Just returned from another hour of puppy training. Very helpful, but I must say that we are all exhausted. It might be the sinus infection I am fighting for me, but trying to get a rambunctious border collie to behave in a Petsmart is the other part, I am sure. Have to rest up, though because tonight we get to see David Olney and Sergio Webb at a house concert.
------
The conversation with Andy was also exhausting, perhaps because I have less patience with fundamentalism than I once did. But my last comment pretty much summed up my frustration with any of the "Bible said it, I believe it, and that does it" crowd. As I noted, when the Bible says homosexuality is bad, there is no discussion of motives, no parsing of context, no suggestion of language barriers. It is just assumed to be iron-clad law. But when the Bible says that being wealthy is bad, and even an impediment to God--that is prone to interpretation. It is only when you love money more than God--though who the hell admits that? Or when the Bible says that we are to love our enemies, the fundies, to a person, don't think that includes terrorists or really dangerous people. Surely Jesus didn't intend that we actually "turn the other cheek," right?
And to be fair, I have no clue. I think that we live in a far more complex economic system to conclude that charging interest is evil. And I have no intention of letting a terrorists kill me in my house if I have other choices. But neither am I convinced that either Genesis is a scientific or historical document, nor that the sexual norms of an ancient tribal society are exactly the same as ours, or should be.
But if we are going to parse some of it, then insisting on absolutism for the part that doesn't effect you? That is just self-centered and inconsistent.
------
Ok, one more question. Conservatives constantly say that cutting taxes on the rich helps the economy (always) because those rich people then invest in companies that create jobs and increase our tax revenue. Well, I think they are actually lying about the last part, and that they don't even intend for it to increase revenue, but that is another question. But about the job creation and investment, why do we always assume that the rich will invest that money here? Why do we think automatically that their investment dollars won't go to China or India?
June 12, 2011
June 10, 2011
Inequality
Everything I read tells me that our nation's inequality is growing. Saw this on twitter tonight:
What puzzles me is why this is not a concern for so many conservatives? Do they simply not believe it to be true?
According to Barron's, real family incomes have fallen 2% since 2000 while corporate profits have increased 70% over the same span #fbI went to check the Barron's site and this story is behind a paywall, but this matches every other study that I have seen.
What puzzles me is why this is not a concern for so many conservatives? Do they simply not believe it to be true?
Conclusion shopping--conservatives and bad thinking
Saw yesterday that not only is Rick Perry thinking about running for President (since Newt is crashing and burning), but he is also pandering like crazy to the religious right by endorsing this prayer concert or whatever the hell it is.
There is a lot that bothers me about this. First and foremost is the intermingling of politics and prayer, but more troubling to me is the bad thinking. I am reminded of how people processed the Minneapolis bridge collapse, or even the Japanese nuclear disaster--with many referring to them as "acts of God." They weren't. They were the products of human choice. The absolute same can be said about the debt crisis. This is not some act of God which humans are helpless to solve--it is the clear result of bad political decisions. Bad spending choices, and bad tax policy combine together to give us a debt crisis. If I were so arrogant to say what God thinks, I would speculate that he is looking at this and thinking, "fix it yourself. You created it."
I would actually argue that conservatives are mired in nothing but bad thinking right now. Facts seem to matter not at all to them. Facts about climate change, evolution, supply side economics--none of those things actually seem to penetrate the fundamentalist brain. All that matters is what you believe. When you believe that God can or should fix the debt crisis, you do, and you don't listen to mere mortals who point out that people like Rick Perry take federal money to shore up their budgets, while they cut taxes and cut programs for the poor and the sick. Facts, facts. Blah blah blah blah. What matters is what I believe, not what I actually know.
I was thinking about that yesterday when I read this story about Paul Ryan actually suggesting that we should default as a country (for the first time since America first borrowed money in the 1790s) in order to get our economic house in order. I have to say that I am really starting to question Ryan's intelligence. Either he is stupid or he is malevolently destructive.
