"There is not a religious mandate or God-ordained system of health care or insurance. No amount of biblical exegesis or study will lead you to a policy conclusion on health care savings accounts, personal versus employer provided insurance, single payer public systems, or private insurance plans. Luke might have been a physician, but he still never commented on whether or not computerizing medical records should be a national priority." -Jim Wallis of the lefty Sojourners organization
This pleasantly surprising expression of restraint and humble acknowledgment of the fundamentally open-to-question nature of Christian political engagements overlaps to a large extent with my personal contribution to the UMC's 2008 Book of Resolutions (aka the Book of Resolutions Nobody Reads).
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The TRUE Nefarious Powers Controlling Both U.S. Political Parties
For years, I've heard various people complain about how American politics is so corrupt and dismal, with both of the major political parties - despite some nuanced, window-dressing differences - being ultimately, fundamentally aligned against justice, decency, and the American people.
After all, depending on the ideological leanings of the complainer, the lament is how the top leadership of both the Democrats and the GOP show that when push comes to shove, they really operate as primarily beholden to the warmongers, socialist-big-government machine, corporate shills, elite-limousine-liberals, oligarchs, plutocrats, theocrats, abortocrats, gun-o-crats, pollutocrats, and/or Harvardcrats whose corrupt access to disproportionate power enables them to trap our entire society in inescapable subservience to the evil agendas and policies of this or that tiny cabal of puppetmasters.
However, all such complaints dramatically fail to see the bigger picture.
In a shocking new expose, the International Business Times reveals how now-President Obama, like Presidents Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Ford before him, is a card-carrying member of that elite 10% of Americans who are wrong-handed.
Think about it: only 10% of the population, but two-thirds of the Presidents in the last generation. What's that tell you?
The 2008 election was a sure sign that this increasingly powerful elite has grown to a scary extent in their power to impose their wrong control, policies, and hands on us good, decent, patriotic, hard-working, properly right-handed folk. Senator Obama's major opponent, Senator McCain, was also wrong-handed.
This is eerily reminiscent of that Simpsons episode when the two evil aliens take over the bodies of Clinton and Dole right before the 1996 election. Except that this is frighteningly real.
Even before that 2008 farce of an "election," it was clear that no matter who won, Obama or McCain, the Southpaw Syndicate would win.
And they won.
These may be very dark days for democracy...
After all, depending on the ideological leanings of the complainer, the lament is how the top leadership of both the Democrats and the GOP show that when push comes to shove, they really operate as primarily beholden to the warmongers, socialist-big-government machine, corporate shills, elite-limousine-liberals, oligarchs, plutocrats, theocrats, abortocrats, gun-o-crats, pollutocrats, and/or Harvardcrats whose corrupt access to disproportionate power enables them to trap our entire society in inescapable subservience to the evil agendas and policies of this or that tiny cabal of puppetmasters.
However, all such complaints dramatically fail to see the bigger picture.
In a shocking new expose, the International Business Times reveals how now-President Obama, like Presidents Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Ford before him, is a card-carrying member of that elite 10% of Americans who are wrong-handed.
Think about it: only 10% of the population, but two-thirds of the Presidents in the last generation. What's that tell you?
The 2008 election was a sure sign that this increasingly powerful elite has grown to a scary extent in their power to impose their wrong control, policies, and hands on us good, decent, patriotic, hard-working, properly right-handed folk. Senator Obama's major opponent, Senator McCain, was also wrong-handed.
This is eerily reminiscent of that Simpsons episode when the two evil aliens take over the bodies of Clinton and Dole right before the 1996 election. Except that this is frighteningly real.
Even before that 2008 farce of an "election," it was clear that no matter who won, Obama or McCain, the Southpaw Syndicate would win.
And they won.
These may be very dark days for democracy...
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Which Candidates REALLY Care?
With this election cycle yet again featuring opposing candidates challenging each other to publicly release their income-tax returns, the public is now privy to very interesting info about the various candidates' widely differing levels of personal generosity.
Here's how they rank in terms of percentage of gross adjusted income given to charity in 2006 and 2007:
-Sen. John McCain gave 27.3% - 28.6%
-Sen. Hillary Clinton gave 10.0% - 14.7%
-the Obamas gave 5.8% - 6.1%
-of the 89% of American households giving to charity, the average contribution is 3.1%
-since 1998, the Bidens have given 0.06% - 0.31%
-there appears to be no such public records (yet) from Gov. Sarah Palin
But how much could they each afford to give to others? The plot thickens:
-Sen. Clinton earned $20,400,000 in 2007 and $15,858,422 in 2006 (adjusted gross income)
-Sen. Obama earned $4,139,965 in 2007 and $983,826 in 2006
-Sen. McCain earned $386,527 in 2007 and $338,809 in 2006
-Sen. Biden earned $319,853 in 2007 and $248,859 in 2006
-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median annual household income for 2006-2007 was $49,901
It's easy for politicians to be generous with other people's money. Self-sacrifice is another matter.
