As a follow up to some earlier comments, I thought I'd post Luke 12, in which Jesus makes some strong commentary on religious and economic issues. While we shy away from controversies like this in most polite company, Jesus certainly didn't - nor did he mince words.
The first part of Luke 12:
Under these circumstances, after so many thousands of people had gathered together that they were stepping on one another, He began saying to His disciples first of all, "Beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
"But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.
"Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the
light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops.
"I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!
"Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is
forgotten before God.
"Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear;
you are more valuable than many sparrows.
"And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will
not be forgiven him.
"When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
Someone in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, tell my brother to
divide the family inheritance with me."
But He said to him, "Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator
over you?"
Then He said to them, "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions."
======
Thoughts?
Monday, March 12, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Chipmunk
After 10 days of deliberating, a jury convicted Libby on four counts of lying and obstructing an investigation into how former CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked to reporters after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Portrayed by defence lawyers as a fall guy who simply has a lousy memory, the former chief of staff for Vice-President Dick Cheney faces several years in prison.
I don't want to cut off any discussion on the previous two posts, which I think are more vital discussions to carry on than this one, but I was just wondering if anyone out there is betting on how long before Scooter gets a pardon? Do you think he'll actually spend time in jail?
Do you think he should be pardoned? On what basis?
For my part, I have little doubt that he'll be pardoned. The Republicans have a history (see Reagan administration) of pardoning their cronies who've got in trouble for lying to the US (the Dems, for their part, have problems with pardoning the wrong people, too).
Portrayed by defence lawyers as a fall guy who simply has a lousy memory, the former chief of staff for Vice-President Dick Cheney faces several years in prison.
I don't want to cut off any discussion on the previous two posts, which I think are more vital discussions to carry on than this one, but I was just wondering if anyone out there is betting on how long before Scooter gets a pardon? Do you think he'll actually spend time in jail?
Do you think he should be pardoned? On what basis?
For my part, I have little doubt that he'll be pardoned. The Republicans have a history (see Reagan administration) of pardoning their cronies who've got in trouble for lying to the US (the Dems, for their part, have problems with pardoning the wrong people, too).
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A Quote and a Question
I will be up front and admit that I find economics confusing. Wall Street and that whole stock market thing is just a puzzle to me. Sell! Sell! Buy! Buy!
Now, not everything I read about economics puzzles me, just what passes for mainstream economic thought. Some folk make a great deal of sense to me. Wendell Berry, Harlan and Anna Hubbard, Gene Logsdon, Ched Myers... these folk all speak about economics in ways that seems entirely reasonable and common-sense, at least to me.
I'd like to offer a bit of theology and economics in a quote from Ched Myers, who says:
The Hebrew Bible's vision of Sabbath economics contends that a theology of abundant grace and a communal ethic of redistribution is the only way out of our slavery to the debt system, with its theology of meritocracy and private ethic of wealth concentration. The contemporary church, however, has difficulty hearing this as good news since our theological imaginations have long been captive to the market-driven orthodoxies of modern capitalism...
Israel's betrayal of its Sabbath vocation became a central complaint of the prophets. When Isaiah charged the nation's leadership with robbery (Isaiah 3:14-15), he was echoing the manna tradition's censure of stored wealth in the face of community need (see also Isaiah 5:7-8; Malachi 3:5-12). Amos accused the commercial classes of regarding shabat as an obstacle to market profiteering, and of treating the poor as an exploitable class rather than guaranteeing their gleaning rights (Amos 8:5-6; see Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 19:9-10; Micah 7:1).
[Read the complete article here.]
This sort of talk makes sense to me. That's my quote.
My question that I wanted to ask was simply, can someone explain what the Stock Market means to you? All these jitters last week because of China...what does it mean?
Now, not everything I read about economics puzzles me, just what passes for mainstream economic thought. Some folk make a great deal of sense to me. Wendell Berry, Harlan and Anna Hubbard, Gene Logsdon, Ched Myers... these folk all speak about economics in ways that seems entirely reasonable and common-sense, at least to me.
