There remains a tremendous amount of support for Palin among the Republican base. She draws huge crowds and continues to raise large amounts of money for the McCain campaign. Yet, a growing number of Republicans, who were supporters of Sarah, are now expressing concern about her poor performance with the media and what it could mean.
• Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside for the good of her country. Parker, who is a conservative journalist, states "Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, agrees: "that’s not a crazy suggestion."
• Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says "You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water."
• Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. "…she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden, and definitely not Hillary Clinton."
• Rich Lowry, a writer for The National Review, says, "I thought Palin was dreadful. She obviously didn't have the reaction to the Charlie Gibson interview that I had hoped. She had better be better prepared for next week or she risks damaging her political brand forevermore."
So far, Palin has only given three interviews since being announced as McCain's VP. In these interviews, she has demonstrated a clear lack of knowledge regarding basic political fundamentals. This would explain why the McCain Team has not let her out much without being scripted.
Here are some of Palin’s difficult moments during interviews:
Speaking with Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off guard by a question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused of profiting from the companies just as recent as one month ago, despite his denials. She seemed genuinely stumped with Couric’s follow up question, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to memorized talking points about the "undue influence of lobbyists." When asked to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations – in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience – Palin spoke in incoherent circles.
"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."
Asked about the $700 billion bailout package, Palin gave a nonsensical answer that strung together every economic talking point she could think of:
"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
In an interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin gave an answer to a question about the Bush Doctrine that displayed an obvious ignorance as to what it is. When asked to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin said that her experience with Alaska’s energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues. When asked about the difficulties between Russia and Georgia (a democracy in western Asia that borders Russia), she declared it might be necessary to wage war on Russia, a suggestion that most average Americans know to be something we would not want to do.
In an interview with a much more friendly Sean Hannity, of Fox News, Palin responded with vague, wandering generalities to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout, and then definitively came out against it, while at the same time, McCain was indicating that he would help to negotiate the details and therefore support it.
Every time reporters have questioned Palin on foreign policy, she’s been confused. Some Republicans are now worried Palin could blow Thursday’s debate, based on her weak and unsteady interviews, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does. But she is probably in the process of internalizing the talking points so well that she will manage to get through it and perhaps even do well. According to George Stephanopoulos, a reporter with ABC News, Palin cannot continue those deer in the headlight moments where it seems like she doesn't know what to say. He continued with the statement that "a major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy." Does this mean that if she makes a major gaffe, she will very quickly "resign" from the team "to spend more time with her family?" Probably not, because it would shine a light on McCain's judgment, putting him on the defensive for the final five weeks.
But would Palin’s "winning" the debate really make her a good candidate for vice president or possibly for president?
Think about this: If you vote for McCain/Palin, according to the life insurance actuarial tables, you will be voting for a 33% chance for an unqualified Sarah Palin to become President. She is a charismatic politician who seems to have done some good things for Alaska, but it is so obvious that she has never spent a day thinking, much less studying or reading, about any important national or international issue. She is in over her head. Sarah Palin is not equipped to be vice-president, much less president. She doesn't know enough; she lacks the necessary understanding of our complex world.
A very conservative newspaper, The Stockton Record, which has not endorsed a Democrat for president in 72 years, questioned McCain for his surprise choice of Palin, "We worry he won't have four years," the editorial said. "If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president. And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment."
Are you sure you want Palin as President?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Condescending Attitude
In the next few days, there will be volumes of very detailed, in-depth comments on the first Presidential debate by knowledgeable, experienced analysts. As an ordinary American, what struck me the most was the dishonorable, condescending, dismissive, contemptuous, patronizing, insulting, bullying verbal and non-verbal attitude (body language) displayed by Senator McCain towards his opponent, and colleague, Senator Obama. During an almost two hour debate, McCain did not look Obama in the eye even once. While I do not know what McCain’s reason was for such disrespectful behavior, I found it to be very offensive.
McCain said several times that he reaches across the aisle in Congress to negotiate with those of differing opinions, but during the debate Obama actually demonstrated that he could. Several times Obama agreed or gave credit to McCain, showing a stark comparison between the two men. At first I thought giving credit to McCain was the wrong thing to do. I knew that before the debate was over that the McCain camp would be releasing an ad showing Obama saying that he agrees with McCain and somehow turn that into a negative stance. Then I realized that Obama was denying McCain his maverick status and, instead, highlighting McCain’s character. Obama showed that he could actually reach across the aisle to work with McCain, the “I was not voted Miss Congeniality” hottest-tempered person in Congress. Obama was showing his leadership, his ability to negotiate, to reach out to those with differing opinions, to find common ground. McCain demonstrated, through his behavior, that he would bring even greater division between right and left political wings than what we have experienced during the past eight years.
Whether McCain’s insolence will have any effect on the polls, is an open question. And, while some of his Republican base may claim that McCain “won” the debate, in my opinion, he absolutely lost it in terms of manners, and civility. Is this how he will act toward the leaders of other countries?
McCain proved himself to be confrontational and unwilling to use diplomacy. This confrontational, warring attitude will not provide us with the excellent presidential leadership America needs.
McCain said several times that he reaches across the aisle in Congress to negotiate with those of differing opinions, but during the debate Obama actually demonstrated that he could. Several times Obama agreed or gave credit to McCain, showing a stark comparison between the two men. At first I thought giving credit to McCain was the wrong thing to do. I knew that before the debate was over that the McCain camp would be releasing an ad showing Obama saying that he agrees with McCain and somehow turn that into a negative stance. Then I realized that Obama was denying McCain his maverick status and, instead, highlighting McCain’s character. Obama showed that he could actually reach across the aisle to work with McCain, the “I was not voted Miss Congeniality” hottest-tempered person in Congress. Obama was showing his leadership, his ability to negotiate, to reach out to those with differing opinions, to find common ground. McCain demonstrated, through his behavior, that he would bring even greater division between right and left political wings than what we have experienced during the past eight years.
Whether McCain’s insolence will have any effect on the polls, is an open question. And, while some of his Republican base may claim that McCain “won” the debate, in my opinion, he absolutely lost it in terms of manners, and civility. Is this how he will act toward the leaders of other countries?
