It’s also a time to regroup and learn how to better articulate the principals that we believe in. Many Americans believe that socialist policies are the “change” that we need. As the opposition, we need to hope for the best in this country. We also need to learn how to better articulate our belief that the free market, while not perfect, is a better way to choose how to distribute wealth than the government. We need to better communicate that it is more important to give of your own money freely to those in need than to have the government force you to give to those whom they deem is in need. We need to reaffirm our belief that America is not strong without a strong national defense. We need to protect those living souls who cannot speak for themselves.
Obama has connected with many people because he offers solutions to problems that Republicans have not offered quality solutions to. While we may believe that those solutions are not the right way, we need to recognize that issues that Republicans have ignored are important and we need to offer the conservative’s solution to those problems. The next 4 years are a time for us to participate, regroup, and learn.
]]>I began to think about my own journey of faith and the points along the way that form the bedrock of the faith I have today…
I was born in Guatemala as a missionary kid in the primitive Mam indian tribe. My first real memories, though, were in the San Diego area where my dad was a pastor for 20 years. You could say I was born into faith since I accepted that God exists and the message of Christianity since I can remember. I never really went through a period of rebellion from that belief. That’s because of a miracle that I experienced. When I was 14 I began to struggle with serious depression. Not many people knew that I suffered silently and deeply with thoughts that I was completely worthless and should consider ending my own life. About two years later, I was in the mountains and I could bare it no longer. I went for a hike and I ran to the top of the highest ridge around screaming at God. Finally I sat down on some rocks on a hillside and I gave up my anger and softly asked God, “if you can do anything with me, do it, I give up.”
Exhausted, I laid down. Using my Bible that I had pulled from my pocket as a pillow, I fell asleep. When I awoke, I opened my Bible to a random spot and I read the first words on the page:
I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loves me and delivered himself up for me. (Gal 2:20)
I’m sure I had read the verse dozens of times and even memorized it with a song. I understood it in a new way, though. That day, God was speaking to me telling me, “yes, you are right. In the eyes of humanity, you are not worth much. You are weak, small, poorly spoken, unathletic, and unattractive. But I have made you for other purposes and when you have died to yourself, you will live for me.” I received the same call that Peter received when he was on the shore with his boat and his nets — “follow me”, and I answered.
My depression was gone. I was to struggle with it from time to time in the next few years, but it never had a hold in me as it had before that day. Of course, I would love to say that I have been a saint since then, but it has been a cycle of following God and periods of disinterest in God. There have been long stretches of my life when I have largely ignored God. I have had a few experiences, though, since then that have deepened my faith.
The summer before I started college, I spent 6 weeks teaching English in Uzbekistan. While I was there, I was meeting students and building relationships with those who might have a deeper interest in God. After the soviet era, atheism is the norm there and freedom of religion is a foreign concept. Churches have to register with the state and get routinely shut down as soon as they grow to a hundred members or so. Our phones were tapped and KGB plants were students in our classes. We were even hauled in to the police station for questioning on one occasion. It was a very difficult time and I wondered if there was any point in my being there. Near the end of my time, a student pulled me aside and told me so much of her life story that it made me uncomfortable. She had been molested by a teacher when she was young and it drove her into a pattern of sleeping with older men. She was consumed by it and though she felt bad and had wanted to escape, she couldn’t. She told me that after seeing my faith, she completely gave up and asked God to rescue her. She told me that this had happened near the beginning of my time there and she had been freed from her self-loathing and addiction to sex. She has since focused her life on reaching out to atheistic students in a country that severely persecutes any form of proselytism.
A few years later I spent 4 months in France as an art student. I had been studying french for 8 years and it was a delight to finally learn to speak French in-context. I hadn’t anticipated how difficult it would be to live with the other students there, though. Everyone was there for different reasons, but most were escaping a life back home and were jaded and angry. Few of my classmates ever wanted to leave our building which had a restaurant inside. It was party-time for them. I was not going to waste the opportunity to dive into the art, culture, and language so I found myself largely alone most days. In my distress, I learned to pray in a way that I hadn’t before. I began to pray for 1/2 hour, one hour, sometimes two hours at a time. I began to converse with God — sharing my thoughts and struggles and then listening for His response.
One night after about 2 hours in prayer, I began to pray for the other students. There was one in particular that I avoided. I remember meeting her at orientation and sensing deep anger. I remember saying to myself that I wouldn’t be spending much time with her. As I prayed for practically every student but her, I heard God speak to me so clearly that it may as well have been an audible voice: “Talk to Amy about me.”
“No,” I said, “she’s too angry, she’ll never listen.”
“Talk to her”
“What am I supposed to say? I never talk to her?”
“Talk to her”
I got frustrated, said my “amen” and walked down to the cafe for some food. When I came back up to my room I couldn’t believe my eyes. Amy was sitting on the ground with her back leaning against my door smoking a cigarette. Of course I remembered my earlier conversation but I still had no idea what to do or say. What could I do? She was leaning against my door.
“How’s it going Amy?”
“You’re a christian right?”
“yyyeah.”
“What do you think happens to people when they die that never have a chance to hear anything about Jesus?”
We spoke for over an hour as Amy shared with me that she had gone to church when she was younger but was treated very badly by her parents. She told me that she had so much anger in her heart and she didn’t know what to do. I simply shared with her some of my story that I’m sharing in this post. Our conversation ended with her in tears thanking me for being open with her. A few days later, she told me that she had prayed for the first time in a long time and asked God to take her anger away and had felt rejuvenated.
The most significant faith-building experiences in the last several years have come during my trips to Nepal. My wife and I got involved there in early 2006 when we were headed to India, via Kathmandu. The government collapsed while we were there and the phones, internet, newspapers, television, and air-travel were shut down by the king who put all of the senators in prison. It was an opportunity to shift our attention to the plight of Nepal and we felt God asking us to stay there and come back there. Spending time with Christians there, I realized that the Christianity in America is lightweight. When we read about Jesus promising persecution, we take it to mean that our bank account might run a little thin at times or we may get some sneers at work if people find out we go to church. In Nepal, persecution means prison or death. Udaya, a man with whom I have become close friends, was imprisoned for his faith. I also found that, for some reason, God seems to work startling miracles there on a regular basis. I’ve met many Christians and only a few did not come to Christian faith by way of a miracle.
It was at a temple in Kathmandu that I saw a demon-possessed boy. I doubt I could even describe it well, but it was so clear that demons speaking through this boy. He was following a group of us around the temple, as we walked away from him. He was screaming the most agonizing, angry screams I have ever heard. Mid-scream he would switch to raucous laughter that made him double over and grab his stomach. Then, with no transition, he would switch back to angry screaming. I’ve never been someone who thinks much of any world but the physical world. I’m not someone who sees a demon behind every rock. That day, though, I knew that there was a spiritual realm apart from the physical realm.
On this trip, we had planned to help out an orphanage by planting a lawn in the front yard. I’ve put down sod before so I figured it would be a few hours and we would be on our way. I didn’t know that the soil is the most hard, clumpy, clay soil and the sod was really 1 ft x 1 ft tiles of grass. In order to make any kind of a decent lawn that these kids could play on, we were going to have to level and pulverize this field with no power tools. The Nepalis have a strange system of dual-shoveling where one person wields the shovel while the other pulls it down with a rope attached to the handle. A guy came to help that seemed to be in his early 20’s. I don’t speak the language so I didn’t really know what he was doing there, but I didn’t refuse the help. We tried to communicate through hand motions and smiles, but we gave that up after a while and worked for several hours in silence.
A year and a half later, on my third trip to Nepal, I met that young man again. He had, had a difficult life and knew Udaya, who runs the orphanage. Udaya was attempting to convince him to leave Hinduism and try Christianity. The man told me that after spending those few hours working with me and seeing the way that the other Christians and I treated each other, he decided to become a Christian. He had just taken his medical exams and was awaiting confirmation that he was a medical doctor. The prospects for doctors is pretty bad in Nepal and almost all doctors with training go to India or other countries to establish their practice. He, however, was going to go to the poorest tribes in Nepal to help with the squalid conditions. What had I done to influence this man but dig with a shovel?