I'd like to offer a bit of theology and economics in a quote from Ched Myers, who says:
The Hebrew Bible's vision of Sabbath economics contends that a theology of abundant grace and a communal ethic of redistribution is the only way out of our slavery to the debt system, with its theology of meritocracy and private ethic of wealth concentration. The contemporary church, however, has difficulty hearing this as good news since our theological imaginations have long been captive to the market-driven orthodoxies of modern capitalism...
Israel's betrayal of its Sabbath vocation became a central complaint of the prophets. When Isaiah charged the nation's leadership with robbery (Isaiah 3:14-15), he was echoing the manna tradition's censure of stored wealth in the face of community need (see also Isaiah 5:7-8; Malachi 3:5-12). Amos accused the commercial classes of regarding shabat as an obstacle to market profiteering, and of treating the poor as an exploitable class rather than guaranteeing their gleaning rights (Amos 8:5-6; see Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 19:9-10; Micah 7:1).
[Read the complete article here.]
This sort of talk makes sense to me. That's my quote.
My question that I wanted to ask was simply, can someone explain what the Stock Market means to you? All these jitters last week because of China...what does it mean?
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Deep Economy
We interrupt the soap opera to return to our regularly scheduled raving.
Bill McKibben has written some interesting-sounding books an articles that I, for the most part, have missed. But he sounds like he's making some valid points, especially for our day and times.
McKibben was recently interviewed in Velocity, which is normally a very lame local “entertainment” newspaper published by the Courier Journal. This interview is one of their few forays into anything approaching meaningfulness.:
Many of us grew up believing that being an individual and acquiring as much as possible were two things that would make us happy. Your book says just the opposite. Why are growth and individualism no longer making our lives better?
It's only in the last few years that economists and sociologists have begun to collect data to support what has been the gut feeling of a lot people for a long time -- that money doesn't bring happiness. It seems to be that money does bring satisfaction up to a certain point, but that that point was reached long ago for most of us in the Western
world...
Since that point, "more" has led to a loss of connection with other people (and) a loss of community, and that's driving down our sense of satisfaction. We have bigger houses farther out in the suburbs (and) that isolates us from other people more. We have, on average, fewer friends. We visit with people less. We have to work harder to pay for these big things… We should start thinking more carefully about what we want rather than just assuming we want more.
You believe the pursuit of prosperity should be more local and that cities should produce more of their own food, generate more of their own energy and create more of their own culture and entertainment. What's the benefit of this?
I spend most of my life dealing with very large-scale environmental problems, especially climate change/global warming. If we're going to deal with those problems, we need more localized economies than we have now. We can't be shipping every bag of food 2,000 miles to get to our plates.
Also, I think we are suffering a lack of neighborliness because of the scale of our economy. We have a restaurant here in Vermont that only serves food that comes from right around here, and they put out a bumper sticker that said, "Think globally. Act neighborly." I think that's a very good slogan.
=====
Bill McKibben's latest book is called Deep Economy and is coming out any day now, if it isn't out already. I like what he's saying and the way he's saying it, or at least of what I've read so far.
Many times, when some of us talking about living more simply, we are accused of being Luddites and forcing people to live in ways we don't want to live ourselves.
McKibben seems to be making the points that,
1. It's not a matter of some leaders forcing anyone to live a certain way, it's a matter of circumstances forcing us to live in certain ways. We have to live within our means is not a mean-spirited attack, just a statement of reality.
2. Our hyper-consumerism isn't making us happy, anyway. There will be joy found in learning to live within our means.
Seems reasonable to me.
Bill McKibben has written some interesting-sounding books an articles that I, for the most part, have missed. But he sounds like he's making some valid points, especially for our day and times.
McKibben was recently interviewed in Velocity, which is normally a very lame local “entertainment” newspaper published by the Courier Journal. This interview is one of their few forays into anything approaching meaningfulness.:
Many of us grew up believing that being an individual and acquiring as much as possible were two things that would make us happy. Your book says just the opposite. Why are growth and individualism no longer making our lives better?
It's only in the last few years that economists and sociologists have begun to collect data to support what has been the gut feeling of a lot people for a long time -- that money doesn't bring happiness. It seems to be that money does bring satisfaction up to a certain point, but that that point was reached long ago for most of us in the Western
world...