McCain proved himself to be confrontational and unwilling to use diplomacy. This confrontational, warring attitude will not provide us with the excellent presidential leadership America needs.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Untethered and impulsive
America's capabilities and standing in the world have been seriously damaged by the Bush administration. With America’s economy now further impaired, the prospects for real success by either presidential candidate in the next four years look greatly diminished. The next president’s tasks will be larger and more complex than for any President in decades.
McCain has looked more frantic than presidential during the last 10 days. McCain was in the middle of another week in which (1) Americans were concluding he was clueless about the economy, (2) very conservative columnists were raising serious questions about his running mate's ability to perform even the simplest chores of political leadership, and (3) his campaign manager was revealed as a beneficiary of the same financial institutions to which he claimed Obama had a connection.
Actions always speak louder than words, although for the past two weeks McCain’s words have been loudly schizophrenic. Finally settling on a direction, he decided that the fundamentals of the economy were not strong. He suspended his campaign (but not really, since there have been many different campaign advisors on various talk shows), cancelled his appearance on David Letterman’s show (after which David Letterman thoroughly tore him apart), and attempted to cancel the debate for Friday night – all so he could immediately “rush back to Washington to solve the economic crisis.”
Once he announced to the nation that, as a patriot, he was suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington, McCain did nothing of the sort. Instead, he rushed to CBS to be interviewed by Katie Couric at the same time he was supposed to be taping the Letterman show. Then he stayed in New York so that he could attend Clinton’s Global Initiative the next morning.
In the debate, McCain will have to explain why he thinks Americans should not view him as a real Republican, and convince us that the next four more years would not be a continuation of the same policies that have run the country into the ground. He also should explain why he was unable to bring everyone to the table, negotiate a bipartisan plan, and solve the economic crisis as he said he would; and why his appearance in Washington seemed to actually cause the delicate negotiations to crumble. Obama cautioned that presidential politics should not be injected into the negotiations. Apparently, he was correct.
In an editorial entitled McCain’s Scapegoat, the very conservative Wall Street Journal used the word “untethered” to describe McCain:
“To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, I'll quote at length: ‘Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground. The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him.’
“Wow. Betrayed the public's trust. Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.”
Conservative columnist George F. Will picked up the idea and ran with it, calling McCain impulsive:
“Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles. It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?”
A potential president acting “untethered” and “impulsive” is frightening.
The pundits often describe Obama as “cerebral” (brainy, smart) and cool. Right now, cool-headed, even-tempered, and “cerebral” is sounding really good to me.
McCain has looked more frantic than presidential during the last 10 days. McCain was in the middle of another week in which (1) Americans were concluding he was clueless about the economy, (2) very conservative columnists were raising serious questions about his running mate's ability to perform even the simplest chores of political leadership, and (3) his campaign manager was revealed as a beneficiary of the same financial institutions to which he claimed Obama had a connection.
Actions always speak louder than words, although for the past two weeks McCain’s words have been loudly schizophrenic. Finally settling on a direction, he decided that the fundamentals of the economy were not strong. He suspended his campaign (but not really, since there have been many different campaign advisors on various talk shows), cancelled his appearance on David Letterman’s show (after which David Letterman thoroughly tore him apart), and attempted to cancel the debate for Friday night – all so he could immediately “rush back to Washington to solve the economic crisis.”
Once he announced to the nation that, as a patriot, he was suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington, McCain did nothing of the sort. Instead, he rushed to CBS to be interviewed by Katie Couric at the same time he was supposed to be taping the Letterman show. Then he stayed in New York so that he could attend Clinton’s Global Initiative the next morning.
In the debate, McCain will have to explain why he thinks Americans should not view him as a real Republican, and convince us that the next four more years would not be a continuation of the same policies that have run the country into the ground. He also should explain why he was unable to bring everyone to the table, negotiate a bipartisan plan, and solve the economic crisis as he said he would; and why his appearance in Washington seemed to actually cause the delicate negotiations to crumble. Obama cautioned that presidential politics should not be injected into the negotiations. Apparently, he was correct.
In an editorial entitled McCain’s Scapegoat, the very conservative Wall Street Journal used the word “untethered” to describe McCain:
“To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, I'll quote at length: ‘Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground. The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him.’
“Wow. Betrayed the public's trust. Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.”
Conservative columnist George F. Will picked up the idea and ran with it, calling McCain impulsive:
“Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles. It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?”
A potential president acting “untethered” and “impulsive” is frightening.
The pundits often describe Obama as “cerebral” (brainy, smart) and cool. Right now, cool-headed, even-tempered, and “cerebral” is sounding really good to me.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Judgment Day
Republicans, including John McCain, believe regulation of the markets to be anathema. Deregulation goes hand in hand with the belief that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit everyone in the long run, because, they say, the wealthy are the ones who provide the jobs for this country (although it is said that small businesses drive much of the employment growth). They believe that it’s the wealthy who make the big investments in big business that benefit everyone. This is called “trickle down economics,” supply-side economics, or Reaganomics.
The first and foremost principle of Reaganomics that the current Bush administration and his Republican team have so loyally followed is blind faith in the market. The idea is that if the market is allowed to work, without oversight, the economy will naturally stay healthy. Trickle-down (also called supply-side) theorists believe that pumping money into the hands of the wealthy will cause them to invest in business, which will in turn cause the economy to grow, which will create jobs, which will eventually get money into the hands of the average working man. This theory is behind the Bush tax cut which greatly favored the wealthy and which John McCain has said he will make permanent.
Reality is quite different from the theory.
Deregulation caused greed and a high level of opportunism to come to the forefront. The economic market got out of control. During the credit boom between 2002 and 2006, both financial institutions and American households took on too much debt. Now many of those borrowers can't pay back the loans, which causes the credit market to not be able to make loans to anyone for any reason, which, in turn, chokes economic growth. This problem is exacerbated by the collapse in housing prices at a time when many Americans took out equity loans to finance a more extravagant lifestyle.
In his interview with PBS's News Hour on September 15, Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, said the root cause of the economic problem is that “in the last few years, the approach has been the one of laissez-faire [a phrase literally meaning allow to do)…a financial market without appropriate rules and regulations …gets crazy, [with] asset bubbles, credit bubbles…self-regulation means no regulation....” He was speaking of fully uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, a separation between government and economics, that has been promoted by the Republicans.