I could share more stories from my life and I’m sure many others could add comments to this post (and I hope you do) with other stories of faith. My point is that faith is not built on head knowledge of Christianity or theology or some tract. Faith is built on experience with God.
I’ve also learned that God does what he wants. There is no recipe for finding him and no common path that all must walk. Our only path to God is walking the path of humanity and attempting to seek God out. When God chooses, he will reveal Himself to us.
When I begin to doubt things I believe or question the evils of the world, I have experience with God to fall back on. I have the faith of others who share their stories. I have the faith of my wife and the innocence of my Children to remind me that God is there. I don’t understand what he’s doing and I wrestle with injustices in the world but I believe in a merciful God who is mysterious and too complex to comprehend.
The skeptic or the over-thinking mind can call me foolish or tell me things to dissuade me from believing in God. I try to consider everything that is presented to me with an open mind. But I can’t imagine a fact or a theory so convincing that it would cause me to abandon the powerful experiences that I have had with God over my 32 years of life.
]]>My brother, Dan, brought up Ben Franklin. Now here was an amazing debater. He had a policy of not disagreeing with anyone and, yet, he was somehow extremely adept at convincing people. He drove his friends crazy because sometimes he would even argue and convince someone of a point that he didn’t even agree with. Franklin established a club called Junto who’s aim was to debate questions of morals, politics, ethics, and other issues that would better the collective members. Eventually, Franklin banned any affirmation or disagreement with a point made.
My point is not that I need to be better at convincing people, but that everyone should be better at discourse. People jump to angry and foolish remarks when they don’t have a deeper grasp of the issues they’re talking about. We should not be expected to economists, scientists, theologians, and diplomats all at the same time, but we should humbly recognize where our knowledge falls short.
Debate and discourse takes practice and most of us don’t have a forum to practice. But all of us have circles of influence where we can have real conversations about issues. If you want to be better at discourse, I suggest the following:
Do you agree with me? I’d love to see comments on this post.
]]>For those who think that oil companies are unfairly making profits, get out and make some money yourself. This country was not founded on equality of circumstances. That country was the Soviet Union. It would be nice to have everyone in this country be wealthy. The problem with that goal is that as long as one person has more money than another, there will be class envy.
In the late 1700’s, there was an economist who began to wonder what it is that makes some nations wealthier than other nations. Why do some countries seem to flourish while others are perpetually in poverty? He was not asking about fairness or pondering the issues of inequality. He was wondering what made countries wealthy. One of his main observations was that countries that do well have a “meritocracy” instead of an “aristocracy”. America was the first country to truly take Adam Smith’s principles to heart when setting up the economy. The idea of meritocracy means that we provide an environment where people can make of themselves what they wish. We have not done a perfect job of that, but we have done a far better job than any country that has ever existed.
Meritocracy means that some people make more money than others. Having other people make more money… lots of money is very important to our economy. The economy can be difficult to understand but if there were one thing that I wish I could make the rest of the middle class understand is that we are NOT the economic engine of this country. We gain, heavily, because the rich pay most of the taxes and pay our salaries. I know it doesn’t seem “fair”, but we gain a lot from the wealthy.
It’s wishful thinking to hope that by sticking it to the oil companies, we will see gas prices go down. Business executives are paid to protect the profits of their companies. If they see an increase in expenses in the form of windfall profit taxes, they are not going to simply eat up those profits. They have an obligation to their shareholders to keep profits steady. In that case, gas prices will go up. I think this is a classic example of how Obama and the far left are going to hurt the American people under the guise of “fairness”. If we are so focused on equalizing and redistributing wealth in this country, we will end up lowering the standard of living of everyone including ourselves.
]]>My friend, Brandon, suggests that science or making determinations based on the 5 senses is flawed and what we really should be looking at is the underlying laws which govern our world. To which I respond:
I think I agree with you and disagree at the same time. I’ve not really thought of it that way before, though. What is strange about the kind of science that is looking at how the world was created, though, is that it is reversed from the way that typical science is carried out. Typically, you observe something, you come up with a hypothesis, and then you test that hypothesis. When you are considering how the world began, you have to make an imaginative leap and then hope that someone will discover something that proves you right. That imaginative leap isn’t a wild guess, though, it comes from a mind that can know all the facts and have an intimate understanding of the way things work (the “laws” that Brandon referred to). I am absolutely in awe of the observations that Einstein made about light, space, and time. He was a brilliant physicist who spend a lifetime pondering these things.
That’s why I don’t have as much of a distinction between science and religion as evangelicals do. I have a much more integrated view of the world. I try to imagine (a futile effort, I admit) how an all-knowing, all-powerful God could have created the universe. I think about the creation account in Genesis 1 and wonder what it would have actually looked like and what scientific thought might have to say about that. I marvel at the way the universe works and wonder what kind of God would have created it?
You have the typical evangelical 6-day creation which assumes that things went from nothing to looking a lot like today with less buildings very quickly. This view requires you to believe that God created a world in a manner that contrasted the very laws that governed our world. Could we have a working atmosphere without the sun and the moon? When there were no stars, was our solar system not in gravitational balance with any other objects in the universe? When there was no day and night, was the earth not spinning? Was there excess water on the earth that disappeared from our atmosphere when the waters receded? You almost have to throw out everything except the text itself if you’re going to subscribe to this understanding of creation.
I don’t exactly know how the universe was formed, but I have to say that it seems much more plausible that God would have created everything that governs our universe first. Modern science assumes that the laws that govern our universe have always been while evangelicals assume that God worked outside the laws he set up — which of course could be if he is God. You do run into the “can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it” kind of question here, but I am not going to get into that. It seems more consistent that God would have all the matter in the universe set up — with all the laws that govern the universe in tact. In one, single, moment of creation all of the elements in the universe are formed in a matter of minutes while matter is blown forth into a rapidly expanding universe. I think the idea that God would create matter and, as such, the laws which govern our universe and then speak that process into existence makes some Christians feel like it’s somehow a “lesser” creation. In my mind, this would be so much more glorious. A God who created the heavens and the earth is certainly glorious. But a God who created magnetism, energy, gravity, atomic physics, particle attraction, and the like as a means to form and govern a universe that works to produce and earth that sustains life and, ultimately, humans with a divine nature is barely fathomable.
Of course, your response may be that just because I wish it to be true doesn’t make it so to which I would respond that just because you wish for it NOT to be true doesn’t make it unso. What we’re left with is the ability to look at everything we see around us, experience, history, scripture, feel touch, etc. in order to make our best guess about how we might have gotten here. I suppose it can seem flawed to rely on our senses except that it is the only means by which we have to reason the laws that govern everything that affects our senses. How would we know right and wrong without pain and guilt? How would we know gravity without falling? How would we know God without an intense, built-in longing to know Him? Even Christ used everyday experiences to communicate the truths of the Kingdom of God.
Of course, evolution with regards to speciation is a much more difficult concept to believe. Darwin’s theory seems to be on much shakier ground because the scientific evidence hasn’t poured in - in the way that it should have. I have to wonder how an eye, with it’s complex and dependent systems, would form with only genetic mutation to drive its formation? Even more strongly, I have to wonder why altruism, art, self-sacrifice, and the ability to act against instinct would form in humans as a result of genetic mutation? It just doesn’t add up. Christians make the mistake, however, of disavowing anything but the 6-day creation when they encounter these problems with evolution. They make the exact, same mistake that Darwinists make when they defend something that seems implausible and in no way has to be true for the sake of each sides perspective religions (I’m speaking of Christianity and Atheism as religions).
A Calvinist might read my post and think about the chaos that this kind of thinking produces. How can we have any sort of road map if we’re not sure where to roads lead? You have to have a literal, scientific interpretation of Scripture or else all of our knowledge and philosophy would descend into chaos. I am of the mind that we are already in chaos in the sense that we, despite our best efforts, don’t have a good understanding of who God is. I have come to that conclusion after years of studying the doctrines, the theologies, the philosophies, and the catch-phrases. What’s worse, is that the parts about God that we do understand, we ignore. We actually use the very systems that were designed to help us hold fast to an understanding about God to keep God at a distance.