Hat Tip: Tax Prof Blog
Here's how they rank in terms of percentage of gross adjusted income given to charity in 2006 and 2007:
-Sen. John McCain gave 27.3% - 28.6%
-Sen. Hillary Clinton gave 10.0% - 14.7%
-the Obamas gave 5.8% - 6.1%
-of the 89% of American households giving to charity, the average contribution is 3.1%
-since 1998, the Bidens have given 0.06% - 0.31%
-there appears to be no such public records (yet) from Gov. Sarah Palin
But how much could they each afford to give to others? The plot thickens:
-Sen. Clinton earned $20,400,000 in 2007 and $15,858,422 in 2006 (adjusted gross income)
-Sen. Obama earned $4,139,965 in 2007 and $983,826 in 2006
-Sen. McCain earned $386,527 in 2007 and $338,809 in 2006
-Sen. Biden earned $319,853 in 2007 and $248,859 in 2006
-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median annual household income for 2006-2007 was $49,901
It's easy for politicians to be generous with other people's money. Self-sacrifice is another matter.
Hat Tip: Tax Prof Blog
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Some Thoughts on the Bristol Palin pregnancy
By now, there's been a lot public discourse on the recently revealed pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl named Bristol Palin, who happens to be the daughter of GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
An initial observation I had was how much of the rhetoric seems to boil down to little more than: "SHOCK AND SCANDAL!! Somebody Related to VP Candidate has Pre-Marital Sex!!!!" (And that's amazing in this day and age because ... why?)
John the Methodist has a good post responding to the suggestion that this revelation may somehow "drive off Christian voters."
At another level, many of us have been impressed by the powerful pro-life witness of Bristol's decision to not "hide" it but rather keep the baby and marry his or her father. Many have also noted the obvious contrast with Senator Obama's groundbreaking extremism on abortion and his callously saying that he would support the killing of his own grandchild.
There's been a good deal of sometimes acrimonious debate over whether or not Bristol's pregnancy is "fair game" for media coverage related to evaluating Governor Palin as a VP candidate. While Republican talking heads have understandably been taking the line that this is a private family matter that is NOT fair game, I cannot help but recall how in the 2000 election (the first in which I voted), some conservatives seemed eager to make an issue of a run-in with the law by Al Gore's son, suggesting that it showed that the Democratic nominee hadn't raised his son right and therefore lacked the requisite character for the White House.
On the one hand, there is some biblical warrant for the behavior of children reflecting on their parents (though the context of that passage seems to be with younger children). On the other hand, how many of us would really want ourselves to be held personally responsible for mistakes our offspring may make in their late teenage years?
The election season is heating up with the majority of voting Americans having already decided who they will vote for. An inevitable part of this process involves making criticisms of the candidate who we plan to vote against. May this be a reminder of all of us to not do so without first asking ourselves: if folk from the other side were criticizing my candidate on similar grounds, would I consider this to be fair?
An initial observation I had was how much of the rhetoric seems to boil down to little more than: "SHOCK AND SCANDAL!! Somebody Related to VP Candidate has Pre-Marital Sex!!!!" (And that's amazing in this day and age because ... why?)
John the Methodist has a good post responding to the suggestion that this revelation may somehow "drive off Christian voters."
At another level, many of us have been impressed by the powerful pro-life witness of Bristol's decision to not "hide" it but rather keep the baby and marry his or her father. Many have also noted the obvious contrast with Senator Obama's groundbreaking extremism on abortion and his callously saying that he would support the killing of his own grandchild.
There's been a good deal of sometimes acrimonious debate over whether or not Bristol's pregnancy is "fair game" for media coverage related to evaluating Governor Palin as a VP candidate. While Republican talking heads have understandably been taking the line that this is a private family matter that is NOT fair game, I cannot help but recall how in the 2000 election (the first in which I voted), some conservatives seemed eager to make an issue of a run-in with the law by Al Gore's son, suggesting that it showed that the Democratic nominee hadn't raised his son right and therefore lacked the requisite character for the White House.
On the one hand, there is some biblical warrant for the behavior of children reflecting on their parents (though the context of that passage seems to be with younger children). On the other hand, how many of us would really want ourselves to be held personally responsible for mistakes our offspring may make in their late teenage years?
The election season is heating up with the majority of voting Americans having already decided who they will vote for. An inevitable part of this process involves making criticisms of the candidate who we plan to vote against. May this be a reminder of all of us to not do so without first asking ourselves: if folk from the other side were criticizing my candidate on similar grounds, would I consider this to be fair?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)