Category: Politics

A Tea Party I Could Get Excited About

Kinda busy this week, getting ready for class this weekend, and all the homework that precedes class, but felt like if I’m really going to do this blog thing, I needed to get something new up, before the few followers I have drift away…

Not sure about the rest of the nation, but politics is certainly dominating the Alaska news scene. It certainly is confusing. The Republican nominee for Senate is blasting the Republican party for deficit spending; the Democratic nominee is buying Incredible Hulk ties (a la Ted Stevens), and our independent candidate is from a stalwart Republican family. Seems everybody except the incumbent is trying to make themselves over to be more conservative.

I’ve got more than a few acquaintances who are supportive of the Tea Party movement, and I understand their frustrations with the way things are. But I’m not certain that the Tea Party movement is the solution, mainly because I’ve yet to see the Tea Party offer any solutions!

Before you bombard me with responses (ok, 3 followers can’t really generate a carpet-bombing, but I can at least pretend), let me acknowledge that they are offering broad statements, but not detailed solutions. I’m sorry, but railing about cutting spending and cutting taxes, without citing which cuts, and how you’ll mitigate the impacts, isn’t offering solutions. In my humble opinion, it’s just pandering to the anger of the masses.

All this to say that I’m digging a recent op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. Mr. Friedman likens the current “Tea Party” to a “tea kettle”, stating that all it’s really doing is letting off steam. Mr. Friedman states that the real Tea Party movement is yet to come:

Any Tea Party that says the simple answer is just shrinking government and slashing taxes might be able to tip the midterm elections in its direction. But it can’t tip America in the right direction. There is a Tea Party for that, but it’s still waiting for a leader.

I hope he’s right.

Bravo, Rick Joyner!

A few days ago, I used a quote from Rick Joyner’s website to point out a concern about people not seeking to understand what was going on before they responded to bad information.

I take this opportunity to give Mr. Joyner some appreciation for his latest newsletter. I don’t agree with everything he says every week, but he’s a respected friend of a man that I respect and honor, so I listen to what Mr. Joyner has to say. I don’t immediately and unthinkingly adopt what he says, but I consider it.

In the article linked above, Mr. Joyner writes about Christians’ mandate to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-14). He states:

To be the light that inspires the world and the salt that keeps if from falling into depravity is our calling. If the world is slipping into darkness, we must not condemn the world, but consider how our light has been dimmed. If the world is falling into deeper depravity, we need to determine how we, the salt, may have lost our savor so that we can no longer prevent this. Occupying until He comes infers not letting this happen. Therefore, the impetus for the meltdown of morality and growing corruption is on us to prevent, which we can only do by being who we are called to be as Christians. It is not the time to condemn the heathen for living in darkness—they cannot help this without us. It is time to judge ourselves, and resolve that we are here to help save them, not condemn them.

OUTSTANDING!!! Too many Christians in the West today are condemning their fellow man, thinking they’re “shining a light” on sin. In reality, they’re offending their fellow man, and showing an ugly, un-Christlike view of the Church to the world. Mr. Joyner has very eloquently challenged all of us to quit judging, and start loving!

A pastor friend recently cited statistics that most 18-29 year olds, when surveyed about Christians, first responded with “hates homosexuals”, followed by “judgemental”. WOW. Kinda the opposite of the Jesus I know. We, the body of Christ, need to get our act together. Our light’s going out, and our salt is tasting kinda sandy. In the process, we’re losing ground in a fallen world.

To my fellow Christians: If you’re going to judge, grab your Bible and a mirror. When the two images match, then you’re qualified to judge others. Until then, humble yourselves, and keep trying to get the mirror image to look like the Bible image.

To my non-Christian friends: We don’t deserve it, but would you consider giving us Christians another chance? I can only speak for me, but I’ve messed up more than I’ve gotten right in loving my neighbor. But God’s only had a few years to try to fix what I’ve worked real hard to corrupt for most of my life. He’s a miracle-working God, but I’m a pretty hard case, and I haven’t always gone along willingly. Would you please forgive us–we mean well.

Obama Administration declares Bible-believing Christians and Veterans “Terrorists”

PLEASE KEEP READING!!!