What we know about God is that he is a mystery. What we know is that He chooses when and how to reveal himself to us. What we know is that He has revealed himself to us in scriptures, ultimately, in the life of Jesus Christ - the human form of God on earth. We should start there. The kind of life that Jesus lived and taught is more like Mother Theresa than Rick Warren (ooh, I’m definitely going to get misunderstood on that one!). I mean that for all the talk and the philosophy and the “understanding”, we are called to do simple but difficult tasks: Love God, love our neighbor, give to the poor, be kind to our enemies, don’t judge. If a person only did these 5 things, they would be so much closer to God’s intent than the straight-A seminary student (assuming the student hasn’t also mastered the commands I listed). But the systems would decry my statement saying that it’s not enough to do these things. You have to understand what you’re doing or else it doesn’t count. This attitude, in my understanding of Scripture, is not supported by Scripture. Jesus talked about faith like a child. When Jesus said it was more blessed to believe and not see, he was speaking of child-like faith. For of those who can simply obey without understanding dispensationalism or predestination or the inner-workings of the trinity, God is pleased.
Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with knowledge. I am arguing, though, against an attitude of close-mindedness of which the creation issue is just an illustration. To have set up a system of understanding which claims to have figured it all out and close the doors on new ideas or ways of looking at things is to cease to strive to know God. How can God be known? “Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” (I Cor 2:16)
God has revealed himself to us in Scripture. In this way, you could argue that we are learning apart from our senses. My two problems with that argument are as follows: 1) I don’t think we escape our senses when we read or attempt to understand scripture 2) I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to say that God hasn’t fully revealed himself to us through scripture. Why would he give us the Holy Spirit if everything was already revealed. There is more left to discover about God and that is what makes the Christian journey exciting and rewarding. God “reveals his secrets to those who love him” is one of my favorite verses in the Bible.
We should not think that we have a handle on predestination or communion or baptism, but rather be passionate in our striving to know Christ and be like Christ. If we’re wrong about a particular idea or theory then so be it, but we need to recognize that it’s highly improbably that Calvin or Wesley has figured it all out for us.
]]>I’ll start with the generalities and go into specifics. Obama sounded arrogant and condescending. He was like the professor in college everyone hated but couldn’t avoid because he was the only one teaching the required GE class unless you wanted to take it at night at the extension campus. The format had “neutral” (hand picked by the same people who bring you the same damn questions at every debate) audience members asking questions they brought while Broken-jaw read questions from Internet Users (which they still make sound like some sort of alien invaders). Obama began every question with either “well” or “look” as he were beginning an exposition on something he knows very much about and you know very little about. He pointed at people as he answered their questions. A co-worker made it clear to me that he wants a president who is “smarter” than he is. If by “smart”, he means boring, condescending, complex, and rarely getting to the point then, tonight, Obama was his president.
By contrast, McCain was personable, direct, engaging, and feisty. McCain had some great zingers. McCain would address the questioner, repeat their name in the answer and the name of previous questioners, he took command of the stage. He even touched one guy on the shoulder who put his hand out to shake McCain’s (well at least he got one more vote tonight… maybe that guy lives in Virginia or New Hampshire). His best line of the night was to bring up a quote of Senator Obama’s saying,
“I will forgo these tax increases if the economy was bad…” I’ve got some news Senator Obama, the news is bad.
Another damning response was McCain pointing out that Obama ran for Illionois State Senate saying they would have a middle income tax cut. He arrived at the senate and never once proposed legislation to do that. I just get the sense that Obama is promising anything he can to get elected. Alas, I fear the American electorate is buying it. I actually would hope that Obama as president would not follow through on his campaign promises.
McCain really seemed to own Obama on the economy. He made sure to get in a jab for every point to completely knock Obama off message.McCain articulated how disastrous Obama’s economic plan would be for the only bright spot in our economy: Small businesses. Small businesses will see severe taxation because they would fall under the “rich” category in Obama’s tax plan.
In defense of his plan, Obama made the biggest gaff for those who have any understanding of small businesses:
Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year
Please note there was a big pause between few and percent as he delivered this line. It seems clear that a “small business” in Obama’s mind is a dude in a basement selling old baseball cards on e-bay. In the rest of America, we classify small businesses as having employees from 1-250. $250,000 would only pay for 5 low to middle of the road salaries. My company brings in millions in annual revenue and we are a “small business” with less than 50 people. It’s actually only a “few percent” that would NOT be taxed under Obama’s plan. If the media is doing their job, they’re going to point this out. If America is listening they are going to be worried about this fundamental lack of economic understanding.. Another quote along the same line:
In contrast sen. McCain wants to give a 300 billion tax cut…
Yes, in contrast to Obama wanting to raise taxes. He pretends that he is giving everyone a tax break, but Obama is really raising a lot of taxes (which is why he contrasts himself with McCain tax cuts).
If you’ve got health care and probably the majority of you do…
Okay, so if we all have health care, then why such a big need to federalize the health care system? No, he says that he is taking the middle road (according to his commercials). “We’re going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums,” Obama says. “How are you going to do that?” I keep asking myself. Tonight he finally answered. Here is Obama’s two-point plan to work with your employer to lower your premiums:
I am already thinking about what I’m going to be spending the extra two dollars a month I’m going to be saving… oh wait, did he say “spend more money…”? Shoot, that actually costs more money. But who cares because I’m not paying for the extra technology. I also learned that paper forms are the reason that most medical errors occur. I’m certainly glad it’s not due to systems which over-specialize so that you get shuffled from one doctor to another and no one knows your complete medical history. I’m sure with the government in charge, that we’re going to have the finest technology that man has invented. Just look at the DMV and the other government agencies.
Children are relatively cheap to insure.
“A new energy economy will replace the computer as the economic engine for economic growth over the last couple decades”… “we can do it but we’re going to have to make an investment (more spending)”
I’m trying to figure out what it is, exactly, that will drive our economy like the computer did (I’m assuming he lumps in all computer-related technology). I have a friend who is developing wind-farms and he tells me that the Spanish and Scandinavia already own the technology market for wind technology. I would think that building an entirely new energy infrastructure will cost money not make money. Now if he’s talking about letting the private sector go crazy developing new technologies, that sounds great, but that just doesn’t seem like Obama’s style. And please, cut the hyperbole, this will not come even close to the amount that the invention of the PC did for our economy and the global economy.
McCain said very clearly and succinctly that nuclear power is the answer to our contribution to climate change. I think he’s 100% right. He pointed out that Obama has opposed building nuclear power plants and instead of refuting Obama gave his standard “no I didn’t, but that’s not the point” line.
This year’s foregin policy debate gets quickly mired down in specifics. These specifics do show a fundamental difference in the candidates, but Obama makes it difficult to distinguish with his non-sensical “Afghanistan” but not “Iraq” (neither of whom attacked us on 9/11). McCain points out that Obama is blathering his strategy all over the air-waves and showing a naivete about foreign policy. Speaking specifically about Obama announcing his intentions to invade Pakistan, McCain brought up Teddy Rosevelt’s line: “Talk softly but carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly.”
On Afghanopakistan: And speaking of invading Pakistna, that is exactly what Obama was saying he would do if Pakistan didn’t find Bin-Laden for us. How is his foreign policy any different than Bush’s? Change the country, but the same tactic still applies. At least Bush thought that Iraq had WMD’s. Obama restated his focus on Afghanistan strategy: “The war against terror began in Afghanistan and that’s where it will end.” I realize that I was in high school during Clinton’s first term and in Kindergarten during Carter’s, but I seem to remember getting attacked a few times by Islamic terrorists before 9/11. I actually don’t ever remember any attacks in Afghanistan so… I’m not really sure…Oh yes, Bin-Laden was in Afghanistan. But Obama said that he’s in the hills of North-Eastern Pakistan now so apparently the war starts in Afghanistan and the middle part is in Pakistan and then Bin-Laden must move back to Afghanistan where we kill him, pack up the Apache attack helicopters and go home. Yes, I know this is all sounding very complicated. Well, according to Obama, in the middle part, we will give even more aid to Pakistan then we are giving them now (We gave a cool, 1.6 billion last year). So if spending even more money doesn’t work (which is what Obama does when there is a problem), we will, then, invade. Obama slammed Hamid Karzai as well saying that he’s unresponsive to the needs of his people. He is really scoring points with the foreign leaders that we’ll need on our side. I’m glad he’s such a great “talker”.