But inside that Republican narrative is a fascinating bit of bad thinking. Several months ago, no one of Ryan's rank would suggest default was a possibility. That was left to the fringe. But a few financial people suggested it--just a few--and it took off among the wingnut right. The vast majority of thinking people think that defaulting is not only not conservative, but downright irresponsible. But Ryan and his idiots found one or two people to say it was ok to do--and that becomes their reality.
That is exactly how these same people process evolution and climate change. The vast majority of scientists who study these issues believe that evolution is fact and that humans are contributing greatly to our climate change. But the right finds one or two scientists who question, and those one or two become their reality. I would suggest that is a very stupid way to process complex issues, and a horrible way to formulate public policy.
But, as I said, when all that really matters is what you want to believe, then facts and evidence really don't matter. And that is sad--or would be sad if it weren't so damn dangerous.
Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.
There is a lot that bothers me about this. First and foremost is the intermingling of politics and prayer, but more troubling to me is the bad thinking. I am reminded of how people processed the Minneapolis bridge collapse, or even the Japanese nuclear disaster--with many referring to them as "acts of God." They weren't. They were the products of human choice. The absolute same can be said about the debt crisis. This is not some act of God which humans are helpless to solve--it is the clear result of bad political decisions. Bad spending choices, and bad tax policy combine together to give us a debt crisis. If I were so arrogant to say what God thinks, I would speculate that he is looking at this and thinking, "fix it yourself. You created it."
I would actually argue that conservatives are mired in nothing but bad thinking right now. Facts seem to matter not at all to them. Facts about climate change, evolution, supply side economics--none of those things actually seem to penetrate the fundamentalist brain. All that matters is what you believe. When you believe that God can or should fix the debt crisis, you do, and you don't listen to mere mortals who point out that people like Rick Perry take federal money to shore up their budgets, while they cut taxes and cut programs for the poor and the sick. Facts, facts. Blah blah blah blah. What matters is what I believe, not what I actually know.
I was thinking about that yesterday when I read this story about Paul Ryan actually suggesting that we should default as a country (for the first time since America first borrowed money in the 1790s) in order to get our economic house in order. I have to say that I am really starting to question Ryan's intelligence. Either he is stupid or he is malevolently destructive.
But inside that Republican narrative is a fascinating bit of bad thinking. Several months ago, no one of Ryan's rank would suggest default was a possibility. That was left to the fringe. But a few financial people suggested it--just a few--and it took off among the wingnut right. The vast majority of thinking people think that defaulting is not only not conservative, but downright irresponsible. But Ryan and his idiots found one or two people to say it was ok to do--and that becomes their reality.
That is exactly how these same people process evolution and climate change. The vast majority of scientists who study these issues believe that evolution is fact and that humans are contributing greatly to our climate change. But the right finds one or two scientists who question, and those one or two become their reality. I would suggest that is a very stupid way to process complex issues, and a horrible way to formulate public policy.
But, as I said, when all that really matters is what you want to believe, then facts and evidence really don't matter. And that is sad--or would be sad if it weren't so damn dangerous.
June 8, 2011
Why won't evangelicals address torture?
Because I am off for a bit, perhaps, and trying to keep Gracie from eating stuff she shouldn't (remote control--saved, checkbook cover--chewed, leash for Abbie--chewed, toilet paper roll--shredded) I have been thinking about my evangelical past. That, and I have been working with our electric company to get our service line buried and have found their customer service to, well, suck.
So over the last few years, I have reconnected with a few people from my evangelical past--all through the glories of Facebook. Man, what a ride. From reconnecting to a former girlfriend, only to find out that she thought torture was ok, because of the "torture that the families of lost service men and women experience," or mad about healthcare because she honestly thought it meant her paying for the healthcare of the person next door who bought a 300,000 dollar house instead of healthcare. Or the guy from my church league basketball team who turned out to be one of the bigger assholes I had ever met--complete with bashing any government spending and regulation all while living in a suburb of Dallas built with government dollars.