Since that point, "more" has led to a loss of connection with other people (and) a loss of community, and that's driving down our sense of satisfaction. We have bigger houses farther out in the suburbs (and) that isolates us from other people more. We have, on average, fewer friends. We visit with people less. We have to work harder to pay for these big things… We should start thinking more carefully about what we want rather than just assuming we want more.
You believe the pursuit of prosperity should be more local and that cities should produce more of their own food, generate more of their own energy and create more of their own culture and entertainment. What's the benefit of this?
I spend most of my life dealing with very large-scale environmental problems, especially climate change/global warming. If we're going to deal with those problems, we need more localized economies than we have now. We can't be shipping every bag of food 2,000 miles to get to our plates.
Also, I think we are suffering a lack of neighborliness because of the scale of our economy. We have a restaurant here in Vermont that only serves food that comes from right around here, and they put out a bumper sticker that said, "Think globally. Act neighborly." I think that's a very good slogan.
=====
Bill McKibben's latest book is called Deep Economy and is coming out any day now, if it isn't out already. I like what he's saying and the way he's saying it, or at least of what I've read so far.
Many times, when some of us talking about living more simply, we are accused of being Luddites and forcing people to live in ways we don't want to live ourselves.
McKibben seems to be making the points that,
1. It's not a matter of some leaders forcing anyone to live a certain way, it's a matter of circumstances forcing us to live in certain ways. We have to live within our means is not a mean-spirited attack, just a statement of reality.
2. Our hyper-consumerism isn't making us happy, anyway. There will be joy found in learning to live within our means.
Seems reasonable to me.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
My Dream Girl, Part 3
While still in college, Donna and I kept in contact. She'd come to Louisville every once in a while and I'd sometimes meet her while here.
She decided to attend the Southern Baptist Seminary and, during one trip here to investigate that, my parents invited her to spend the night at our house. I met up with her at the Seminary and, while I had moved past any interest in her (or so I thought), when I saw her that night, her eyes sparkled. She was aglow with energy and wit and I was entranced.
We went home that night and stayed up until the wee hours just talking and laughing in my parents' living room. She told me later, she was glad that we seemed to have moved to a better place in our friendship and was impressed with the ease of the conversation.
For my part, I kept thinking, "I wonder what she would say if I proposed to her right now?"
I didn't propose that night, but we did begin dating again, and soon we were discussing marriage and working on happily ever after.
One of the things I'm glad of is that we have managed to navigate the waters of our continued growth while mostly canoeing in the same direction. By that, I mean that we were both pretty traditional, conservative Christians when we were dating (she, being the more progressive of we two - I would NEVER have considered going to the SB Seminary back then, it was way too liberal for me!).
As we've aged and grown in our faith, we've moved away from the traditional somewhat, but we've moved together. Neither of the Young Dan or Donna would have married the Present Day Dan or Donna, our beliefs would have been too different (I was a Reagan Republican back in the day!).
But here we are, nearly half our lives later, still working on happily ever after.
Happy Birthday, Donna. I love you.
She decided to attend the Southern Baptist Seminary and, during one trip here to investigate that, my parents invited her to spend the night at our house. I met up with her at the Seminary and, while I had moved past any interest in her (or so I thought), when I saw her that night, her eyes sparkled. She was aglow with energy and wit and I was entranced.
We went home that night and stayed up until the wee hours just talking and laughing in my parents' living room. She told me later, she was glad that we seemed to have moved to a better place in our friendship and was impressed with the ease of the conversation.
For my part, I kept thinking, "I wonder what she would say if I proposed to her right now?"
I didn't propose that night, but we did begin dating again, and soon we were discussing marriage and working on happily ever after.
One of the things I'm glad of is that we have managed to navigate the waters of our continued growth while mostly canoeing in the same direction. By that, I mean that we were both pretty traditional, conservative Christians when we were dating (she, being the more progressive of we two - I would NEVER have considered going to the SB Seminary back then, it was way too liberal for me!).