Obama’s plan for Russia: Give more money to other countries. Specifically, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, and the other “former-soviet satellites”. I assume he means former-soviet countries and that’s quite a few. So we will spend more money and give more aid but we won’t be buying any more oil. At least when we were getting gas, we could drive around a pretty bad-a** looking hummer.
McCain’s foreign policy seems relatively straight-forward. He likes the surge strategy: Clear a bad area of insurgents and hold it so that the people start to live normal lives and move over to your side. Then you train their security forces and let them take over. It’s pretty tough for anyone but the most ardent leftist to see the strategy working in Iraq.
Obama’s only criticism is that McClellan said it wouldn’t work in Afghanistan. Palin dismantled that argument with ease. Obama reiterated that the surge won’t work in Afghanistan and said we have to withdraw troops and followed that statement by saying that we need to send more troops to Afghanistan. Professor, I know I’m just a student, but that doesn’t make sense to me. And sending more troops sounds surge-ish.
On Marriage: Obama says that he asks Michelle to point out things he doesn’t know. She did not look happy.
And now for the part of the evening that had me shouting at the television in anger:
If we could have stopped Rwanda… that would be something that we would have to strongly consider.
U.N. Peacekeepers were standing there watching at least 500,000 get chopped up my machetes with guns holstered and did nothing. We sat on our couches and watched it on television. That crisis showed just how little we care for other human beings on the planet. Tonight showed me just how selfish or ignorant Obama is. YES WE COULD HAVE STOPPED IT!!!! I kept shouting as Obama blathered on. We could have and we should have. We did strongly consider it. The world strongly considered it and did nothing. Hundreds of thousands died in front of us. We did nothing.
McCain was fighting for his life. Obama looked bored and ill-prepared. This reflects the polls. I just hope Obama thinks that he has this one wrapped up and coasts all the way to the finish line. I am more worried than ever about an Obama presidency and no one has even brought up Obama’s record on abortion and voting for killing babies OUTSIDE the mother’s womb.
The pundits will say that Obama did what he had to do and McCain didn’t do enough. I think if you look at this outside the context of the polls, McCain won hands down. I think other countries who hate America now will continue to hate us under Obama. For a guy who continues to run against Bush and his policies, Obama’s seem awefully similar.
]]>Let me explain why I think the vice presidential debate was as good a victory for Sarah Palin as she could have hoped. Let’s start with some strategy talk…
In such a 50/50 country, if you want to win, there are two things you can do: get some independents (only 7% of the population) and fire up your base. Sarah Palin has two key roles in McCain’s campaign:
1) Fire up the base. McCain isn’t a true conservative and conservatives haven’t really liked him all that much in the past. We are all terrified of an Obama presidency, but it’s not the same enthusiasm to dislike the other person as it is to be fired up about your candidate. Conservatives like Sarah Palin. They especially like her when the liberal media isn’t trying to make her look stupid and they can hear her without Obama-Extension-Networks get in the way.
2) Say the things McCain can’t say. Palin can point out Obama’s ties to Rezco (a corrupt Chicago slum lord), his ties to domestic terror organizations, and even remind us that he has said some pretty racist things in his books and enthusiastically attended a church pastored by a really hateful nutjob. If McCain tried to say these things, he would be labeled as a bigot running a “dirty” campaign.
This debate, politically, was about one thing: Making Sarah Palin look stupid. No one really cares about Joe Biden. He could read the phone book and Obama supporters would cheer enthusiastically because they hate Sarah Palin for not sounding “smart” enough and for being into hunting and for being attractive and for being a woman.
Sarah Palin quickly showed that she was on a whole different mission than everyone thought. The media kept talking about her being in “bootcamp” in the weeks leading up to the debate (while Biden was “practicing”) as if she was having to do all this work to sound like she knows what she is talking about. Of course, the lefties can’t and will never get over anyone who has anything but the most distinguished east coast accent so there is no convincing the elito-sexists. But conservatives found someone who represented them which we rarely get to hear. And she had absolutely no shame about her conservative views.
My absolute favorite moment in the entire campaign came when Joe Biden tried to mock her for just talking about “drill, drill, drill”. Instead of countering that, she responded, “the chant is ‘drill, baby, drill’ and my supporters chant it every time I speak because they know that we have energy resources sitting right underneath us and they want it tapped into.” I, myself, was chanting “drill baby drill” when I saw her in Golden, CO so I can vouch for the truth of her statement. Which is more than anyone can say for anything Joe Biden said.
He seemed like he was somewhere else. Like, perhaps, some bizarro world where Joe Biden hangs out at Home Depot and Obama votes for tax reductions and funding the troops. The lies Biden told are astounding and are documented in this New York Post article. But, of course, Katie Couric is not out there scheming to make Joe Biden look stupid. When she interviewed Biden, she turned it into a coaching session on how to beat Sarah Palin in the debates (I thought it was funny that Biden couldn’t remember who Russia attacked recently. Here’s a hint: They have the same name as one of those southern states where people have accents).
The left’s biggest criticism of her seems to be that she didn’t answer the questions that where asked. She actually answered the questions simply and succinctly and then used the rest of her time to give her message. What she did was masterful. From the very beginning, you can see that she was able to get Biden to take the bait of her little jabs and keep the debate focused on her issues. In her second statement, she pointed out that McCain warned about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. When Biden had the opportunity to give his message he said, “can I respond to what she said?” Then Biden gave a jab about McCain saying that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.” Palin gave a clear, concise, response and then started talking about her own record as a reformer. Several answers later, Biden was still answering Palin’s first jab. Biden kept trying to say that McCain was trying to deregulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac when he was pushing for regulation and Democrats were blocking those efforts But the truth didn’t stop Biden, he just kept right on living in his bizarro world. You go, O’biden.
What I loved, though, was the way that Palin went straight at Biden with some harsh jabs. His eyebrows overcame his botoxed forehead and shot up when she suprised him by saying, “It’s so obvious that I’m a Washington outsider, and someone who’s just not used to the way you guys operate because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war, you’re one who says, as so many politicians do, ‘I was for it before I was against it’ or vice-versa. American’s are craving that straight-talk… you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama’s military strategy…”
She also railed him for looking backwards saying, “For a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future there’s just too much finger-pointing backwards to make us believe that, that’s where you’re goin’”. He quickly responded by saying “George Bushe’s” 6 times. I also LOVED how she drove the NaPeRs crazy by saying, “nuke-you-lar”
There is one thing I would like to clear up… As much as I wish it wasn’t the case, the Middle Class is not the economic engine of America. Small businesses are the economic engine of America. Small businesses fall under the ‘wealthy’ category under Obama’s economic plan and would get taxed through the roof. Biden wouldn’t shut up about “fairness”, even saying that redistribution of wealth is the same thing as saying “fairness”.
So the media and the left did not get their wish that Sarah Palin would fall flat on her face. On the contrary, she was intelligent, composed, and fierce. To the left, this is a simple “too bad” moment. For true conservatives, however, we finally heard someone who spoke for us and that, I think, will do some good for point #1 on the strategy options: Fire up the base.
Did anyone else catch the reuse of the famous Reagan line, “there you go again”? Only Palin put her own spin on it saying, “now doggone-it there you go again, Joe,” hammering him for focusing on the past administration instead of the one he is proposing.
]]>If you want a change from our current course, then you should vote Obama. You will certainly find a change.