This headline, or others like it, has screamed at me several times from my inbox, as concerned Christian friends have attempted to “get the word out” about the coming persecution.

A recent article from Evangelical Christian writer Rick Joyner on his webpage states:

“Consider this: In the infamous memo put out by the Department of Homeland Security about potential terrorist threats in America, it named Christians who believe the end-time prophecies in the Bible and veterans, but did not name Islamic extremists. Think about how skewed that is. When was the last time a Christian flew an airplane into a building or was a suicide bomber? Over the last half century virtually every major terrorist attack in the world came from one group, Islamic jihadists, and yet that group is not even named as a potential threat by our DHS.” Prepared for the Times, Part 28, MorningStar Ministries

These statements concerned me, so I sought out the memo to see what it actually said. I’m concerned that Mr. Joyner, along with others who have forwarded emails citing this memo as a threat to Christians, did not read the memo. If they did, then I’m more concerned that they’re either:

a) Thoroughly misunderstanding what Christians stand for, or

b) So intent on finding fault with our administration that they are deliberately twisting the words so as to be offended by something that’s not inherent in the meaning.

The document in question is an intelligence threat assessment. It’s title indicates its subject matter (Right Wing Extremism). It does not state that Islamic jihadists are NOT a threat; they are just not within the scope of the document.

The references to veterans revolve around their potential recruitment by right wing extremist organizations. It does NOT state that veterans are likely to become right wing extremists, or that veterans themselves were potential terrorist threats, just that extremist organizations were targeting veterans for recruitment.

I’m even more taken aback by the comments about “it nam[ing] Christians who believe the end-time prophecies in the Bible…” as potential terrorist threats. I was eager to see what our government had to say that identified Bible-believing Christians (like me) as terrorist threats!

The only section of the document that mentions “Christian” or “end times” is the last paragraph on page 4, quoted in part here:

“Antigovernment conspiracy theories and ‘end times’ prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.”

Given that “end times prophecies” abound, and exist beyond the Bible, I decided to look into the “Christian Identity organizations” they referenced. Another quick Google search brought me to several websites about Christian Identity, and several other Christian Identity organizational websites. A brief review of these sites led me to several conclusions:

1) These organizations are NOT Christian

2) Their understanding of the “end times” is a grotesque bastardization of the Bible to justify their hatred of Jews and other non-white races

3) In at least one instance I found, they are very overtly targeting US veterans through deception and pandering to potential disillusionment in our returning veterans.

4) These guys are dangerous wackos that I want our government to keep an eye on!!!

Nowhere else in the government document does it address Bible-believing Christians. So I implore my fellow citizens of this great nation, at all points on the political spectrum, to take the time to do their homework before they respond to politically-charged sound bites.

“Seek first to understand…”

More on Lying…

Let’s look at a few definitions:
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. lie. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

an intentional violation of the truth. Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

There are many others, of course, but the prevailing definition in most dictionaries I looked into had a common theme in them: INTENTIONALITY

This means that our good friend, the honorable Congressman Wilson from South Carolina is accusing the President of the United States of knowingly and intentionally telling a false statement to the people of the US and the assembled Congress with the deliberate intent to deceive! If the Congressman is correct and has evidence to corroborate his accusation, this is an impeachable offense!

Is he leading the effort to file for impeachment of the President? I kinda doubt it. But why not? He felt so emphatically just a few nights ago that he was apparently convinced the accusation could not wait for a more suitable forum–so he had to blurt it out right then and there!

I’m sorry folks, but President Obama isn’t deliberately telling you or I anything he knows is false, any more than President Bush deliberately deceived us when he said there was irrefutable evidence of WMD development in Iraq prior to the invasion. Put down the conspiracy novels.

I’m not saying that either is 100% accurate in their respective statements. What I’m saying is that each believed what they said to be true, and said it with the best of intentions.

Leveling the charge of “lying” attributes a very evil intent to deceive–and to accuse any man of that level of evil requires a high level of certainty. When the allegation is aimed at one of authority, whose execution of deliberate deception on a national scale would be an affront against our people, our nation, the world, and our God (who both men profess to serve)–that is an accusation of such vile intent, that we are calling the person’s very character into serious doubt…do these accusers really mean what they’re saying? Do they realize what they’re saying?