As we've aged and grown in our faith, we've moved away from the traditional somewhat, but we've moved together. Neither of the Young Dan or Donna would have married the Present Day Dan or Donna, our beliefs would have been too different (I was a Reagan Republican back in the day!).
But here we are, nearly half our lives later, still working on happily ever after.
Happy Birthday, Donna. I love you.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
My Dream Girl, Part 2
After high school, I went off to Murray State University in search of woodworking fame and fortune. Unfortunately, I was not college material at the time.
On the plus side, not attending all my classes freed up my time for higher pursuits.
Donna.
It was a Baptist Student Union retreat when I first saw her. We were playing volleyball and she was wearing a shirt listing the 70 or so kids in her graduating class at Carlisle County High School.
Coming from the Big Town with a class of 500 or so, I felt obliged to tease her about the size of her class. I was smooth.
Having found out her name and dormitory, I smoothly signed up for something called Big Brothers/Little Sisters (or something like that) in which fellas from the male dormitory could "adopt" a young lady from the female dorm. I was not thinking brotherly thoughts, though.
We saw a couple of movies together Friday the 13th and Disney's Lady and the Tramp - there's a stretch! and, despite my ineptitude at the dating arts, we fell for each other. Soon we were walking home in the dark, holding hands and having that first kiss outside her dormitory.
Young love!
But, young love being what it is, it was doomed to not last. After the first failed semester at Murray, I returned to Louisville while she stayed in college. We continued a long-distance relationship for a while, and truly loved each other.
Nonetheless, with much cowardice on my part (I'm not ready for marriage at 20!!), I told her I thought we ought to break it off. Painful, painful.
=====
WILL Dan and Donna get back together?! HOW will their life turn out?!
Tune in tomorrow...
On the plus side, not attending all my classes freed up my time for higher pursuits.
Donna.
It was a Baptist Student Union retreat when I first saw her. We were playing volleyball and she was wearing a shirt listing the 70 or so kids in her graduating class at Carlisle County High School.
Coming from the Big Town with a class of 500 or so, I felt obliged to tease her about the size of her class. I was smooth.
Having found out her name and dormitory, I smoothly signed up for something called Big Brothers/Little Sisters (or something like that) in which fellas from the male dormitory could "adopt" a young lady from the female dorm. I was not thinking brotherly thoughts, though.
We saw a couple of movies together Friday the 13th and Disney's Lady and the Tramp - there's a stretch! and, despite my ineptitude at the dating arts, we fell for each other. Soon we were walking home in the dark, holding hands and having that first kiss outside her dormitory.
Young love!
But, young love being what it is, it was doomed to not last. After the first failed semester at Murray, I returned to Louisville while she stayed in college. We continued a long-distance relationship for a while, and truly loved each other.
Nonetheless, with much cowardice on my part (I'm not ready for marriage at 20!!), I told her I thought we ought to break it off. Painful, painful.
=====
WILL Dan and Donna get back together?! HOW will their life turn out?!
Tune in tomorrow...
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Sunset
A couple of quick notes.
1. Be sure to visit Michael's latest post in which he points to a new article which illustrates the failure of the Iraq Invasion to decrease terrorism.
According to the Mother Jones article, fatal terrorist attacks committed by jiadists has increased sevenfold since the Iraq Invasion.
This is not news to most of us, who recognized (and loudly pointed out) BEFORE the invasion even began that such an effort could not be part of the "war on terrorism" because Iraq had nothing significant to do with terrorism in the first place and because an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation to try to kill terrorists could only make things worse.
Congratulations to Team Bush for being determined to show We, the People (remember the unprecedented millions worldwide who rallied before the war to stop it?) to be sadly correct. Sometimes, the majority is right and the People ought to be heeded.
2. Speaking of the People, Barack Obama and George W Bush are both coming to Louisville to speak to Us. Obama's visit is a fundraiser for his campaign and Bush's is a fundraiser for Sen. Mitch McConnell's doomed campaign.
With Bush's tickets costing $2000 and Obama's costing $25, we can see pretty well which People each camp respectively represents.