Let’s talk about what that change will mean…
Obama’s economic plan is to lower the taxes on 95% of working families. He’s going to pay for that tax cut by closing corporate “loopholes”. In addition, he’s going to raise payroll taxes and social security taxes on those greedy businesses who pay your salaries. That means that for every dollar I get in salary raises, my greedy employer has to pay even more money to the government. Even if my greedy company takes a pass on giving me a raise next year, I want to stick it to my company. Even if they have some job eliminations because they greedily don’t want to lose any profit, it’s worth it for the cause of sticking it to the rich fat cats. And EVEN if that company decides to move to Ireland where the taxes are more favorable towards businesses, we will sacrifice for The Cause because we support the middle class! So what if those greedy, wealthy fat-cats pay 95% of the taxes in this country that pays for roads, schools, police officers — So what if they pay for the services of our small businesses — So what if those businesses employ us and pay for our health-care… let’s stick it to those rich, greedy, SOB’s!
Those greedy investors on Wall St. and greedy employees who actually have a 401K… those greedy real estate owners who make money off charging other people rent and providing risk-free homes… they need to PAY for their greed by paying an extra 15% to the government for their greedy profit-mongering ways. If we slow investment, then we will consider it worth it because investors are GREEDY! So what if the government revenues will be down (because it’s a proven historically that raising the capital gains tax lowers government tax revenue and lowering taxes on the middle class also lowers government tax revenue), we will consider the extra national debt worth it because we have to make those greedy people who want to make money PAY! We will say NO to earning money unless the government says it’s okay for you to! Because we want the middle class to thrive! We will turn the tables on those wealthy people. They will soon wish that they were middle class and we will have showed them.
And we want to finally be loved in the world. We want to be like… like… URUGUAY! (hat tip: Dennis Prager) No one hates Uruguay and we want to be loved, too. We want to be respected in the world because we stand for openness and niceness. We want the world to know that if you are crazy and you spew forth hatred and vile threats of destruction on neighboring countries, America is your friend. We want to sit down and propose exchanges (for that is what presidents do when they “talk” with rogue nations) with terrible leaders like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Ill where we propose to give them “aid” and they propose to give up their nuclear weapons. America always holds its end of the bargain. And if these leaders lie to our faces and don’t hold up on their end of the bargain, it’s of no concern to us. For we know that deep down they are really just good people waiting to be loved (just like us). We need to pull out of conflicts when we are tired of them. When it gets too much for us, we need to send the troops home. Other countries need to know that we are not mean people. If they would just let us know their opposition to us by killing some of our soldiers, then we’ll leave. We’re not unreasonable people, we Americans. Just look at how we left in Vietnam, Mogadishu, and what we are about to do in Iraq. Other nations and terrorist groups in the world, please don’t fear us. We aren’t harmful people. We just want to be loved just like you.
And as for the earth, we want to save her. We will walk every where we go and develop new technologies where our cars will run on lollipops and candy canes. Why won’t our country wake up and realize that there are other ways of producing energy than nasty, bubbling, oil which is evil in every way? Even if the entire world is already set up to run on gasoline, if products like tupperware, makeup, lubricants are also made from oil… we don’t want to see one more drop raped from our earth because we want to run our cars off the electricity… which comes from a place far, far, away. And we want our houses and businesses to run off wind. No matter if there is no way to store this energy, we know that Obama will find a way. We don’t care if the transmission lines to transport the energy from the wind producing states in the middle of the country to the major energy consuming states on each coast will take decades and billions of dollars to build.. Obama can do it. I’m sure he can build a car with a 10 ft turbine right on top and solar panels on the blades of the turbines so that we can be free from purchasing oil from the middle east in 10 years without drilling! And no, we don’t want nuclear energy. It’s by-product is water, which seems good for the environment… but… um… I think McCain is for it and he’s EVIL so we’re sure Obama must have a good reason for pushing other less efficient technologies like wind, solar, and corn.
Everyone should vote for Obama, because a vote for Obama is a vote for change. Sure it will mean lower salaries, more job losses, encouraging businesses to move overseas, encouraging foreign investment over U.S. investment, discouraging pay raises and new hiring, and higher gas prices. But think of the benefits. The world will love us. Terrorists and evil dictators will lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya with us. France will love us.. er… oh shoot, they are already pro-American… umm.. Poland! … no wait, them to, um, Georgia… oh shoot… Sweden and Germany will love us! Iran will love us. And we will never have to worry about gas prices again because Obama is going to wave his magic wand and make the entire country run on the wind and the sun. And best of all, he’s NOT BUSH!
]]>I have also thrown out the Christianity that America has largely been pushing for the last 60 years which, I believe, is not actually Christianity at all — at least its not a very good representation of it.
As for parts of the Bible being, “optional”, I’m not sure that’s a good way to look at it. Different texts have different purposes and different ways that they should be interpreted. I know that sounds like a “choice” but it’s not an uneducated one. For example, most Christians do not interpret Revelations literally and yet they interpret the Hebrew mythology in Genesis 1 literally. God has chosen to work through the Jewish people in their history, culture, and other facets of who they are as a people. This means that their story of Creation has key points about it that God wanted to use to describe the key pieces of creation. This may sound outrageous — that God might allow an errant understanding of the story of creation in his holy scriptures. But think of the alternative. Let’s assume that Einstein and LeMaitre are correct. Does God need to provide the theorey of relativity and the history of the Universe in Genesis 1 in order to keep the scriptures from being inerrant? I think it’s much better for God to work with Mankind in its current understanding to explain the concepts of God. He chose a culture to work within to not only reveal aspects of who he is, but to transform mankind as a whole. The world is not the same because of Abraham responding to God’s call in faith and leaving the world’s only metropolis to go to a primitive (even by the day’s standards) land and begin a new culture that God would establish his values through. It’s difficult to deny that Judeo-Christian values have transformed (and continue to transform) all of humanity. Though we may choose to leave Christianity, it’s difficult to leave it behind completely because it has permeated all of modern culture to the point that Christianity is seeming like it has less to offer that’s different from the surrounding culture. But that is because Christians, fattened by a prosperous society, have lost the understanding of what Christianity is. If you read the words of Jesus absent from the burden of running everything through our theological filters, you a simple message: Love God and Love your neighbor. Though this sounds simple, Jesus showed what he meant to such an extreme that it is unpalatable even to Christians in our time. Jesus hung out with the hookers and drug dealers of his day and said that they were the only ones willing to truly listen to his message. I think he is saying the same thing in our day — the leaders of the churches, seminaries, and Christian magazines have, largely, ignored the message of Christ and focused on ancillary social and political issues.
I hope you don’t think that I’m being judgemental, for I know that faith is a personal matter and a journey that all of us must travel. I just want to provide a different perspective from someone who has wrestled with similar thoughts and feelings and frustrations and decided not to leave Christianity because “Christians” have gotten it wrong.
The “four spiritual laws” are the epitome of what our modern American Christian culture have done to Christianity. If you look at the words of Christ, more often than not he spoke of those who will be with him in heaven as those who have helped the needy. Should this be added as a 5th law? No, the Christian faith is not a “recipe”, nor is it a “relationship”. The Christian faith is a journey to understand the kind of humanity that God intended for us — not one that simply follows our animal instincts, but one that rises above Darwin’s view of humanity to show us that among all the animals on earth (ones that I believe have evolved), there is a divine component that has been imbued into humans and God wants to show us to live as humans (diving beings), not as animals.
The Church, throughout time, has resisted scientific progress — as if they are afraid that it might reveal that God does not, in fact, exist. But that is just fear and a lack of faith. The believers who have searched, honestly, for how God’s creation works and how it may have been created are heroes of my faith for me. Capernicus, Gallileo, LeMaitre, and Polkinghorne have faith in God that does not depend on a young earth or a 6-day creation. Their faith rests on something much deeper. I want a deeper faith. I want a more sacrificial life. No amount of doctrine or dogma will make me closer to the human being that God created me to be. Only faith and action will bring me there.
]]>If this election was a sitcom with McCain/Obama as some kind of odd-couple, I would say that it jumped the shark with that comment.
]]>Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time. It’s not necessary for us to think that we can only do one thing and suspend everything else.