A Century Foundation report on the effects of Republican deregulation and tax policies that favor the rich reveals that:
• The supply-side economics theory makes the assumption that if you cut corporate tax rates, corporations are more willing to do things with their money. This is unlikely, for a host of reasons, starting with the fact that all a corporation is supposed to do is make money for expansion and for its shareholders. Additional savings incurred by a lessened tax burden does not mean corporations create more jobs. It does mean that these companies may have a better bottom line enabling them to pass out more money to shareholders and give CEOs ridiculously larger paychecks.
• Rich people did not get rich by sharing their money. When you give rich people more money, they don't necessarily provide someone a job with it. Instead, they may take a cruise or buy a new BMW or Mercedes. McCain, for example, apparently has 13 cars and seven houses.
• The current U.S. tax policy, begun by Reagan and continued by George W. Bush, has aggravated the growing gap between rich and poor, with tax cuts disproportionately rewarding those at the top while doing little for the middle class or the poor. The top 5 percent of income recipients in the United States have on average 5.5 times the income of the remaining 95 percent, but in terms of accumulated wealth, the top 5 percent have on average 23 times that of the remaining 95 percent. The average income on Wall Street last year was about $280,000, or nearly five times as high as the average of all other workers in the United States.
One of the best measures to demonstrate the failure of Reaganomics is to look at the growth of median household incomes. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the median household income was $17,710. The U.S. Census shows the median income in 2005 was $46,326. When adjusted for inflation, the purchasing power of median American income for 2005 was only 85% of what it was in 1980. Even worse is that under George W. Bush, since 2006, the median income has actually been driven down while the cost of gas, groceries, utilities, and health care has drastically risen.
The current economic catastrophe has “trickled down” from Wall Street, tightening credit for consumers and businesses who have played by the rules. This is not just impacting the people who took out subprime mortgages to buy homes they could not really afford, but Jane and John Doe who has done everything correctly, by the book, paying their mortgage and other bills on time. The Hope Now Alliance, the lenders’ group put together at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, estimates the number of foreclosure proceedings that begin nationally in each month. The latest figures, for July, put the number at 197,000, the highest for any month since they started keeping track in July 2007. Of those that failed, 105,000 were normal mortgages, and 92,000 were subprime.
A word about the credit default swaps you have been hearing about: Credit default swaps, a kind of insurance, could be directly exchanged between banks. This supposedly spread out the risk, making it safe for banks to take on ever riskier forms of debt. These credit default swaps turned into the perfect vehicle to fuel a Wall Street boom. No one ever had any idea what these things were actually worth, they were traded directly from bank to bank without being administered or regulated by any exchange. Credit default swaps, in allowing banks to share risks, caused them to compete with each other in an effort to chase higher profit through risky loans. This “insurance” made it possible for the down payment on homes to become as low as 0% - nada, nothing, zip. The illusion of "safety" that CDS derivatives provided allowed the sub-prime mortgage market to be possible.
Now the chickens have come home to roost: So far in 2008, 11 federally insured banks and thrifts have failed, compared with three last year. The country's largest thrift, Washington Mutual Inc., is faltering. The taxpayers are being asked to bail out the big banks and investment firms that were involved in the subprime mortgage game. The plan would enable the government to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets held by endangered banks and financial institutions. The idea is that getting those debts off their books would ease one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis, making them more inclined to lend money to the average Joe. The most infuriating part of all this is that we taxpayers have no choice but to agree to the $700,000,000,000 (billions) rescue plan or risk what the Bush administration warns would be a financial crisis of the type that will wipe out savings of retirees, make mortgages or college loans impossible to get, and send the economy into a downward spiral causing very high unemployment. If we don’t bail out Wall Street, our entire economic structure will collapse – taking the world down with us.
They are throwing around the term “severe recession” on the news programs – translate that into “Depression” – like what was experienced in the 1930s.
It is clear that regulations will be needed to avoid allowing greed to dominate Wall Street which puts self-interest before the public good. It is time to reject the idea that we all gain from enabling the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very few. In his September 15 interview with PBS's News Hour, Roubini added, “Now we have to move towards appropriate rules, not excessive rules, but strong regulation, supervision of finance system. That’s what’s necessary.”
It is time to reject Reagan’s trickle-down theory. It just plain doesn’t work.
If you want a nice, simple explanation on the supply-side theory, how it only helps the wealthy, go here: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm
The first and foremost principle of Reaganomics that the current Bush administration and his Republican team have so loyally followed is blind faith in the market. The idea is that if the market is allowed to work, without oversight, the economy will naturally stay healthy. Trickle-down (also called supply-side) theorists believe that pumping money into the hands of the wealthy will cause them to invest in business, which will in turn cause the economy to grow, which will create jobs, which will eventually get money into the hands of the average working man. This theory is behind the Bush tax cut which greatly favored the wealthy and which John McCain has said he will make permanent.
Reality is quite different from the theory.
Deregulation caused greed and a high level of opportunism to come to the forefront. The economic market got out of control. During the credit boom between 2002 and 2006, both financial institutions and American households took on too much debt. Now many of those borrowers can't pay back the loans, which causes the credit market to not be able to make loans to anyone for any reason, which, in turn, chokes economic growth. This problem is exacerbated by the collapse in housing prices at a time when many Americans took out equity loans to finance a more extravagant lifestyle.
In his interview with PBS's News Hour on September 15, Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, said the root cause of the economic problem is that “in the last few years, the approach has been the one of laissez-faire [a phrase literally meaning allow to do)…a financial market without appropriate rules and regulations …gets crazy, [with] asset bubbles, credit bubbles…self-regulation means no regulation....” He was speaking of fully uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, a separation between government and economics, that has been promoted by the Republicans.
A Century Foundation report on the effects of Republican deregulation and tax policies that favor the rich reveals that:
• The supply-side economics theory makes the assumption that if you cut corporate tax rates, corporations are more willing to do things with their money. This is unlikely, for a host of reasons, starting with the fact that all a corporation is supposed to do is make money for expansion and for its shareholders. Additional savings incurred by a lessened tax burden does not mean corporations create more jobs. It does mean that these companies may have a better bottom line enabling them to pass out more money to shareholders and give CEOs ridiculously larger paychecks.