Those were the negative ones. The others have been mostly benign. But when some of them have challenged my liberalism, or made snide comments on my wall, I have emailed them questions. Nicely, mind you, but I have asked them questions about why the people who helped me form my moral world view seem to have little to no problem with torture? Or why they believe that God created the world in 7 literal days, but have no problem with humans trying to destroy that creation? Or why, as people called to help the poor, they vote for policies that clearly help the rich, and demonize the poor.
All of these questions I have asked, in addition to asking anyone to give me an example of Sarah Palin acting in a manner other than a vindictive bitch.
Nothing. Well, not nothing. From one, I got a grudging acknowledgement that torture was mostly wrong. But the terrorists are worse, he said.
The rest? Empty echo chamber. People who routinely post Bible verses can't answer a simple question of why they voted for torture enablers and why they have no problem voting for people who still defend torture. Or a simple question of what the poor and elderly are supposed to do when Paul Ryan's budget is put into law.
Evangelical Christians--if you want me to even come close to respecting a group of Christians who have been miserably wrong on race and torture and gender equality--then you better actually figure out a way to make a cogent argument. And you better figure out that might include atoning for supporting torture. Or segregation.
Otherwise, spare me.
So over the last few years, I have reconnected with a few people from my evangelical past--all through the glories of Facebook. Man, what a ride. From reconnecting to a former girlfriend, only to find out that she thought torture was ok, because of the "torture that the families of lost service men and women experience," or mad about healthcare because she honestly thought it meant her paying for the healthcare of the person next door who bought a 300,000 dollar house instead of healthcare. Or the guy from my church league basketball team who turned out to be one of the bigger assholes I had ever met--complete with bashing any government spending and regulation all while living in a suburb of Dallas built with government dollars.
Those were the negative ones. The others have been mostly benign. But when some of them have challenged my liberalism, or made snide comments on my wall, I have emailed them questions. Nicely, mind you, but I have asked them questions about why the people who helped me form my moral world view seem to have little to no problem with torture? Or why they believe that God created the world in 7 literal days, but have no problem with humans trying to destroy that creation? Or why, as people called to help the poor, they vote for policies that clearly help the rich, and demonize the poor.
All of these questions I have asked, in addition to asking anyone to give me an example of Sarah Palin acting in a manner other than a vindictive bitch.
Nothing. Well, not nothing. From one, I got a grudging acknowledgement that torture was mostly wrong. But the terrorists are worse, he said.
The rest? Empty echo chamber. People who routinely post Bible verses can't answer a simple question of why they voted for torture enablers and why they have no problem voting for people who still defend torture. Or a simple question of what the poor and elderly are supposed to do when Paul Ryan's budget is put into law.
Evangelical Christians--if you want me to even come close to respecting a group of Christians who have been miserably wrong on race and torture and gender equality--then you better actually figure out a way to make a cogent argument. And you better figure out that might include atoning for supporting torture. Or segregation.
Otherwise, spare me.
June 6, 2011
Today's GOP
Couple of points. First, any of them who like Sarah Palin need to see a therapist. Ditto that if they are conservative Christians who say they vote by Christian values. I have a challenge out there for anyone to show me an example of Palin treating anyone with Christian values who is not one of her supporters. When I get some proof of that, I will rethink the idea that she is a resentful, mean-spirited bitch.
Second, I mostly hear from conservatives that racism is an old issue. The fact (as Monk brings up often) that the Southern strategy was where the GOP started appealing to southern racists in an effort to shore up the South is irrelevant, in their minds. Just as many people note wryly, that there are no racists any more--no one wants to see themselves as racists--then no current Republicans will even acknowledge the open racism of their Confederate flag support, or the on again, off again support for "state's rights," or their support for Conservative Citizens Councils (once just openly White Citizens Councils). And now, with no racism intended, I am sure (blerg), southern states are doing everything they can to make voting harder. For people who believe our system is perfect, it is amazing how little faith they have in actual democracy.