According to a press conference that is available at www.barackobama.com, Obama claims that this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression. It would seem to me that when you have a crisis of this magnitude that the president should do focus one only one thing. Do you think President Bush was doing much else on 9/11 than dealing with the crisis at hand? And why, if this is the case, was Bush heavily criticized for doing other things when Katrina hit?
Obama and the Democrats are trying to accuse McCain of using this crisis to feign interest in solving the crisis when he really has selfish political motives behind the move. This is an accusation over motives which could never be proven. What can be proven is that McCain seems to be doing all he can to get a signed bill by Monday morning. I can’t say for sure what his motives are but I can deduce them by past actions. McCain has, on several occasions, taken action that most agree is politically unfavorable to himself. He suspended the first day of the Republican National Convention when hurricane Gustav hit. He also supported the surge when most said it would end his political career. Even if you believe that these actions were politically motivated, you have to agree that he has taken action. What Obama is doing is sitting on the sidelines and making fun of the other guy who is on the field getting dirty. This is not the actions of hope, but the useless talk of the cynic.
When defending his opposition to suspending the campaign until the bill is signed (referring specifically to suspending the debate) Obama stated that right now, debate is more important than ever. Actually, no, debating in front of the American electorate is not what we need right now. What we need right now is a signed piece of legislation and it’s time for actions, not party politics.
]]>Taxes
I couldn’t believe that David actually admitted that he wanted higher taxes. Liberals usually try to hide this fact. He showed such a fundamental lack of economic understanding. He kept saying that life was better economically during the Clinton era as if higher taxes had something to do with it. The Clinton era and the Bush era both share a grave mistake made twice on the part of investors and Wall St: It’s this phenomenon of jumping on the bandwagon of “hot” investments to the point that the amount we pay for an investment exceeds the actual return that this investment could normally provide. This was true when investors were paying over $100 a share for tech stocks from companies that had never turned a profit. It was also true when people were paying $700,000 for a townhome in California. This was also true in the 1920’s when ordinary Americans discovered the stock market and started over-paying for new technologies such as radio. Both the Clinton era and the Bush era showed us what can happen when those bubbles burst: ordinary Americans lose pensions and life savings. If David Sirota somehow attributes the growth of the bubble to higher taxes or does not recognize the grave consequences of an economic bubble, then he cannot see the big picture even when we are in the midst of the second bubble burst in the same decade.
Another fact he seems to not know or conveniently ignores is that the Bush tax cuts produced more revenue to the federal government than during the Clinton Administration. Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cut. And the rich pay a substantially higher percentage of the total tax dollars the federal government receives (which should make the fairness police happy). For more detailed info, see this report by the Heritage Foundation.
How can you cut taxes and bring in more money? Well, admittedly, this is paradoxical on the surface. But it doesn’t take too many economics courses (or just a few listens to my favorite podcast: EconTalk) to learn that the reason you actually bring in more money by cutting taxes is that you encourage more investments. By encouraging more of the activities that you tax, you end up bringing in more revenue. Supposing you have a lemonade stand and you price your lemonade at $1.00 a glass. Let’s assume that you paid 20 cents for the water, lemons, and sugar. Because of the high price of lemonade, you only sell 4 glasses in a day. How much money did you make that day? $3.20. Then the next day, you decide that $1.00 is too much for lemonade and now you charge 50 cents per glass. Now that seems like a great deal on a hot day so 30 people take you up on your lemonade. How much money have you made? $9. How could it be that you charge less for lemonade and make more money? It’s so simple that even a 10 year old could understand it.
David was trying to reframe the debate on taxes, though, into a question of fairness. Is it fair that 60% of the Bush tax cuts went to millionaires? Don’t you think more of those cuts should go to middle class citizens? Dennis had the perfect response: They are the ones that pay most of the taxes. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% of Americans. Of course they get most of the benefit from tax cuts. And tax cuts for the lower-income brackets reduced federal revenue the most of all the 2003 tax cuts. Tax cuts for the higher wage earners do more to help our economy. So, yes, David, a rising tide does raise all boats. The lower tax brackets is where Obama wants to focus all his cuts. If history is any guide, then this will likely cut revenues for the federal government. Pair this with raising taxes on the wealth producers and nearly doubling the capital gains tax (this is the tax cut that benefited the economy the most from the 2003 cuts) and you have an economic disaster on the scale of Jimmy Carter. Thanks, but no thanks.
As for me, personally, I am glad that millionaires get to keep more of the money that they earn, firstly, because I am not a vindictive or jealous person. I am glad for them. Secondly, I know that tax cuts for them means more money for me. After all, I’ll bet my boss has a lot more money in his bank account as a result of the tax cuts. The more money that he has, the more money that he has to pay me. He also spends that money on other goods & services that helps out other middle class people. The other part that seemed to be missed by both speakers is that I benefited from the 2003 tax cuts and I am not a millionaire. I make an average, middle-class salary and I received benefit by a lower tax base, child credits, and the lowering of the capital gains tax (I sold an investment property and some stock).
Race
Race, admittedly, is a more touchy subject for me. After all, I’m white. David was unfair when he looked out at the crowd and told us that we were a bunch of white people and we had no business believing that African Americans are poor because of a values problem. That comment seems to say, “you can’t disagree with me or you’re racist.” You just need to turn on the local ghetto rap station and hear the rappers talk about bitches and hoes and capping people to know that there is an issue of values here. Is it unfair of me to put this kind of music on all African Americans? Maybe, but I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that this is certainly the dominate music in the inner city. I live in a rough neighborhood and at it’s worst, all the kids were walking around wearing red and beating each other up with baseball bats. Were they this way because I’m a white, racist bigot? No, I think they are this way because their parents are drunk or drugged out on the couch all day long. I’m not really stereotyping here because these are the kids in my neighborhood and I actually know about their home lives. PLEASE don’t mistake me for saying that all African Americans have drugged out parents. I’m simply saying that it is fair to suggest that the reason that some minorities struggle while others thrive is a problem of values. Dennis pointed out that David conveniently left out Asians when describing statistics on the economic disparity between whites and minority groups. That’s because Asians do better, on average, than whites. Is that because Asians are racist towards white people? I wrote a blog post, some time ago where I wondered if Affirmative Action is good for the psyche of it’s recipients? I’m sure by even mentioning race in this blog, I’m opening up myself to be called a racist. Heck, I’m already being called a racist because I’m not going to vote for Obama. But I’m confident that better values would help minorities. Just ask the minority students that went to college, in-part, because I tutored them, helped them study for their SAT’s, and helped them navigate through the maze of college requirements. Let me just come right out and say it clearly: until African American and Hispanic children aspire to be engineers and teachers instead of thugs and football players, their situation will not improve: I don’t care how much taxpayer money you throw at them. Until African American and Hispanic leaders start crying “EDUCATION” instead of “RACISM”, they will not help the people they are speaking for. I’m sure David felt refined for accusing the mostly-white audience of bigotry for agreeing with Dennis, but he could not be farther from the truth with this audience member.
Separation of Church and State
David, you quoting scripture to me to push your own political agenda is like Obama using Hebrews 10:23 to refer to his candidacy. It’s just wrong. This is a message to everyone out there, including Christians: the Holy Scriptures are sacred, at least to many Christians in the world, so please don’t use it to push your own, earthly agendas. There are some things higher than politics. Let’s just set the record straight about Mathew 5. And, David, I will quote scripture to you.
The words that Jesus spoke on the Mount of Olives separate history into two halves. Pre and Post Sermon on the Mount. It may seem like nothing special for us to say that you should treat others better than yourselves — that you should put others first. But that is only because we have been so affected by these words. Our society is fundamentally different because of this Sermon. These words were spoken amidst a culture that invented some of the most cruel torture-techniques known to man. The concepts outlined in Mathew 5 are present in the Torah and the Old Testament but never so clearly spoken as Jesus spoke these earth-shaking words:
“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”
“Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”
“Blessed are the peace makers for they will be called sons of God”
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled”
Jesus is not talking about economics, but the spiritual condition of our hearts. Jesus is turning the tables upside down on the way that humanity has set up its order. In the kingdom of man, it’s survival of the fittest — only the strong survive. In the kingdom of God, it’s the lowliest of the low who are elevated to positions of power. Later Jesus would say, “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.” In God’s kingdom, the injustices of the world will one day be righted, not for those who oppress, but for those who are oppressed. The kingdom of God is made up of the righteous and the pure in heart. Jesus practiced what he preached by voluntarily submitting to death by one of the cruelest treatments man has dreamed up for the sake of all his past and future followers.