If we, the American public, have managed to elect, consecutively, two men of such evil character that they would deliberately mislead the American public…we have bigger problems than health care.

In this day of instant communication, we all need to practice the skill of thinking before we speak.

Personally, the behavior we, the people have exhibited during the recent debate on reforming health care provision in the US, indicates that we have a bigger problem than poor health care provision. We, the electorate and the elected, have some serious character issues.

"You lie???"

WHAT? When did it become socially acceptable for grown men to throw around schoolyard insults and accusations? Never mind that this is a sitting member of Congress yelling out during a speech BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Outside of pool halls and taverns, when did it become ok for any grownup to speak to another like that?

We have totally lost the art of critical thinking and intellectual debate. At one point in the not-so-distant past, if (and that’s a big “if”) the Congressman were aware of deliberate telling of falsehoods by the President, he would have challenged the falsehoods with coolly-worded facts embedded in well-turned phrases that would have inarguably exposed the falsehoods while maintaining the Congressman’s dignity.

I don’t see much evidence in our public discourse of reason, logic, respect for our fellow man (let alone his opinion), or an interest in preserving and even promoting the greater good.

For the love of all things sacred, how did a grown man who can’t even seem to control childish outbursts get elected to such a high office? Who cares if he’s factually correct, he has lost all credibility and authority. I’m sure the talking heads will love him.

Health Care Reform: What’s the PROBLEM?

Don’t read that title wrong–I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. I firmly believe there is. But I’m not sure we’re going about solving it properly.

In any problem-solving process I’m familiar with, the first step is defining the problem. This step is critical, but often not properly performed. Poorly defined problems result in misguided solutions.

Our politicians are presenting lots of solutions, but I’ve yet to hear a clearly defined problem statment. “America’s health care system is broke” is not a problem statement. What’s broke? What are we trying to fix? What will it look like when we fix it?

Without a clearly defined problem statement, we’re almost assuredly going to fail in any attempt to fix the problem. So, What’s the PROBLEM???

To get the discussion started, here’s my attempt:

Adequate, affordable health care is not readily available to all US citizens.

Lots of weasel words in there, that need further definition. That would be the next step of clearly defining the problem. However, I don’t think we start with a solution (universal health insurance, government provided medicine, tort reform, etc) until we’ve agreed on the problem we’re trying to solve.

So, have at it. Take my attempt at a problem statement apart; post your own.

Health Care Reform-what WON’T work!

So what’s the answer? I know what’s not the answer: Demonizing either side, disruptive scare tactics, pithy sayings and talking points, or solutions concise enough that you can Tweet them. The rhetoric is nauseating. A real, positive solution is impossible to achieve the way the conversation has proceeded to this point. I’m talking to both sides.

I honestly think the President is doing a relatively good job trying to move a major issue forward, and trying to do so in a constructive way. Does he have an agenda–OF COURSE HE DOES! If he didn’t have one, what good would he be as a leader? Is it an evil agenda, a negative agenda–I don’t think so. Am I saying he’s right? No! (I’m not saying he’s wrong either–I’m saying I disagree with his proposals as presented. That’s fundamentally different than saying he’s wrong). He’s at least trying to have an intelligent conversation. Is he engaging in the mudslinging? Yes, but it’d be hard to avoid. When the nitwit Republican Senator DeMint made the statement “If we are to stop Obama on this, it would be his Waterloo. It will break him”, it’s pretty hard to fault the President for fighting back.

I mean, come on…what’s the priority here??? Fix health care, or “break” the President? If it’s the latter, we may have bigger problems than health care reform. Who among us, when trying to do our job overheard someone saying “this is our chance to break him” wouldn’t fight back? That statement wasn’t about health care, it was about the ugliest form of party politics–not standing for anything, simply opposing the person currently in power in order to depose him in order to gain that power for yourself.

The proponents of the President’s plan don’t get a pass from me either. Speaker Pelosi, among others, has characterized those who express an opposing opinion as uninformed, and even unpatriotic. Both sides appear to be focused more on defending their position and attacking those who disagree, than they do about solving problems.

Let’s get back to discussing the details, honestly evaluating the pros and cons, and proposing possible solutions, instead of calling the other side names, and labeling their ideas with inflamatory words that don’t add any value to the debate.