Second, I mostly hear from conservatives that racism is an old issue. The fact (as Monk brings up often) that the Southern strategy was where the GOP started appealing to southern racists in an effort to shore up the South is irrelevant, in their minds. Just as many people note wryly, that there are no racists any more--no one wants to see themselves as racists--then no current Republicans will even acknowledge the open racism of their Confederate flag support, or the on again, off again support for "state's rights," or their support for Conservative Citizens Councils (once just openly White Citizens Councils). And now, with no racism intended, I am sure (blerg), southern states are doing everything they can to make voting harder. For people who believe our system is perfect, it is amazing how little faith they have in actual democracy.
June 3, 2011
History #AccordingtoPalin
Let's see if this works. You probably have heard that Sarah Palin was caught explaining that Paul Revere did his ride (very noisily according to her) to stop the British from taking away our guns. This has spurred some very funny twitter traffic, which you should be able to see here. Otherwise, just search twitter for #AccordingtoPalin.
Democrats and faith
Monk, Steve and I have an interesting conversation the comments, but I thought this was worth raising in a separate post. Monk and Steve both have suggested that Democrats have done a bad job of reaching out to religious people. But I argue that they have reached out as best they could, given the political realities and philosophical differences.
After all, how do Democrats--trying to emphasize separation of Church and State, while also downplaying the need to elect Christians to office, all while emphasizing social justice themes--fair taxation, help for the poor, protection for the environment, etc. How do you do that AND reach out specifically to people of faith? Are they not reaching out to people interested in those themes already?
I argue that Republicans are able to do that because their base believes that Christians are morally superior, and therefore have a monopoly on faith and morality. Their base also believes that Christians should rule, and that our country should be considered a Christian one. But Democrats don't believe either of those things.
After all, how do Democrats--trying to emphasize separation of Church and State, while also downplaying the need to elect Christians to office, all while emphasizing social justice themes--fair taxation, help for the poor, protection for the environment, etc. How do you do that AND reach out specifically to people of faith? Are they not reaching out to people interested in those themes already?
I argue that Republicans are able to do that because their base believes that Christians are morally superior, and therefore have a monopoly on faith and morality. Their base also believes that Christians should rule, and that our country should be considered a Christian one. But Democrats don't believe either of those things.
June 2, 2011
Quote of the day
"Why do republicans get to claim God and religion as their own when their policies go against 1000 years of traditions such as healing the sick and helping the poor.." Thom Hartmann
June 1, 2011
Ralph Reed--scumbag
Why is it that the party that likes to talk about moral values the most is the same one where being a lying, cheating, scumbag is no barrier to success?
GOP Presidential Candidates Sign Up For Ralph ‘Corporate Humper’ Reed’s Conference | ThinkProgress
GOP Presidential Candidates Sign Up For Ralph ‘Corporate Humper’ Reed’s Conference | ThinkProgress
Wednesday roundup
I know this is a common refrain from me, but I am still incredibly annoyed at how many conservative Christians are far more conservative than Christian. I think of a distant relative-in-law who stopped talking to me because I supported Obama. If I were an atheist who hated Obama, I suspect he would have no problem talking to me.
But it is even more disheartening when the leadership of the SBC gets it so wrong. Not surprising, mind you, but still disheartening because I know there are many Southern Baptists who listen to these people. Not all, as they are a group that doesn't emphasize that kind of loyalty, but many--especially in the south listen to idiots like Robert Jeffress who most recently took potshots at Obama's faith. Jeffress, much like Franklin Graham, is a political hack, not a man of God.
But what bothers me even more than people like Jeffress saying this, is that I know that a good part of the GOP faithful will just shrug it off--if they don't agree openly. Just as they shrug off the sociopathic Bachmann, or the equally twisted Sarah Palin. Palin, mind you, just cheered the smell of emissions at a motorcycle rally the same day that a new report shows that our production of CO2 went up dangerously this last year. Very hard to take people seriously who on Sunday preach a literal creation story and on Tuesday vote to destroy that same creation. Very hard.