• Rich people did not get rich by sharing their money. When you give rich people more money, they don't necessarily provide someone a job with it. Instead, they may take a cruise or buy a new BMW or Mercedes. McCain, for example, apparently has 13 cars and seven houses.
• The current U.S. tax policy, begun by Reagan and continued by George W. Bush, has aggravated the growing gap between rich and poor, with tax cuts disproportionately rewarding those at the top while doing little for the middle class or the poor. The top 5 percent of income recipients in the United States have on average 5.5 times the income of the remaining 95 percent, but in terms of accumulated wealth, the top 5 percent have on average 23 times that of the remaining 95 percent. The average income on Wall Street last year was about $280,000, or nearly five times as high as the average of all other workers in the United States.
One of the best measures to demonstrate the failure of Reaganomics is to look at the growth of median household incomes. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the median household income was $17,710. The U.S. Census shows the median income in 2005 was $46,326. When adjusted for inflation, the purchasing power of median American income for 2005 was only 85% of what it was in 1980. Even worse is that under George W. Bush, since 2006, the median income has actually been driven down while the cost of gas, groceries, utilities, and health care has drastically risen.
The current economic catastrophe has “trickled down” from Wall Street, tightening credit for consumers and businesses who have played by the rules. This is not just impacting the people who took out subprime mortgages to buy homes they could not really afford, but Jane and John Doe who has done everything correctly, by the book, paying their mortgage and other bills on time. The Hope Now Alliance, the lenders’ group put together at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, estimates the number of foreclosure proceedings that begin nationally in each month. The latest figures, for July, put the number at 197,000, the highest for any month since they started keeping track in July 2007. Of those that failed, 105,000 were normal mortgages, and 92,000 were subprime.
A word about the credit default swaps you have been hearing about: Credit default swaps, a kind of insurance, could be directly exchanged between banks. This supposedly spread out the risk, making it safe for banks to take on ever riskier forms of debt. These credit default swaps turned into the perfect vehicle to fuel a Wall Street boom. No one ever had any idea what these things were actually worth, they were traded directly from bank to bank without being administered or regulated by any exchange. Credit default swaps, in allowing banks to share risks, caused them to compete with each other in an effort to chase higher profit through risky loans. This “insurance” made it possible for the down payment on homes to become as low as 0% - nada, nothing, zip. The illusion of "safety" that CDS derivatives provided allowed the sub-prime mortgage market to be possible.
Now the chickens have come home to roost: So far in 2008, 11 federally insured banks and thrifts have failed, compared with three last year. The country's largest thrift, Washington Mutual Inc., is faltering. The taxpayers are being asked to bail out the big banks and investment firms that were involved in the subprime mortgage game. The plan would enable the government to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets held by endangered banks and financial institutions. The idea is that getting those debts off their books would ease one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis, making them more inclined to lend money to the average Joe. The most infuriating part of all this is that we taxpayers have no choice but to agree to the $700,000,000,000 (billions) rescue plan or risk what the Bush administration warns would be a financial crisis of the type that will wipe out savings of retirees, make mortgages or college loans impossible to get, and send the economy into a downward spiral causing very high unemployment. If we don’t bail out Wall Street, our entire economic structure will collapse – taking the world down with us.
They are throwing around the term “severe recession” on the news programs – translate that into “Depression” – like what was experienced in the 1930s.
It is clear that regulations will be needed to avoid allowing greed to dominate Wall Street which puts self-interest before the public good. It is time to reject the idea that we all gain from enabling the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very few. In his September 15 interview with PBS's News Hour, Roubini added, “Now we have to move towards appropriate rules, not excessive rules, but strong regulation, supervision of finance system. That’s what’s necessary.”
It is time to reject Reagan’s trickle-down theory. It just plain doesn’t work.
If you want a nice, simple explanation on the supply-side theory, how it only helps the wealthy, go here: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
I was for McCain before I was against him
In the 2000 presidential campaign, I was excited about McCain, who in my opinion was a conservative with a heart. But he got “swift-boated” by the Bush-Cheney-Rove machine during the South Carolina primary. There were allegations that McCain had fathered a black child (he and Cindy have an adopted daughter who is from Bangladesh) and that McCain had committed treason in Hanoi, or was crazed from his captivity and, as a result, has a dangerous temper. He was run out of South Carolina on a rail, virtually tarred and feathered. This time around, for the 2008 election, I had high hopes for John McCain, who was a man of honesty, integrity, and would not get down in the gutter while campaigning – or so I thought.
In the last several months I have become more and more disillusioned with the McCain campaign for using nasty, personal attacks full of outright lies that have nothing to do with public policy and should have no place in a presidential campaign. So, I am no longer for McCain. If he is going to use outright lies and slander to win the election on the emotions of the common voter, then I believe he will continue to lie to the country once he is in office.
There was nothing subtle about the first smear attempt in trying to depict Obama as “not one of us.” Obama was painted as a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not patriotic enough (as in no flag pin) and certainly not a “real” American. Since then, McCain has only upped the ante, sliming Obama every which way he can to see what might stick.
First came the reports about Obama secretly being Muslim and having attended a radical Islamic madrassa school in Indonesia. After careful research, I found this to be an outright lie, but I did not directly blame McCain for the rumors. He was still saying that he would run a clean campaign.
A few months ago, McCain, and some pundits, demanded that Obama visit Iraq and prove he could be presidential in the foreign arena. I, like many, was expecting Obama to stumble. When he conducted himself with foreign leaders flawlessly, visited with General Petraeus, talked easily with American troops who seemed to appreciate him, and proved his potential, the pundits reported that Obama was appearing “too presidential.” First they said that he is too young, inexperienced, and not presidential enough and then they said he is acting too presidential.
McCain's accusation that Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign and that he snubbed injured troops in Germany were reprehensible. You can tell McCain knows they were reprehensible because after he says it, he grins broadly, and then gives an uneasy semi-laugh. The charges are as uncivil as they can possibly be, close to calling Obama treasonous. Republicans saying that Obama did not visit troops in Landstuhl hospital because he could not take the media was proven to be an outright fabrication, as the McCain camp was finally forced to admit. What if Obama had appeared at the hospital? David Kiley reported in Business Week magazine how a Republican operative described plans to attack Obama for using wounded troops as campaign props if he had gone through with the visit.
