, and I doubt them to be true. I am writing to illustrate the intellectual pickle in which proponents of evolutionary theory find themselves.

Dr. Watson writes:

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

He is exactly correct, and this is indeed the huge elephant in the evolutionary room that no one seems capable of addressing. If we embrace the evolutionary origins of human beings, we are left having to conclude exactly the principle Dr. Watson concludes. We cannot have our evolutionary cake and eat it too. It is absolutely possible, given the assumptions of evolutionary theory, that such intellectual or other variations could exist across the diverse variety within our human species, much as they exist across other species. And to say so does not make Dr. Watson or anyone else a racist. In fact, to embrace evolutionary theory regarding human origins you pretty much HAVE to agree with the principle stated above, or you are letting your personal moral or political sensitivities override the principles of the science you embrace. And you are revealing fundamental ignorance regarding evolutionary theory.

If scientific research proves that it isn’t in fact the case that such variations exist, it still does not undermine the possibility that such variations could exist. But the politically correct powers that be will destroy anybody whose science leads them to that conclusion.

As for me, I rest in the fact that all human beings of every race and gender were created in the image of God and find their fundamental equality in that reality.

Ultimately, given time, after the truth of God-given human equality has had opportunity to overcome sin-based prejudices (even amongst "Christian” peoples), this age old Judeo Christian view of human origins will provide the principles that will lead to policies of equality. On the other hand, if our politics find grounding in principles of evolutionary understandings of human origins (which must require or teach no principle of equality whatsoever), eventually some sort of race-based differential of policy will result. At the present moment, culture wide, our human equality assumptions are invalid to the extent that they are rooted in evolutionary principles.

There was another side item in the article on Dr. Watson. As the article said:

“In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual."

I mean, the hypocrisy and inconsistency behind the objections to this comment are too numerous to mention. So, we can abort a healthy child for any reason, and that is not objectionable? We can abort a child because it is not of the preferred gender (and studies have shown conclusively that the vast majority of abortions done due to gender have resulted in the abortion of female babies) but not because of predicted or supposed sexual preference? We can abort children for being imperfectly formed? That is the most terrible reason of all.

So, predicted sexual preference above and beyond all others is the one reason we can’t abort a child. Talking about unusual and exceptional rights given to one sub group of the society. Wow. Now THAT’S discrimination!

By the way, I don’t think we should abort children for any of these reasons, because I believe that all children, whatever their race, gender or predicted sexual preference, are human beings made in the image of God.

I'm Voting for Billy

Billy, when you get enough money for signs, give me one, or sell me one.

I think a Billy Jones candidacy would juice up these local elections quite nicely.

Billy, I can already see you on channel 13! You would would be WAY more fun to watch than Mr. Holliday, or Yvonne Johnson.

For the Children's Sake

Betty Ruffin wrote in a letter to the News and Record today a piece called Preserve Haw River Park for Our Children's Sake.

She cites Richard Louv’s book "Last Child in the Woods, Saving our Children from Nature Deficit-Disorder" as on of the reasons to protect the open space/integrity of the Haw River State Park.

Louv is right; his book is dead on. Ruffin is right; the rubber meets the road with issues like Haw River State Park.

Without quoting or even thinking about Louv’s book, I made a similar argument in my letter to the County Commissioners. One can belittle the “for the children’s sake” argument, but preserving and protecting the few remaining pieces of open land and good forest that we have is something we can and should do for our children, and for their children.

A Gore Candidacy?

I don’t see it. Why ruin the luster of a Nobel Peace Prize with the down in the dirt messiness of what may well be an ill fated presidential campaign? And would Gore really add much to the implementation of policy consistent to his own cherished climate change views, compared to what may come from a Clinton or Obama presidency? I don’t see it. He has his place in history now. Were I he, I would use the credibility and heightened status of a Nobel Prize to rise above the fray and be an international statesman for the issue. To enter the campaign to me would smell of opportunism, and would cast a shadow upon the sincerity of his climate change work.

I may be one of a small minority who may wonder, "Why a “peace” prize?" It is only speculation at this point as to how much global warming may impact world peace, and it is also only speculation as to whether any policies we may endorse will impact the warming trend anyway, not only because we are not sure of the level to which human caused CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming, but also we not sure how much they can be significantly reversed no matter what we do, particularly given China and India's industrial growth.

Either way, and being sympathetic to Gore for the sake of argument, I think his status as a Nobel Prize winner gives him more impact in the world if he is outside of American presidential politics, maybe a role not unlike that of Bono.