-----
Speaking of Palin, she is on her bus tour. If you haven't seen a picture of the bus, it has her signature, a picture of the Constitution, and images of America. Everyone assumes this means she is running for President next year, and that would not completely surprise me. But there is, as the whore Mike Huckabee voiced, more money to be had if you are a pundit for Fox, and I would be surprised if Palin left that money on the table. Further, a Andy Borowitz keeps joking, if she runs, Palin would have to actually think about governing. I think his funniest tweet on this was something like, "the question isn't if Palin is going to run, it is who will replace her when she quits in 2014."
We can put Palin in that category of people who disappoint me, but not nearly as the people who follow her.
-----
Finally, a thoughtful discussion on taxes by our favorite conservative, Bruce Bartlett. Republicans continue to act as if our taxes are too high, when they are clearly not.
But it is even more disheartening when the leadership of the SBC gets it so wrong. Not surprising, mind you, but still disheartening because I know there are many Southern Baptists who listen to these people. Not all, as they are a group that doesn't emphasize that kind of loyalty, but many--especially in the south listen to idiots like Robert Jeffress who most recently took potshots at Obama's faith. Jeffress, much like Franklin Graham, is a political hack, not a man of God.
But what bothers me even more than people like Jeffress saying this, is that I know that a good part of the GOP faithful will just shrug it off--if they don't agree openly. Just as they shrug off the sociopathic Bachmann, or the equally twisted Sarah Palin. Palin, mind you, just cheered the smell of emissions at a motorcycle rally the same day that a new report shows that our production of CO2 went up dangerously this last year. Very hard to take people seriously who on Sunday preach a literal creation story and on Tuesday vote to destroy that same creation. Very hard.
-----
Speaking of Palin, she is on her bus tour. If you haven't seen a picture of the bus, it has her signature, a picture of the Constitution, and images of America. Everyone assumes this means she is running for President next year, and that would not completely surprise me. But there is, as the whore Mike Huckabee voiced, more money to be had if you are a pundit for Fox, and I would be surprised if Palin left that money on the table. Further, a Andy Borowitz keeps joking, if she runs, Palin would have to actually think about governing. I think his funniest tweet on this was something like, "the question isn't if Palin is going to run, it is who will replace her when she quits in 2014."
We can put Palin in that category of people who disappoint me, but not nearly as the people who follow her.
-----
Finally, a thoughtful discussion on taxes by our favorite conservative, Bruce Bartlett. Republicans continue to act as if our taxes are too high, when they are clearly not.
May 31, 2011
The state of Evangelical thought--or crazy Michele Bachmann is back in the news
Ah evangelicalism. Where any crazy sociopath can claim a message from God. And that describes batshit crazy Michele Bachmann.
And that is the lovely state of evangelical thought. After all, since the communications with God are internal and private, who is to tell? Who was to tell Bush that God didn't tell him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Just as who is to tell someone that they are greedy or lacking compassion. God tells them what to do--not some human person.
And that is the lovely state of evangelical thought. After all, since the communications with God are internal and private, who is to tell? Who was to tell Bush that God didn't tell him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Just as who is to tell someone that they are greedy or lacking compassion. God tells them what to do--not some human person.
May 27, 2011
Body image, the Rapture, and a few tornados--oh and God
First, this very thoughtful post from Natalie about body image in the Christian church. Body image and sexuality are complex topics for our entire culture, but as Natalie notes, the church--while seeing themselves different and superior on this topic--often participates in the same consumerist approach.
Second, a couple from our friend Greg. Here he talks about the rapture in the context of a culture that encourages prophetic language, and does so with brutal honesty and compassion.
Third, here is his great take on how people talk about God's will or protection in the context of great tragedy.
Second, a couple from our friend Greg. Here he talks about the rapture in the context of a culture that encourages prophetic language, and does so with brutal honesty and compassion.
Third, here is his great take on how people talk about God's will or protection in the context of great tragedy.