The 200,000+ crowd who attended Obama’s speech in Berlin was less about his being a celebrity than about the disaster of the Bush-Cheney reign. Obama has become a symbol of hope for many people in the United States who want to see the return of the America they remember. So when Obama said that this was NOT about him, but instead he has become a symbol of the possibility of America, he was absolutely correct.
In the aftermath of Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe, it has become clear to many, including myself, that the root of the extreme dislike for Obama is based on him stepping out of his "place," beyond his station. Obama is being "uppity," the charge leveled at blacks for generations when they dared try to equate themselves with those who they should know are better than them. The code word for “uppity” is “arrogance” and vice versa. The arrogance theme itself, in my mind, is Republicans playing the race card. Yet, McCain feigned great anger, with his campaign manager literally throwing a hissy fit during one interview, accusing Obama of playing the “race card” when he said that he didn’t look like the Presidents on the dollar bills. This “arrogance” theme is a variation on the usual Karl Rove fare.
Using airhead female celebrities Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears in an ad against Obama was the usual Republican attempt to imply that the Democrat is only a celebrity and not tough enough to be president. The ad called “The One” was downright insulting to all good, educated Christians. Politicians using our religious figures in such a way is offensive and mocks our faith. These ads both tap into a conversation that has been building on Christian radio and political blogs and in widely circulated e-mail messages that accuse Obama of being the Antichrist. McCain said that “The One” was meant only as a joke – for fun. I’m not laughing.
The taxes ad claims that Barack Obama voted to raise taxes on folks earning more than $42,000 a year. The McCain team is lying through their teeth when they say Obama will raise everyone’s taxes. Many non-partisan economic groups have said that most of the population would get a tax cut under the Obama plan – much more of a tax cut than under McCain’s plan. Obama isn't proposing to raise taxes on people as the ad insinuates. He is proposing to lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes back to where they were during Clinton years for those who make more than $250K per year. How many of us even come close to making $250,000 per year?
The Palin VP pick is an example of McCain’s cynicism, using the emotions of the common voter as a tool. Since Palin was put on the ticket, the McCain campaign keeps the spotlight on her; it's out with a new ad attacking the Dem ticket for attacking her (although the Obama team did not attack her). During the Palin interviews with Charlie Gibson, the woman showed herself as clueless. Yet the Republican base and some very conservative independents fall for her because she shoots guns, eats moose stew, and comes across as decisive (in her own words, “I never blinked”). Never mind that she also tells lies about her “success” as Governor of Alaska, even when it is directly pointed out to her that what she is saying is not true, only half true or less (i.e. She reports having said “thanks, but no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere. She said thanks to that same money anyway, to be used on whatever Alaska wanted.)
The McCain ad that lifted the “lipstick on a pig” phrase out of context and insisted that Obama was talking about Palin is such a boldfaced lie that I cannot believe anyone would fall for it, but many people have. I heard that Obama speech. He was speaking of McCain’s economic policies when he used the lipstick on a pig cliché. If McCain keeps running ads like this one, he richly deserves to lose.
Until this past week, with the recent economic debacle, everything with the McCain campaign was Palin, Palin, Palin. They didn't want the spotlight on McCain; but with the Wall Street failure, the spotlight is directly on him, where it should be.
McCain has portrayed Obama’s team as part of the Fannie and Freddie mortgage problem, another incorrect statement. At the same time, The New York Times reported that McCain's campaign manager was paid nearly $2 million for running a Washington outfit set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop stricter regulation of these two entities. McCain's right hand was one of the major players in the corrupt Washington machine. Yet McCain accuses Obama of being part of a corrupt system.
McCain's campaign statements and ads have been at best only half true with, at best, cherry-picked statements taken out of context, and at worse, outright lies. In the beginning, every time he was questioned about his ads, he signaled with a big smile and then an odd little half-laugh that he didn't really believe his own message. Now he has become bolder by refusing to admit the lies, by ignoring questions, giving statements that do not answer the questions, or denying that he has lied.
The real question is what all of this means for a McCain presidency. The list of troubling portents that undermine his integrity is growing long: repeated campaign staff upheavals reflecting poor management skills; reversals on big issues like tax cuts; flip-flops on how the economy is doing and once realizing the fundamentals were not strong, saying he would fire the SEC chairman which is not the President’s prerogative to do; shameless pandering on a gas-tax holiday that would put very little in the pocket of the middle class; confused ideas on how to handle Social Security; and false charges, such as saying Obama caused high gas prices and the Wall Street debacle.
McCain embraces the Bush agenda and would bring four more years of the same GOP policies that we have been suffering under:
• the war policies that have bankrupted us,
• the economic policies that have allowed the rich to become richer while the rest of us tread water and have allowed Wall Street to destroy the economy while lining their own pockets,
• and the environmental policies, or lack of, that have added to global warming.
For those who thought McCain would be a better sort of candidate, it was more than a disappointment when he showed his true colors. Let’s not have any more nonsense about McCain being the straight-talking Maverick. He is just a down and dirty politician trying to coast into office on his past glory as a POW. He flips, then flops, then flips again with wherever the wind blows on major issues. Worse of all, he wants to be President so badly, that he has sullied his character by selling his soul to the Rovian disciples whose methods he once preached against.
That doesn’t just turn me off, it makes me physically ill.
McCain no longer seems presidential to me.
In the last several months I have become more and more disillusioned with the McCain campaign for using nasty, personal attacks full of outright lies that have nothing to do with public policy and should have no place in a presidential campaign. So, I am no longer for McCain. If he is going to use outright lies and slander to win the election on the emotions of the common voter, then I believe he will continue to lie to the country once he is in office.
There was nothing subtle about the first smear attempt in trying to depict Obama as “not one of us.” Obama was painted as a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not patriotic enough (as in no flag pin) and certainly not a “real” American. Since then, McCain has only upped the ante, sliming Obama every which way he can to see what might stick.
First came the reports about Obama secretly being Muslim and having attended a radical Islamic madrassa school in Indonesia. After careful research, I found this to be an outright lie, but I did not directly blame McCain for the rumors. He was still saying that he would run a clean campaign.