1. Be sure to visit Michael's latest post in which he points to a new article which illustrates the failure of the Iraq Invasion to decrease terrorism.
According to the Mother Jones article, fatal terrorist attacks committed by jiadists has increased sevenfold since the Iraq Invasion.
This is not news to most of us, who recognized (and loudly pointed out) BEFORE the invasion even began that such an effort could not be part of the "war on terrorism" because Iraq had nothing significant to do with terrorism in the first place and because an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation to try to kill terrorists could only make things worse.
Congratulations to Team Bush for being determined to show We, the People (remember the unprecedented millions worldwide who rallied before the war to stop it?) to be sadly correct. Sometimes, the majority is right and the People ought to be heeded.
2. Speaking of the People, Barack Obama and George W Bush are both coming to Louisville to speak to Us. Obama's visit is a fundraiser for his campaign and Bush's is a fundraiser for Sen. Mitch McConnell's doomed campaign.
With Bush's tickets costing $2000 and Obama's costing $25, we can see pretty well which People each camp respectively represents.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Cold as Ice
For those who may not have grown up Baptist (or some other evangelical flavor), you may or may not know that every church has a group of deacons who serve as lay volunteers to assist in the church. In the Bible, deacons were appointed specifically to help with the feeding of the poor and redistribution of wealth within the church.
Nowadays, deacons have often devolved into those who also run the church, helping the pastor make monetary, building and other decisions. On the positive side, in most churches, the deacons help keep in touch with church members, make sure they’re doing okay, visit them in times of need…that sort of thing.
And, in some churches, they also help with poverty-related assistance, but this seems to be fairly rare.
In many (most?) Baptist churches, the process for becoming a deacon often involves a time of “grilling” – asking the deacons theological questions to make sure they’re religious enough to be deacons and that they believe correctly.
I bring this up because I was talking to a relative of mine who was recently nominated to be a deacon. Now, this is a fairly conservative relation and, after much prayer and consideration, he decided to give it a shot.
One concern he had was that he drinks alcohol occasionally – a few times a year in small amounts. Being aware that the Bible nowhere condemns the drinking of alcohol (and, in fact, encourages it in small amounts for one’s health), he figured that wasn’t a problem, but he brought it up to his pastor ahead of time to ask if it were a problem.
He said he’d even be willing to forgo drinking alcohol while a deacon, if it were a stumbling block for anyone. But, being a member of a church where biblical literality was essential and since alcohol isn’t condemned biblically, he figured he was okay.
Well, Baptists being what they are, he wasn’t okay. His nomination was rejected out of hand until such time as he’s “been off” alcohol for a few years to prove that he’s not a drinker.
My relation was stung by the “Literalists.”
Although still quite conservative, he was a bit put off by the incident. He didn’t realize that what he needed to believe literally was not the Bible but the traditions of that particular church (and denomination, for the most part).
We agreed that no one takes the Bible literally literally, page-for-page, word-for-word. Anyone who values biblical teaching has to weigh what the Bible says in each part against the whole and against our God-given reason.
And while it’s obvious that no one takes the Bible word-for-word literally (kill disrespectful children, don’t go to banks, don’t invest, free prisoners every seven years, return land to the original owners every 50 years, pluck out our eyes, love our enemies, overcome evil with good, etc, etc, etc), many prefer to think that the beliefs of their church ARE the literal teachings of the Bible – even the ones that contradict biblical teachings.
My relation agreed with me that what IS vital for Bible-believers is that we take the Truths of the Bible literally.
It’s a shame. My family member is a great, compassionate fellow who would have been a kind and responsible deacon.
Nowadays, deacons have often devolved into those who also run the church, helping the pastor make monetary, building and other decisions. On the positive side, in most churches, the deacons help keep in touch with church members, make sure they’re doing okay, visit them in times of need…that sort of thing.
And, in some churches, they also help with poverty-related assistance, but this seems to be fairly rare.
In many (most?) Baptist churches, the process for becoming a deacon often involves a time of “grilling” – asking the deacons theological questions to make sure they’re religious enough to be deacons and that they believe correctly.