David, does having left-leaning political views make you righteous or make your heart pure? DON’T, David, DON’T use this absolutely profound and life-changing passage to tell me that I should support more food stamp programs or a universal health-care system. These words, when aptly pondered, should make every, single one of us fall on our face in humility to a God who shows mercy crying, “God have mercy on me, a sinner.”
The Iraq War
Did Bush lie or was he just mistaken about WMD’s? We will probably never know. His political opponents will, no doubt, assume the worst. I do know, however, that another test of the American will to win is in our midst. Americans have shown a pattern in the last 50 years of not being able to stomach the harsh realities of war. Therefore, our enemies do not need to defeat us militarily, they simply need to wear down our will to the point where we decide not to fight. I respect the position that we should not have gone to war in Iraq in the first place. But now that we are there, it is in ours and the Iraqi’s best interest to win. Otherwise, we will be nothing but a paper tiger for the rest of the world to mock as our president flies home from the summit-du-jour.
David pointed out that all the polls show that this war is unpopular. He reads the polls and concludes that they mean that we should, therefore, get out of the war. I see it differently. I think Americans like to win and hate to lose. Bush is unpopular, not because he is seen as a cowboy or an idiot, but because he is seen as a loser in Iraq. If he had not under-estimated the need for sufficient troops on the ground (instead of assuming that our superior technology would hand us victory) and Iraq was a stable, democratic, and peaceful place, Bush would be a hero. It was only after many in Washington, led by Sen. John McCain, and some generals in the Pentagon began to call for a surge of troops to rid the most out-of-control region in Iraq of insurgents that we began to win the war in Iraq. THAT, is what I want in Iraq: Victory. I want Victory. I want Victory. I want Victory… Victory for the American soldiers who have given life and limb for this cause, victory for the American will, victory for American influence and respect in the future, victory for the Iraqi’s who have been suffering through years of instability preceded by decades of terror, victory for the American people who are spending 12 billion dollars a month on this war. Who will bring us victory? Will Senator Barack Obama? It’s clear that all he wants out of Iraq is out of Iraq. The man who is proven to have the resolve, the experience and the wisdom to do what it takes to win is John McCain. That is why I am voting for him.
]]>David: Overall, I was thrilled to see a liberal who actually claimed to be a liberal… oh wait, I take that back: he made the distinction of being progressive saying that he would come back and describe the difference, which he did not. In any case, I was happy that he seemed very open and honest about his political views which liberal candidates seem to try and hide.
Dennis: Well, I’m a listener so I’m already a fan.
Taxes:
David: Yes, American’s should pay more taxes. He seemed to suggest that the tax rates under the Clinton administration were about right, although he didn’t say that definitively. It is our responsibility to use tax money to partially right the inequality in our society. Bush’s tax cuts primarily went to millionaires. A rising tide does not lift all boats - it only lifts the yachts while the tugboats get left behind. The economy was better under Bill Clinton when taxes were higher.
Dennis: Money we earn is ours first, not the governments. You don’t make a better society by letting people live off the government. People should live off of their own initiative first, the charity of others second, and lastly a safety net provided by the government. How high do taxes have to be before the left will call it criminal? When the government placed a luxury tax on yachts, rich people didn’t stop buying yachts, they just let go of jobs in order to afford the higher yacht prices.
America’s Reputation in the world
David: A worldwide poll shows that Americans are less-liked than before. We should strive to make other nations love and respect us more. This would help our national security.
Dennis: I don’t care. (somebody has been reading The Greasy Rag?) We should be striving for the respect of other countries, not their love. I love Uruguay. It has great resorts. Nobody hates Uruguay. Liberals always want to be loved by everyone. We should only strive to be loved by our family, friends, and spouses. The UN is responsible for a lot of harm in the world (he excepted the World Health Organization). The UN sat idly by while there was mass genocide in Rwanda. The U.S. is the greatest force for good in the world. More Americans have died for other countries than any other country in history.
David’s Rebuttal: America should be striving for the love and respect of the world at the same time.
Dennis’ Rebuttal: 1/4 to 1/2 (depending on the country) of people western European countries believe that the attacks on 9/11 were perpetrated by either the U.S. or Israel. Germany is fighting with us in Afghanistan but is only allowed to fire when fired upon. They had a top Taliban leader walk right in front of them and they did nothing. What good are allies like that?
Separation of Church and State
David: Sen. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) should have been allowed to have a ceremonial photo taken with his hand on the Koran (he wasn’t trying to take the actual oath on it)
Dennis: This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The constitution is the foundation of our law, but it’s was based upon a set of values which come from the Bible. What is it that gives us inalienable rights if not God? Mitochondria?
David’s Rebuttal: Dennis is being hypocritical when he talks about Christian values. Didn’t Jesus say “the meek shall inherit the earth”? “I won’t quote scripture”… Jesus talks about loving your neighbor, caring for the needy. Republicans are so pious and yet they want to take away food stamps and keep Americans without proper health care.
Dennis’ Rebuttal: I must have missed the part in the Bible where it talks about how many food stamp programs we should have. Was that in Luke? I teach the Hebrew Bible, maybe it’s not in the Hebrew text. Where did Jesus say what type of health care system we should have?… We have to be able to say that Christian values are the best value system for providing an open and fair society. It’s not a put down of the Muslim faith, it’s just a fact that it’s values don’t provide the same level of equality. Until Jews or Christians are allowed to be elected to leadership in Saudi Arabia, you just have to admit that it’s a fact that the values from the Koran does not provide the same level of equality.
Race
Dennis: When I was growing up in a liberal Jewish family I was taught that Race didn’t matter - that our society should be colorblind. That isn’t the liberal stance any more. Liberals put too much emphasis on Race. Race should be about as important as your shoe size.
David: Conservatives don’t live in the real world - they live in the world of ideals. We have to admit that race plays a role in the inequality of our society. Here he quotes figures showing that African-Americans and Hispanics are far behind white people when it comes to wealth (I don’t remember the exact statistic).
Dennis’ Rebuttal: Notice he didn’t include Asians in his statistics. That’s because Asians are far above whites when it comes to wealth. Does that mean that Asians are racist against whites and holding whites back? It’s actually liberal policies that are holding African-Americans back since they are reinforcing the idea that they’re being held down by another group. The real problem for African-Americans is a problem of values. Bill Cosby and other leaders are starting to speak up about the problem of inner-city values.
David’s Rebuttal: Pretty much the same as his first argument.
The Iraq War
David: Bush lied or misled us into the war. The war was about oil. It’s not unpatriotic to want to end the war. The war is unpopular. The war is not worth it.
Dennis: I’m not sure if the war was worth it: time will tell. I was ambivalent about invading Iraq. We have to win. If we don’t win, it will be disastrous for the U.S. If Bush lied, then a lot of other people must have been misled including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Congress. It was not about oil.
Other things said - I don’t exactly remember where the following items fit in
Dennis: If Americans want liberal values so much, then why do they keep electing Republicans?
David: Republicans didn’t win the popular vote.
]]>The next thing I would do is have a come to Jesus meeting with ol’ A-Jhad. I’d tell him to give up his nukes or he’d have to go find a hole like Sadaam. He’d think I was bluffing but what he doesn’t know is that I have tons of foreign policy experience. I was born in another country and lived there until I was 5. I’m also part Swedish. I’ve traveled a lot, too, and bartered for many a box of chicle. I’ve even talked down the most ardent negotiator on the most prized possession of them all: The porcelain fat man on a scale.