I don't have to celebrate that "God was my refuge," when a three year old is likely fuckin' dead. Yay me? I don't have to say, like the douchenozzle did in the wake of the I40 bridge collapse years ago: "I'm a friend of God, and God takes care of his friends." (It was an Abraham reference for you folks who never actually read that book you're supposed to believe. James 2:23) Never mind that dozens were drowned in the river directly below him; clearly they were all pagans. The narcissism and individualism of American faith, not just Christianity (there is no more annoying person than the one who is "spiritual but not religious." It simply means: I make this shit up as I go, and I prefer what suits me.), would be unsettling if it weren't so utterly fucking banal. But in times like this, it is malicious.
May 26, 2011
Cruelty
I continue to be stunned by Eric Cantor's response to the people of Joplin. But I should not be. The Ayn Rand wing of the Republican party has taken charge. That wing doesn't actually value taking care of people, and actually thinks that helping people is ultimately bad. And a waste. This afternoon, I read about a freshman Republican who chided a constituent for asking for help.
Fred, at Slactivist has a great post on this, and he brings it back to where my head explodes--that evangelical Christians side with this bullshit. Because they do. How they can look at any of this and see anything remotely Christian? How in the holy fucking world can they look at a party that is gutting the safety net for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled--and think, "yep, that is just how Jesus would do it."
If they can, then count me out. If they can read the Bible on Sunday, and vote for these fuckers on Tuesday, then they better not talk to me about morality. Or Christianity.
"Hear yourself, ma'am. Hear yourself," Woodall told the woman. "You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, 'When do I decide I'm going to take care of me?'"Which sounds all great, doesn't it? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and take care of yourself. But this is a retiree, we find out, who is struggling to take care of herself.
The woman followed up. "Why aren't you leading by example, and go and get it in a single-subscriber plan, like you want everybody else to have, because you want to end employer-sponsored health plans and government-sponsored health plans. You said so in a letter to me, that your goal is to get rid of the employer-sponsored health care [system]. So why aren't you leading by example and go out yourself, decline the government health plan and go to Blue Cross/Blue Shield or whoever, and get one for yourself and see how tough it is," she said. "You don't have any pre-existing conditions, I guess, you haven't had any life-threatening illnesses like I had last year."Huffpo and others focused on the idiot bragging about taking government healthcare because it was free--and that is shitty. But I can't stop thinking about this woman surviving a life-threatening illness, struggling to find healthcare for herself, and having this fucking shithead tell her to just "take care of herself."
Fred, at Slactivist has a great post on this, and he brings it back to where my head explodes--that evangelical Christians side with this bullshit. Because they do. How they can look at any of this and see anything remotely Christian? How in the holy fucking world can they look at a party that is gutting the safety net for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled--and think, "yep, that is just how Jesus would do it."
If they can, then count me out. If they can read the Bible on Sunday, and vote for these fuckers on Tuesday, then they better not talk to me about morality. Or Christianity.
May 24, 2011
Tornado relief, and why Eric Cantor sucks
Here in Central Oklahoma, we just spent 4 harrowing hours dodging tornadoes and stressing about what happened in Joplin. But also a stress point was wondering if we were devastated by a huge storm, would the government help us?
We are fine, btw, but after the storm passed, I wrote Congressman Eric Cantor to point out that using the people of Joplin as a bargaining chip for some political agenda was a shitty way to do business. No, I didn't say "shitty" in the email, but the meaning was clear.
I told the congressman that I honestly hope this doesn't happen to his community, but if it did, we would be there to help out. Too bad, I noted, we couldn't say the same about him.
We are fine, btw, but after the storm passed, I wrote Congressman Eric Cantor to point out that using the people of Joplin as a bargaining chip for some political agenda was a shitty way to do business. No, I didn't say "shitty" in the email, but the meaning was clear.
I told the congressman that I honestly hope this doesn't happen to his community, but if it did, we would be there to help out. Too bad, I noted, we couldn't say the same about him.
Republicans to victims of Tornados: We will only help you if we can cut spending elsewhere
Cantor Says Congress Won’t Pay For Missouri Disaster Relief Unless Spending Is Cut Elsewhere.