A few months ago, McCain, and some pundits, demanded that Obama visit Iraq and prove he could be presidential in the foreign arena. I, like many, was expecting Obama to stumble. When he conducted himself with foreign leaders flawlessly, visited with General Petraeus, talked easily with American troops who seemed to appreciate him, and proved his potential, the pundits reported that Obama was appearing “too presidential.” First they said that he is too young, inexperienced, and not presidential enough and then they said he is acting too presidential.
McCain's accusation that Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign and that he snubbed injured troops in Germany were reprehensible. You can tell McCain knows they were reprehensible because after he says it, he grins broadly, and then gives an uneasy semi-laugh. The charges are as uncivil as they can possibly be, close to calling Obama treasonous. Republicans saying that Obama did not visit troops in Landstuhl hospital because he could not take the media was proven to be an outright fabrication, as the McCain camp was finally forced to admit. What if Obama had appeared at the hospital? David Kiley reported in Business Week magazine how a Republican operative described plans to attack Obama for using wounded troops as campaign props if he had gone through with the visit.
The 200,000+ crowd who attended Obama’s speech in Berlin was less about his being a celebrity than about the disaster of the Bush-Cheney reign. Obama has become a symbol of hope for many people in the United States who want to see the return of the America they remember. So when Obama said that this was NOT about him, but instead he has become a symbol of the possibility of America, he was absolutely correct.
In the aftermath of Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe, it has become clear to many, including myself, that the root of the extreme dislike for Obama is based on him stepping out of his "place," beyond his station. Obama is being "uppity," the charge leveled at blacks for generations when they dared try to equate themselves with those who they should know are better than them. The code word for “uppity” is “arrogance” and vice versa. The arrogance theme itself, in my mind, is Republicans playing the race card. Yet, McCain feigned great anger, with his campaign manager literally throwing a hissy fit during one interview, accusing Obama of playing the “race card” when he said that he didn’t look like the Presidents on the dollar bills. This “arrogance” theme is a variation on the usual Karl Rove fare.
Using airhead female celebrities Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears in an ad against Obama was the usual Republican attempt to imply that the Democrat is only a celebrity and not tough enough to be president. The ad called “The One” was downright insulting to all good, educated Christians. Politicians using our religious figures in such a way is offensive and mocks our faith. These ads both tap into a conversation that has been building on Christian radio and political blogs and in widely circulated e-mail messages that accuse Obama of being the Antichrist. McCain said that “The One” was meant only as a joke – for fun. I’m not laughing.
The taxes ad claims that Barack Obama voted to raise taxes on folks earning more than $42,000 a year. The McCain team is lying through their teeth when they say Obama will raise everyone’s taxes. Many non-partisan economic groups have said that most of the population would get a tax cut under the Obama plan – much more of a tax cut than under McCain’s plan. Obama isn't proposing to raise taxes on people as the ad insinuates. He is proposing to lower taxes for the middle class and raise taxes back to where they were during Clinton years for those who make more than $250K per year. How many of us even come close to making $250,000 per year?
The Palin VP pick is an example of McCain’s cynicism, using the emotions of the common voter as a tool. Since Palin was put on the ticket, the McCain campaign keeps the spotlight on her; it's out with a new ad attacking the Dem ticket for attacking her (although the Obama team did not attack her). During the Palin interviews with Charlie Gibson, the woman showed herself as clueless. Yet the Republican base and some very conservative independents fall for her because she shoots guns, eats moose stew, and comes across as decisive (in her own words, “I never blinked”). Never mind that she also tells lies about her “success” as Governor of Alaska, even when it is directly pointed out to her that what she is saying is not true, only half true or less (i.e. She reports having said “thanks, but no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere. She said thanks to that same money anyway, to be used on whatever Alaska wanted.)
The McCain ad that lifted the “lipstick on a pig” phrase out of context and insisted that Obama was talking about Palin is such a boldfaced lie that I cannot believe anyone would fall for it, but many people have. I heard that Obama speech. He was speaking of McCain’s economic policies when he used the lipstick on a pig cliché. If McCain keeps running ads like this one, he richly deserves to lose.
Until this past week, with the recent economic debacle, everything with the McCain campaign was Palin, Palin, Palin. They didn't want the spotlight on McCain; but with the Wall Street failure, the spotlight is directly on him, where it should be.
McCain has portrayed Obama’s team as part of the Fannie and Freddie mortgage problem, another incorrect statement. At the same time, The New York Times reported that McCain's campaign manager was paid nearly $2 million for running a Washington outfit set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop stricter regulation of these two entities. McCain's right hand was one of the major players in the corrupt Washington machine. Yet McCain accuses Obama of being part of a corrupt system.
McCain's campaign statements and ads have been at best only half true with, at best, cherry-picked statements taken out of context, and at worse, outright lies. In the beginning, every time he was questioned about his ads, he signaled with a big smile and then an odd little half-laugh that he didn't really believe his own message. Now he has become bolder by refusing to admit the lies, by ignoring questions, giving statements that do not answer the questions, or denying that he has lied.
The real question is what all of this means for a McCain presidency. The list of troubling portents that undermine his integrity is growing long: repeated campaign staff upheavals reflecting poor management skills; reversals on big issues like tax cuts; flip-flops on how the economy is doing and once realizing the fundamentals were not strong, saying he would fire the SEC chairman which is not the President’s prerogative to do; shameless pandering on a gas-tax holiday that would put very little in the pocket of the middle class; confused ideas on how to handle Social Security; and false charges, such as saying Obama caused high gas prices and the Wall Street debacle.
McCain embraces the Bush agenda and would bring four more years of the same GOP policies that we have been suffering under:
• the war policies that have bankrupted us,
• the economic policies that have allowed the rich to become richer while the rest of us tread water and have allowed Wall Street to destroy the economy while lining their own pockets,
• and the environmental policies, or lack of, that have added to global warming.
For those who thought McCain would be a better sort of candidate, it was more than a disappointment when he showed his true colors. Let’s not have any more nonsense about McCain being the straight-talking Maverick. He is just a down and dirty politician trying to coast into office on his past glory as a POW. He flips, then flops, then flips again with wherever the wind blows on major issues. Worse of all, he wants to be President so badly, that he has sullied his character by selling his soul to the Rovian disciples whose methods he once preached against.
That doesn’t just turn me off, it makes me physically ill.
McCain no longer seems presidential to me.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Where is the grace?