Health Care Reform: Part 2

The other side of the coin: As stated in my previous post, I think what we have now needs some fixing. However, I’m not at all convinced that government-run health care is the answer. As a recipient of government-run health care for all my adult life, I appreciate the price, but it’s not the best service you can receive. Not to badmouth military health care at all, just acknowledging the limits of what they can do given their budgets, regulatory constraints, etc. And I believe the military does a much better job running their health care than any other government agency would–DoD is strongly incentivized to take good care of their most valuable resource (servicemembers), and the people in military treatment facilities take a great deal of pride in honoring our retirees’ service by treating them well. I don’t thing you’re going to get that same kind of service from the Federal Health Care Bureaucracy, whose charter would be to take care of Joe SixPack. I don’t think there’s too many good examples of socialized medicine providing better care than what we have in the US today for the majority of people.

I also don’t believe the government can be more efficent at running a business than the private sector. I’m not saying that the market should be allowed to resolve this itself. A pure market will achieve maximum efficiency, but it’s ruthless, and health care is not the place for ruthless. Also, what we have today is far from a pure market. There’s already a lot of government regulation, insurance expense, welfare programs, etc, that keep the market from resolving this issue itself. But I think this is not an instance where the government needs to take over the operation. That makes sense for certain services (national defense, interstate commerce, primary education, fire protection, etc). I think a strong argument can be made that medical care doesn’t fit that the criteria to justify government operation.

Let’s talk about Health Care Reform! Yaay! :)

OK, I’m really frustrated on this one. I’m torn in different directions.

On the one hand, The system’s not working well. Costs are out of control; and it’s a death-spiral. A lot of people can’t afford quality health care, so they go without. And they continue to go without until their health deteriorates to the point they have to do something about it. Then they’re often forced to destroy their finances, or take advantage of treatment policies that say that hospitals can’t turn away critically ill, or rely on government programs. It’s demoralizing, depressing, and it’s destroying lives, physically and emotionally. It’s also a drag on our economy. Preventative health care, like preventative car maintenance, is much cheaper than catastrophic treatment. And ultimately others pick up the cost of that catastrophic treatment for those who can’t afford their own care.

This one is kinda personal. I’ve got a very close friend who’s battling for his life. He DOES have insurance, but his out of pocket expenses are still bankrupting him. And he’s too proud to take help from others, so he’s probably going to take himself off the transplant list. His reasoning? He can’t afford the debt himself, and if he keeps working till he dies, his employer-paid life insurance will take care of his current debt load, instead of burdening his family even further to get the life-saving operation. Not at all rational, but it shows what this kind of long-term stress can do to an intelligent human being.

Our nation should be able to provide better health care to our citizens (note I said “nation”, not necessarily “government”).

Why does my daughter have a constitutional right …

In the state of Alaska, my 16 year old daughter has a “constitutional right” to an abortion without my notification or consent, but she has to have my permission to:
-register for school
-get a tylenol from the school nurse
-get her driver’s license
-receive any other medical procedure other than an abortion

She can’t even get married without my consent! In our state, if she were 14 or 15, she would require a court order to allow her to marry, but she can get an abortion (if she were pregnant-probably should have stated that earlier!) without anyone’s approval.

This “right” was determined by our state Supreme Court when it ruled in 2007 that a 1997 law requiring parental consent for minors to have an abortion was an unconstitutional violation of the minor’s right to privacy.

Our legislature has attempted to pass a new law addressing the Court’s concerns. Additionally, a citizens’ initiative has just been approved for the ballot, making it illegal to perform an abortion on a minor without parental consent. That initiative is being challenged in court by Planned Parenthood.

Set aside your position on abortion for a minute. Does this make sense? We grant parents almost unlimited access to all aspects of a child’s life, and in fact parents are expected to make decisions for minors in all other major aspects of their life. Why not when making decisions regarding dealing with an unplanned pregnancy? Certainly this has to be a traumatic time in the young girl’s life. Fears, emotions, societal pressures all crashing around in her head, and this time she doesn’t need her parents’ support?

I have some theories on the why, but I’ll hold off. I want to understand the full spectrum of positions on this issue. Your thoughts?