Of course, tax cuts for the rich are a given, but help to the victims of the deadliest tornado since the 1950s is optional, and Cantor is not inclined to help. We already know that Ron Paul thinks that they should rebuild themselves (which they will do) without any federal help. That is immoral, according to the great Dentist.
I used to think Republicans cared just as much as liberals about people in trouble, they just had different ways of addressing it. I no longer believe they care. If you can cut taxes for the rich, and tell the town of Joplin to suck it--then you are a cruel fuckhead.
Of course, tax cuts for the rich are a given, but help to the victims of the deadliest tornado since the 1950s is optional, and Cantor is not inclined to help. We already know that Ron Paul thinks that they should rebuild themselves (which they will do) without any federal help. That is immoral, according to the great Dentist.
I used to think Republicans cared just as much as liberals about people in trouble, they just had different ways of addressing it. I no longer believe they care. If you can cut taxes for the rich, and tell the town of Joplin to suck it--then you are a cruel fuckhead.
The lie of small government policies
Is that government programs are unnecessary and can simply be replaced by churches and private charities. As idiot preacher Franklin Graham says:
From the right there seems to be this perception that things were great until the 30s, and then FDR, as an evil socialist, came in and told the churches to stop helping people in order to make them dependent on the government. The fact was that poverty was a huge problem before, but the depression made it worse. And the churches and charities that were not taking care of the poor (not saying they weren't trying) found themselves completely overwhelmed by the depression.
I have said this before, but I love this essay's challenge. Tell the church to step up and provide the safety net, and we will disband Medicaid today. They won't, because they can't. And they have no idea what Medicaid actually does--and that it probably helps someone close to them and they don't even know it.
The right is driven by two approaches on this problem right now. The Ayn Rand branch that really doesn't care about the poor and is proud of that fact; and those who care, but are deluded about the role that government plays. Which is it? Ignorant or callous?
"Graham replied: 'A hundred years ago, the safety net, the social safety net, in the country, was provided by the church. If you didn't have a job, you'd go to your local church and ask the pastor if he knew somebody that could hire him. If you were hungry, you went to the local church and told them, 'I can't feed my family.' And the church would help you. That's not being done. The government took that. And took it away from the church.'"He is partially right. There was no social safety net 100 years ago beyond private charities and churches. But this belief that the past was some kind of idyllic past, is just ridiculous. Yes, churches were the last resort, but no, they didn't actually carry all the poor. Elderly without families ended up in almshouses where they were often abused and abandoned.
From the right there seems to be this perception that things were great until the 30s, and then FDR, as an evil socialist, came in and told the churches to stop helping people in order to make them dependent on the government. The fact was that poverty was a huge problem before, but the depression made it worse. And the churches and charities that were not taking care of the poor (not saying they weren't trying) found themselves completely overwhelmed by the depression.
I have said this before, but I love this essay's challenge. Tell the church to step up and provide the safety net, and we will disband Medicaid today. They won't, because they can't. And they have no idea what Medicaid actually does--and that it probably helps someone close to them and they don't even know it.
The right is driven by two approaches on this problem right now. The Ayn Rand branch that really doesn't care about the poor and is proud of that fact; and those who care, but are deluded about the role that government plays. Which is it? Ignorant or callous?
The Bible story you never heard in Sunday School
Natalie points us to the story of Phineas as one of those Bible stories that are just incompatible with other singular narratives of the Bible. And she is right, I never heard this story in Sunday School.
May 22, 2011
Artists raising money for recording
Is a cool trend, I think. I actually think that the smaller artists are able to do more in this new music environment than some of those with labels. They can raise money like this, and then they get more of the revenue from the actual cds and downloads since they don't have to share them with Sony.
I don't know Carter personally, but I believe my buddy Buff does. I like her sound, and have decided to put in some money to help her record this new album. If you are interested, go here to view her video and pledge. No risk. If she doesn't raise her goal, your card doesn't get charged. I hope she makes it, because I am signed up for a signed CD. :)
I don't know Carter personally, but I believe my buddy Buff does. I like her sound, and have decided to put in some money to help her record this new album. If you are interested, go here to view her video and pledge. No risk. If she doesn't raise her goal, your card doesn't get charged. I hope she makes it, because I am signed up for a signed CD. :)
Can I quote REM yet?