I bring this up because I was talking to a relative of mine who was recently nominated to be a deacon. Now, this is a fairly conservative relation and, after much prayer and consideration, he decided to give it a shot.
One concern he had was that he drinks alcohol occasionally – a few times a year in small amounts. Being aware that the Bible nowhere condemns the drinking of alcohol (and, in fact, encourages it in small amounts for one’s health), he figured that wasn’t a problem, but he brought it up to his pastor ahead of time to ask if it were a problem.
He said he’d even be willing to forgo drinking alcohol while a deacon, if it were a stumbling block for anyone. But, being a member of a church where biblical literality was essential and since alcohol isn’t condemned biblically, he figured he was okay.
Well, Baptists being what they are, he wasn’t okay. His nomination was rejected out of hand until such time as he’s “been off” alcohol for a few years to prove that he’s not a drinker.
My relation was stung by the “Literalists.”
Although still quite conservative, he was a bit put off by the incident. He didn’t realize that what he needed to believe literally was not the Bible but the traditions of that particular church (and denomination, for the most part).
We agreed that no one takes the Bible literally literally, page-for-page, word-for-word. Anyone who values biblical teaching has to weigh what the Bible says in each part against the whole and against our God-given reason.
And while it’s obvious that no one takes the Bible word-for-word literally (kill disrespectful children, don’t go to banks, don’t invest, free prisoners every seven years, return land to the original owners every 50 years, pluck out our eyes, love our enemies, overcome evil with good, etc, etc, etc), many prefer to think that the beliefs of their church ARE the literal teachings of the Bible – even the ones that contradict biblical teachings.
My relation agreed with me that what IS vital for Bible-believers is that we take the Truths of the Bible literally.
It’s a shame. My family member is a great, compassionate fellow who would have been a kind and responsible deacon.
Monday, February 12, 2007
My Dream Girl, Part 1
We were destined to be together, Donna and I.
This is the year that Donna and I have lived together as long as not. I'm not saying how old she is turning here in a few days (and, I, a few days later), but we'll have been married 22 years this June and, thus, will have lived together as long as we had lived apart before our marriage.
Although she was a country girl and I was a city boy - separated by hundreds of Kentucky miles - we were bound by a love of bicycles and wide open spaces, as you can see in this photo of young Donna Beth with her older brother, David.
We grew up unaware of one another's presence. She was baptized in her Southern Baptist church at age eight and I, in my Southern Baptist church at age ten. She graduated at the top of her class in her western Kentucky high school and I, well I graduated from my Louisville high school.
(Or, looking at it another way, she was only the 69th or so from the bottom of her class and I was probably about 250 or so away from the bottom of my class. It's all in how you frame things.)
We both grew up to be youth leaders in our respective traditonal churches, going to the same sorts of Baptist camps, crying over Pass it On ("I'll shout it from the mountain tops! I want the world to know....") around the campfire. Seriously silly.
She practiced Keith Green songs on the piano, I tried to play them on the guitar. We were so alike in so many ways.
But, there she was - stuck south of Possum Trot (just down the road from where Elvis was born) and I was firmly rooted in the Derby City. How would we ever manage to meet?!
More to come...
This is the year that Donna and I have lived together as long as not. I'm not saying how old she is turning here in a few days (and, I, a few days later), but we'll have been married 22 years this June and, thus, will have lived together as long as we had lived apart before our marriage.
Although she was a country girl and I was a city boy - separated by hundreds of Kentucky miles - we were bound by a love of bicycles and wide open spaces, as you can see in this photo of young Donna Beth with her older brother, David.
We grew up unaware of one another's presence. She was baptized in her Southern Baptist church at age eight and I, in my Southern Baptist church at age ten. She graduated at the top of her class in her western Kentucky high school and I, well I graduated from my Louisville high school.
(Or, looking at it another way, she was only the 69th or so from the bottom of her class and I was probably about 250 or so away from the bottom of my class. It's all in how you frame things.)
We both grew up to be youth leaders in our respective traditonal churches, going to the same sorts of Baptist camps, crying over Pass it On ("I'll shout it from the mountain tops! I want the world to know....") around the campfire. Seriously silly.