The hardest part would be convincing the American public to vote for me. I am a pretty good speaker, but then again, it’s not hard to be better than most of the duds in public office. I’ve even volunteered at several charity events and I’ve even organized a few. Did I mention I was vice president of the Key Club in high school? But if only I had some sort of experience governing something… If only I could show the American public that I have a proven record of what I claim I will do when I’m President. My other problem is that I would have to prove my character. People want to know that I won’t cow-tow to the media or my party elites or the daily polls. I have not been tested by real crisis. If only I could point to some time in my life when someone forced me to choose honor of my country over personal comfort.
But, alas, I have none of that. Would my candidacy be doomed?
Ahhh, but you see I am smarter than that. I know popular culture and I know that they don’t care about facts or concrete plans. They get their facts from celebrities and comedians instead of investigative reporters. They don’t want a resume — they need some cynicism. All I have to do is talk about what a failure the current president is. All I have to do is make fun of his accent and point out the flaws in his ideas. Then I don’t have to have any of my own. I’d have to talk about a vague notion of “change” and they won’t even ask me what I mean by that.
And I’d have you! The faithful readers of this blog as my army. Come help me with my candidacy! It’s not too late! Pete Larson as write in for President!!!
]]>Now on to the rebuttal:
The main problem with the criticism of Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience is that Obama is in the same plight. He served in the senate for roughly 3 1/2 years and has travelled some. At this point, I see nothing quantifiable that gives Obama any more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin. Foreign Policy experience is something that is very difficult to come by and you don’t get it by simply travelling. You get it by being involved in negotiations or discussions or decision-making as it specifically relates to a decision being made between two international groups. Obama has travelled - even to Germany, but I haven’t seen any actual foreign policy experience (please comment if you have concrete examples to the contrary). On the foreign policy front, I don’t support Obama because I disagree with his philosphy about foreign policy. Obama believes that the world’s problems can be solved through diplomacy. If you believe that then vote for him. I don’t mean to say that diplomacy is never an option, but you weaken your ability to solve problems through diplomacy when you weaken your stance in the world. At some level, rogue nations need to believe that you would attack them if provoked. For the last 40 years, the U.S. has been in a disastrous pattern of attack and run as exemplified perfectly by the “Black Hawk Down” episode in Mogadishu where the U.S. attempted to intervene in a genocide, but did not fully commit enough troops to get the job done. The Somalis figured out pretty quickly (as is well documented in interviews) that they didn’t need to defeat our entire army, they only needed to inflict enough casualties to cause the U.S. to cut and run. Clinton played perfectly into their hands and weakened the overall ability of the U.S. to threaten military force. This was a lesson for Al-Qaeda in how to beat the Americans. Bush has followed the same pattern by bringing us into a war without committing the troops needed to win. I believe (as John McCain does) that we HAVE to win in Iraq. If we cut and run, especially when we have been achieving significant victories, we will undermine any influence the U.S. has. Once you take military might of the diplomatic table, you’re left with nothing but economic sanctions — a policy which worked wonders in Cuba and pre-war Iraq (sarcasm intended).
Second rebuttal: I do not respect the opinion of celebrities - especially Matt Damon. They don’t deal with the problems that most Americans do and they usually don’t have any training that qualifies them to comment on politics more than any burger flipper at McDonalds. Acting classes don’t teach you economics or foreign policy. If you’re trying to be convincing, you might try leaving him off the bibliography.
Third rebuttal: Bush is anything but conservative (economically speaking). I suppose its easy to see the “R” next to his name and assume that conservative = Republican. Much to my dismay, it does not. We have not had a true conservative in the white house since Reagan. Bush’s domestic accomplishments have done more to further the liberal economic agenda than president Clinton’s (who thankfully brought us wellfare reform and lower taxes). This could be a whole blog post in itself - suffice it to say: Bush has grown the federal government more than any other president since FDR. Yes, he pushed for lower taxes (which has generated a rise in 20% more tax revenue for the federal government than during the Clinton era) but beyond that it’s been all big government and big spending. As I mentioned in my last post: conservatives want a smaller federal government and want more issues to be decided at the state & local level where government has a better understanding of the needs of the people in the region. I go even a step beyond and think that social issues should be decided at the state & local level. This is also where people have more of a role in democracy since most states have a more direct democracy than the federal system… but I digress. Bush is not a conservative.
Fourth: McCain is about to die? This is just foolish. It’s also eerily reminiscent of something Matt Damon said (see rebuttal #2). You have to evaluate someone’s health on their actual doctor-evaluated health, not national averages. If McCain’s doctor said that he wasn’t fit then you’d have a point about the likelihood of Palin becoming president. You seem to be taking Damon’s 30% statistic, but it has flawed logic. He’s not an anonymous statistic. He’s a known person who’s doctor can check him out and tell us that he’s fit to serve and won’t be croaking soon as best as we can tell. But I find it interesting that the Obama (until recently), the media, and many liberal bloggers are treating this as a race between Palin and Obama. I had previously believed that this is because Obama can’t hold a candle to McCain on experience and he wanted to try and compete against someone he has a fighting chance with. The “McCain is about to die” comment makes me think that maybe most people have written McCain off for dead. Strange. Show me the doctor’s note.
On Palin’s Degree: Palin did not go to Yale or Haahvard. That’s a plus in my book. I’m not looking for another Skull & Bones elitist who’s been brainwashed into the kind of hooey that comes out of higher education these days. I’m not trying to belittle higher education in general: just the kind of education that comes out of the Ivy League schools. On the east coast, you are what is on your wall. In the west, you are what you do. When you’re looking for a reformer, being an outsider is a plus. You want someone who has more experience with the harsh realities of life than with the elbows of other important people. I’ll take a BA in journalism + minor in Political Science over a law degree ANY DAY.
Lastly: Personal experiences are nice but 7 people from 7 countries (that sounds like a British sit-com) is hardly a statistically valid sample. I could easily run into 200 people from 50 countries who say the opposite. We’d still be nowhere in our debate. I haven’t seen an entire-world poll to know who wants Obama and who wants McCain, but let me share a few opinions on the who-would-Germany-vote-for question. I don’t care. I don’t mean to say that I want people to hate us. But I want a president that serves the interests of the USA more than the interests of the world. I think it’s a valid position to say that being buddies with the rest of the world does serve our interests, but I don’t share it. I think we should be friends with reliable allies, on good terms with most other countries, and be stern and firm with rogue nations who have stated ambitions against the United States (which we can’t do very well with a weakened military). I also think that when Obama and other liberals talk about the “rest of the world” they mean Europe — and by Europe I mean western Europe. Most of eastern europe are staunch allies of the U.S. because they know what it is to live under tyrrany and the constant threat of Russia. They don’t side with France because they know that France will never protect them. NATO is better for them than the UN (see Rwandan Crisis). Western europe is not a group of countries that we should be modelling ourselves after. France’s treatment of immigrants and record on freedom of religion is abismal. Their populations are diminishing (only countries with a large influx of muslim peoples are even staying even on demographics) and so is their economies. All this to say that Americans know better what is best for Americans than people who watch MTV and CNN.
In an ideal world, Reagan or Lincoln or Monroe is resurrected from the dead. In fact, let’s throw in Andrew Jackson (for the economic insight) and merge the 4 into one. The candidate has tons of experience with foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the inner workings of the miltary. If that were possible, I’m voting for Relincmonson! Let’s give him a classic but vague slogan like “A new direction” or “Don’t change horses” and let him run some attack ads about how his opponent was “insensitive” or “just like the last guy” or whatever non-important issue you can use to strike fear in the heart of voters. I’d sleep through the election season and punch the shit out of that chad!
Let’s get back to reality. We have two tickets in the here-and-now with strengths and weaknesses. You really have to break it down into two categories: experience/trust and policy. Policy-wise I am a conservative and I support the ticket that’s closest to my views. I can and will go into what I see this differences as but we have to get down to issues of real importance. I wish Palin had more foreign policy experience but she doesn’t. But her philosophy is sound. And may I remind that her name appears below McCain’s on the sign. And if you question Palin as president, then you have to think about a Biden presidency: In his latest effort, he got less than 1% of a nation-wide primary vote (that’s about 9,000 votes). We had 6,000 people at the Palin rally in Golden alone.
]]>