Because I do feel fine. Not sure about Smitty's "Jesusly Aunt and Uncle (in-laws)", and I feel a little sorry for those taken in by Harold Camping's nonsense. This obsession with the Rapture certainly reflects anxiety and frustration with living on this earth. I get part of that, but this need to abandon the world strikes me as counter to the message of the gospel. Natalie points to an excellent allegory by Peter Rollins that addresses this very idea. And as NT Wright (and our friend Greg) notes, the belief in the "rapture" comes from one single verse.
And speaking of the Bible, I have been fascinated to read how the far right responded to Obama's Israel speech. I heard snippets last week and thought that he was appropriately critical of Palestinians, and noted that Israel would have to also make concessions. That is what happens when people negotiate--something Israel seems to have no interest in any longer. Not that the Palestinians haven't made negotiations difficult. They have. As have their Arab neighbors who love the rhetoric of wiping out Israel. Middle eastern leaders who love to appeal to their fundamentalist population--well, that just reminds me of the right wing here.
And speaking of that, it has been amazing to see the right rise up and denounce Obama as somehow throwing Israel under some kind of public transportation. What did he do? He articulated the same policy for the two-state solution that Bush and Clinton supposedly supported. But with Obama, and the right wing who wants to see him as unAmerican and foreign, this same policy is now treason.
These threads combine for me, because this adoration of Israel is wrapped in that end times bullshit of the Rapture. And both annoy me for some of the same reasons--an incredibly internal and self-centered faith. Ancient texts are not ancient, but were written solely for suburbanites who like bad novels. Settlement on the West Bank doesn't involve real people--both Israeli and Arab--but is some puzzle piece to bring on the second coming--for whom? Those same suburbanites. Middle eastern cultures, so foreign to our American experience, are somehow appropriated for purely American-centric points of view.
I struggle with my own faith. But I firmly believe that at its core, it is about understanding that we are not at the center of the universe--either as individuals or as Americans. That seems to have been lost in American churches waving flags and cheering torture. Perhaps Harold Camping's insane or cynical fraud will cause some thought about that. I am not hopeful, but will hope, nonetheless.
And speaking of the Bible, I have been fascinated to read how the far right responded to Obama's Israel speech. I heard snippets last week and thought that he was appropriately critical of Palestinians, and noted that Israel would have to also make concessions. That is what happens when people negotiate--something Israel seems to have no interest in any longer. Not that the Palestinians haven't made negotiations difficult. They have. As have their Arab neighbors who love the rhetoric of wiping out Israel. Middle eastern leaders who love to appeal to their fundamentalist population--well, that just reminds me of the right wing here.
And speaking of that, it has been amazing to see the right rise up and denounce Obama as somehow throwing Israel under some kind of public transportation. What did he do? He articulated the same policy for the two-state solution that Bush and Clinton supposedly supported. But with Obama, and the right wing who wants to see him as unAmerican and foreign, this same policy is now treason.
These threads combine for me, because this adoration of Israel is wrapped in that end times bullshit of the Rapture. And both annoy me for some of the same reasons--an incredibly internal and self-centered faith. Ancient texts are not ancient, but were written solely for suburbanites who like bad novels. Settlement on the West Bank doesn't involve real people--both Israeli and Arab--but is some puzzle piece to bring on the second coming--for whom? Those same suburbanites. Middle eastern cultures, so foreign to our American experience, are somehow appropriated for purely American-centric points of view.
I struggle with my own faith. But I firmly believe that at its core, it is about understanding that we are not at the center of the universe--either as individuals or as Americans. That seems to have been lost in American churches waving flags and cheering torture. Perhaps Harold Camping's insane or cynical fraud will cause some thought about that. I am not hopeful, but will hope, nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)