She practiced Keith Green songs on the piano, I tried to play them on the guitar. We were so alike in so many ways.
But, there she was - stuck south of Possum Trot (just down the road from where Elvis was born) and I was firmly rooted in the Derby City. How would we ever manage to meet?!
More to come...
Friday, February 9, 2007
Unintended Consequences
The notion of unintended consequences came up in the previous post and I want to bring it out into the light of a new post. In brief, the idea is that, given humanity’s limited genius, actions we take will almost always have the likelihood of having unintended consequences. Sometimes helpful, oftentimes not and sometimes quite devastating.
The Laws of Unintended Consequences are, I think, easier to see in example than explain in theory.
For instance, the Treaty of Versailles signed at the conclusion of WWI – which treated Germans fairly harshly, it has been said – has been pointed to as one cause of WWII. The idea was to punish Germany “appropriately” for their part in WWI, but the result was a people who were receptive to the horrible actions of the Nazis in WWII.
What was intended for good had a result of evil.
For a more recent example, one commenter noted that the supposedly good intention of increasing ethanol (and thereby decreasing our dependency upon petroleum) has had the unintended result of causing corn prices to increase dramatically in Mexico.
This writer was arguing against sending aid to the starving of Africa or Mexico because it would have unintended – and negative – consequences for the very people do-gooders hoped to help.
But, it could be further noted, that NOT sending assistance of some sort may result in a restlessness and anger amongst the poor of the world, making them more receptive to the seduction of terrorism or other violent protest. Yet more unintended consequences!
It could be noted that a fear of unintended consequences could well lead to a paralysis. However, ignoring the laws of unintended consequences may well mean disastrous policy (from war-making, to economic policy, to energy consumption and on).
I’d be tempted to suggest that a middle road is vital. Acknowledge our limited genius and the possibility of unintended consequences, but further acknowledge that inaction has its own consequences – just as often negative in nature.
But, I fully recognize my own limited genius. What say you?
The Laws of Unintended Consequences are, I think, easier to see in example than explain in theory.
For instance, the Treaty of Versailles signed at the conclusion of WWI – which treated Germans fairly harshly, it has been said – has been pointed to as one cause of WWII. The idea was to punish Germany “appropriately” for their part in WWI, but the result was a people who were receptive to the horrible actions of the Nazis in WWII.
What was intended for good had a result of evil.
For a more recent example, one commenter noted that the supposedly good intention of increasing ethanol (and thereby decreasing our dependency upon petroleum) has had the unintended result of causing corn prices to increase dramatically in Mexico.
This writer was arguing against sending aid to the starving of Africa or Mexico because it would have unintended – and negative – consequences for the very people do-gooders hoped to help.
But, it could be further noted, that NOT sending assistance of some sort may result in a restlessness and anger amongst the poor of the world, making them more receptive to the seduction of terrorism or other violent protest. Yet more unintended consequences!
It could be noted that a fear of unintended consequences could well lead to a paralysis. However, ignoring the laws of unintended consequences may well mean disastrous policy (from war-making, to economic policy, to energy consumption and on).
I’d be tempted to suggest that a middle road is vital. Acknowledge our limited genius and the possibility of unintended consequences, but further acknowledge that inaction has its own consequences – just as often negative in nature.
But, I fully recognize my own limited genius. What say you?
Monday, February 5, 2007
Dogs of War
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon is the big winner in President Bush's proposed budget for next year, while domestic items such as aid to schools and grants to local governments will get slight increases.
Medicare and Medicaid, the health program for the poor and disabled, would shoulder modest but politically difficult cost curbs in the budget the White House is submitting to Congress on Monday…
Bush's spending plan totals almost $3 trillion for the budget year starting October 1…
The Pentagon, which also consumes one-sixth of the overall budget, would get an 11 percent increase, to $481.4 billion in its core budget. And that is before accounting for an additional $235 billion in war costs over the next year and a half.
======
In summation: US military spending for this year if Bush has his way: $480 billion + ~$200 billion for Iraq. Something approaching ¾ of a TRILLION dollars.