"…bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2).
In every Christian theology, God is believed to grant grace quite freely, since its gift is far greater than any person can merit. As to which persons are offered this grace, there is a great difference of opinion. Most believers hold that it is offered to people who place no obstacle in the way of salvation rather than to those who refuse the grace they have been given; some believe, however, that grace is not given outside the church, and the Calvinists hold that it is offered only to those predestined to election.
Being raised as a Methodist, I believe fervently what John Wesley wrote in his essay called Free Grace: "The grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, and FREE FOR ALL.... It is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it."
For it is by grace you have been saved,through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Most Christians believe God’s Grace and Love is given to all (except Calvinists who believe that only a few people are predestined to be saved and the remainder of us are going to Hell regardless of how good we are). After we have accepted God's grace, we are to move on in God's sustaining grace toward perfection. Wesley believed that people could fall from grace or backslide. He said that we cannot just sit on our behinds, so to speak, claim God's salvation, and then do nothing. Repentance (changing our selfish, sinful ways) and faith are necessary, in order to continue to grow in grace. Although doing good works does not buy your way into Heaven, we are encouraged to continue with our studies so that we may grow in knowledge and to participate in the "the means of grace" by helping the “least of these.” There are some Christians, including myself, who believe in universalism: that God will welcome into heaven all who are truly remorseful and asks for and accepts His forgiveness and grace.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:23-24
But also, one must understand that while this transcendent act on the part of God removes our sin, which would block our fellowship with Him, it does not necessarily remove the consequences of our wrong doing.
Now, I wrote the above to lead up to this: There are too many families, Christian families included, where the parents do not show the same grace toward their children that God gives to them. Instead, they control their children with constant criticism, shame, and guilt. Everyone knows the feelings of guilt and shame. Shame and guilt are not necessarily destructive feelings. They are "uncomfortable feelings" that push us to a higher standard of behavior. Children are born without any concept of shame or guilt and they would never feel either one unless they were taught to do so. We should teach our children shame and guilt because, in small quantities, they are very necessary for us all to be able to live together in society. I would like to repeat this: in small and appropriate quantities. It is necessary for children to learn the consequences of poor behavior.
At the same time, there is a strong connection between shame and guilt and lack of grace. Parents must strike a balance between, on the one hand, teaching children that there are consequences to their behavior and, on the other hand, occasionally extending grace by foregoing punishment after explaining to the child why he should be punished. In dysfunctional families with controlling parents, debilitating shame and guilt is created and fostered in childhood. Another type of dysfunctional family is where the parents, in the name of self esteem, never allow the child to suffer the consequences of bad behavior and choices, thereby creating a very self-centered individual who has no sympathy for other people.
According to Jane Middelton-Moz in her book, Shame and Guilt: Many adults shamed as children promise themselves that they will create a “just right” family in their adulthood. Without the recovery from debilitating shame, however, “just right” is rarely created. Many times “happily ever after” is not in reach. It is also difficult to attain resolution of the conflicts within the family who once shamed us. Members of… [these] …families are often in so much pain and denial that an adult-child member of the family who seeks resolution from past conflicts is rarely heard. In fact, they are continually shamed even more.
If grace is so amazing, why don't Christians show more of it? -- Philip Yancey
Yancey writes of one family where the cycle of hatred has passed from one generation to the next like an inherited gene, none of whom understand how to show grace and forgiveness, and in doing so pass their hate to the next generation. He writes of churches with no warmth, which he called ungrace. He says that forgiveness is an unnatural act for humans because for those who do not understand grace, it is easier to seek justice and vengeance.
When children are brought up in a home full of constant criticism, a home full of shame and guilt, or brought up in a home where they are always protected from the consequences of their behavior and never taught to empathize with others, it manifests itself in adulthood, not only in personal relationships, but with repercussions throughout society.
When society lacks grace, self-centered and self-righteous people prevail. These people tend to be quick at seeing other people’s faults while overlooking their own, possibly very large, faults. Christ’s description of this problem is in Matthew 7:3: “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?” Self-righteous people also have a tendency to make a big issue over small points of righteousness while overlooking large issues.
Grace is known through its redeeming work in our lives. Those who never received grace from others, including their parents, have great difficulty truly understanding what grace is and do not have the ability to show grace to others. The sinner who has experienced God’s grace has a fellowship, an insight into God’s character, and a love for a God of grace that a person who has never deeply sinned and been forgiven will never fully understand. Also, a person who has deeply sinned, but has successfully hidden it from all, including himself, does not have an understanding of forgiveness and the gift of grace. Therefore, an unfallen man or woman, who is unable to understand what grace is, and unable to show grace, will more likely be one who strongly believes in and practices legalistic justice, strictly following the rules without flexibility, and believes in strong, harsh punishment, without mercy. Hence, the redeemed sinner, the person who has shown poor behavior and judgment, then feeling remorse, owned up to that behavior and received forgiveness and the gift of grace, will be an exponentially better person, might I say a better Christian, than an unfallen person.
What are the ramifications when society lacks grace?
Think about it.
In every Christian theology, God is believed to grant grace quite freely, since its gift is far greater than any person can merit. As to which persons are offered this grace, there is a great difference of opinion. Most believers hold that it is offered to people who place no obstacle in the way of salvation rather than to those who refuse the grace they have been given; some believe, however, that grace is not given outside the church, and the Calvinists hold that it is offered only to those predestined to election.
Being raised as a Methodist, I believe fervently what John Wesley wrote in his essay called Free Grace: "The grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, and FREE FOR ALL.... It is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it."
For it is by grace you have been saved,through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Most Christians believe God’s Grace and Love is given to all (except Calvinists who believe that only a few people are predestined to be saved and the remainder of us are going to Hell regardless of how good we are). After we have accepted God's grace, we are to move on in God's sustaining grace toward perfection. Wesley believed that people could fall from grace or backslide. He said that we cannot just sit on our behinds, so to speak, claim God's salvation, and then do nothing. Repentance (changing our selfish, sinful ways) and faith are necessary, in order to continue to grow in grace. Although doing good works does not buy your way into Heaven, we are encouraged to continue with our studies so that we may grow in knowledge and to participate in the "the means of grace" by helping the “least of these.” There are some Christians, including myself, who believe in universalism: that God will welcome into heaven all who are truly remorseful and asks for and accepts His forgiveness and grace.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:23-24
But also, one must understand that while this transcendent act on the part of God removes our sin, which would block our fellowship with Him, it does not necessarily remove the consequences of our wrong doing.