A couple of other notes (source here):
* world military spending having reached the $1 trillion mark in 2004
* The top five nations and their military budgets (2005 Budgets):
1. US: ~$500 billion
2. China: ~$62 billion
3. Russia: ~$62 billion
4. UK: ~$51 billion
5. Japan: ~$45 billion
I look at this, and Bush and his “small gov’t” budget, and I wonder: If the Bush supporters had their way – if no one complained and they had their sweetest military fantasies come true – what would our military budget be?
Would $1 trillion dollars a year buy our security? $2 trillion?
Where would it end?
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
~James Madison
Medicare and Medicaid, the health program for the poor and disabled, would shoulder modest but politically difficult cost curbs in the budget the White House is submitting to Congress on Monday…
Bush's spending plan totals almost $3 trillion for the budget year starting October 1…
The Pentagon, which also consumes one-sixth of the overall budget, would get an 11 percent increase, to $481.4 billion in its core budget. And that is before accounting for an additional $235 billion in war costs over the next year and a half.
======
In summation: US military spending for this year if Bush has his way: $480 billion + ~$200 billion for Iraq. Something approaching ¾ of a TRILLION dollars.
A couple of other notes (source here):
* world military spending having reached the $1 trillion mark in 2004
* The top five nations and their military budgets (2005 Budgets):
1. US: ~$500 billion
2. China: ~$62 billion
3. Russia: ~$62 billion
4. UK: ~$51 billion
5. Japan: ~$45 billion
I look at this, and Bush and his “small gov’t” budget, and I wonder: If the Bush supporters had their way – if no one complained and they had their sweetest military fantasies come true – what would our military budget be?
Would $1 trillion dollars a year buy our security? $2 trillion?
Where would it end?
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
~James Madison
Friday, February 2, 2007
A Great Lady
Molly Ivins, August 30, 1944 – January 31, 2007
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority.
It's hard to argue against cynics -- they always sound smarter than optimists because they have so much evidence on their side.
It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong.
The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values. We do not need to dominate the world. We want and need to work with other nations. We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood.
Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention.
Let me say for the umpteenth time, George W. is not a stupid man. The IQ of his gut, however, is open to debate. In Texas, his gut led him to believe the death penalty has a deterrent effect, even though he acknowledged there was no evidence to support his gut's feeling. When his gut, or something, causes him to announce that he does not believe in global warming -- as though it were a theological proposition -- we once again find his gut ruling that evidence is irrelevant.
In my opinion, Bush's gut should not be entrusted with making peace in the Middle East.
The problem with those who choose received Authority over fact and logic is how they choose which part of Authority to obey. The Bible famously contradicts itself at many points (I have never understood why any Christian would choose the Old Testament over the New), and the Koran can be read as a wonderfully compassionate and humanistic document. Which suggests that the problem of fundamentalism lies not with authority, but with ourselves.
I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt. It doesn't actually hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle.
And finally, from her last column, January 11, 2007:
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there.
Rest in Peace, Miss Molly
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority.
It's hard to argue against cynics -- they always sound smarter than optimists because they have so much evidence on their side.
It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong.
The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values. We do not need to dominate the world. We want and need to work with other nations. We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood.
Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention.
Let me say for the umpteenth time, George W. is not a stupid man. The IQ of his gut, however, is open to debate. In Texas, his gut led him to believe the death penalty has a deterrent effect, even though he acknowledged there was no evidence to support his gut's feeling. When his gut, or something, causes him to announce that he does not believe in global warming -- as though it were a theological proposition -- we once again find his gut ruling that evidence is irrelevant.
In my opinion, Bush's gut should not be entrusted with making peace in the Middle East.
The problem with those who choose received Authority over fact and logic is how they choose which part of Authority to obey. The Bible famously contradicts itself at many points (I have never understood why any Christian would choose the Old Testament over the New), and the Koran can be read as a wonderfully compassionate and humanistic document. Which suggests that the problem of fundamentalism lies not with authority, but with ourselves.
I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt. It doesn't actually hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle.
And finally, from her last column, January 11, 2007:
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there.
Rest in Peace, Miss Molly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)