Now, I wrote the above to lead up to this: There are too many families, Christian families included, where the parents do not show the same grace toward their children that God gives to them. Instead, they control their children with constant criticism, shame, and guilt. Everyone knows the feelings of guilt and shame. Shame and guilt are not necessarily destructive feelings. They are "uncomfortable feelings" that push us to a higher standard of behavior. Children are born without any concept of shame or guilt and they would never feel either one unless they were taught to do so. We should teach our children shame and guilt because, in small quantities, they are very necessary for us all to be able to live together in society. I would like to repeat this: in small and appropriate quantities. It is necessary for children to learn the consequences of poor behavior.
At the same time, there is a strong connection between shame and guilt and lack of grace. Parents must strike a balance between, on the one hand, teaching children that there are consequences to their behavior and, on the other hand, occasionally extending grace by foregoing punishment after explaining to the child why he should be punished. In dysfunctional families with controlling parents, debilitating shame and guilt is created and fostered in childhood. Another type of dysfunctional family is where the parents, in the name of self esteem, never allow the child to suffer the consequences of bad behavior and choices, thereby creating a very self-centered individual who has no sympathy for other people.
According to Jane Middelton-Moz in her book, Shame and Guilt: Many adults shamed as children promise themselves that they will create a “just right” family in their adulthood. Without the recovery from debilitating shame, however, “just right” is rarely created. Many times “happily ever after” is not in reach. It is also difficult to attain resolution of the conflicts within the family who once shamed us. Members of… [these] …families are often in so much pain and denial that an adult-child member of the family who seeks resolution from past conflicts is rarely heard. In fact, they are continually shamed even more.
If grace is so amazing, why don't Christians show more of it? -- Philip Yancey
Yancey writes of one family where the cycle of hatred has passed from one generation to the next like an inherited gene, none of whom understand how to show grace and forgiveness, and in doing so pass their hate to the next generation. He writes of churches with no warmth, which he called ungrace. He says that forgiveness is an unnatural act for humans because for those who do not understand grace, it is easier to seek justice and vengeance.
When children are brought up in a home full of constant criticism, a home full of shame and guilt, or brought up in a home where they are always protected from the consequences of their behavior and never taught to empathize with others, it manifests itself in adulthood, not only in personal relationships, but with repercussions throughout society.
When society lacks grace, self-centered and self-righteous people prevail. These people tend to be quick at seeing other people’s faults while overlooking their own, possibly very large, faults. Christ’s description of this problem is in Matthew 7:3: “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?” Self-righteous people also have a tendency to make a big issue over small points of righteousness while overlooking large issues.
Grace is known through its redeeming work in our lives. Those who never received grace from others, including their parents, have great difficulty truly understanding what grace is and do not have the ability to show grace to others. The sinner who has experienced God’s grace has a fellowship, an insight into God’s character, and a love for a God of grace that a person who has never deeply sinned and been forgiven will never fully understand. Also, a person who has deeply sinned, but has successfully hidden it from all, including himself, does not have an understanding of forgiveness and the gift of grace. Therefore, an unfallen man or woman, who is unable to understand what grace is, and unable to show grace, will more likely be one who strongly believes in and practices legalistic justice, strictly following the rules without flexibility, and believes in strong, harsh punishment, without mercy. Hence, the redeemed sinner, the person who has shown poor behavior and judgment, then feeling remorse, owned up to that behavior and received forgiveness and the gift of grace, will be an exponentially better person, might I say a better Christian, than an unfallen person.
What are the ramifications when society lacks grace?
Think about it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
I cannot abide a liar
I cannot abide a liar.
There’s a saying that the truth is the first casualty of war. Well, if that's true, then the presidential race must be World War III. I know many of you would never vote for a Democrat even if your life depended on it…BUT, I cannot abide a liar. Especially one who promised to run an honorable campaign.
McCain has been lying about so much that I cannot believe anything he says – I do not believe he will do anything that is good for this country or the average person. I have listened to both McCain and Palin tell a bushel full of lies. I have fact checked their statements and found most of them to be cherry-picked half truths and outright bald-faced lies, not only about their opponent but about their own records: i.e. McCain being against lobbyists and Palin turning down the “bridge to nowhere” are both outright lies. Palin did not sell the jet on Ebay – she sold it through a broker at a great loss to the state. She did take earmarks as governor -- $256 million she sought last year, and the $197 million wish list for 2008. Now the McCain/Palin team is obfuscating the troopergate investigation, refusing to honor subpoenas, when, before being nominated for VP, she once agreed to cooperate. This sounds too much like the Bush administration personnel refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas. Hang the rule of law.
The notion that there is any serious equivalence between the campaign sins of Obama and the massive moral sins of McCain is inane: “Ideological differences aside, John McCain's campaign has been more dishonest, more unfair, more -- to use a word that resonates with McCain -- dishonorable than Obama's… McCain's transgressions, though, are of a different magnitude. His whoppers are bigger; there are more of them. He has outright lied about his opponent. He has misrepresented [to put it nicely] his vice presidential nominee's record. Called on these fouls [lies], he has denied and repeated them....” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
Is there any reason to trust that a man running this campaign full of lies would go on to be an honest president? The only answer is NO.
He's a fantastic and shameless liar. In a heated campaign, some half truths will be told, but this is sickening. During an interview with the women of "The View" last week, McCain offered one lame excuse after another for his conduct: Obama's ads are “hard-hitting”, too… The tone wouldn't be so negative if Obama had agreed to the townhall debates… his own lipstick comment was different because he was referring to health care. McCain refused to admit that Obama had not been speaking of Palin in using that time-worn cliché.
Too many times, I have watched McCain directly questioned about his lies and listened to him deny that he is lying. The mark of a moral person is not their occasional failures, but their response to them. Does he correct and apologize? Does he ultimately care about the truth, about reality? Or does he refuse to acknowledge his lies and continue to repeat them, even after they have been proven beyond the slightest doubt?
Now the economy is so very bad that even McCain has to admit there is a problem. But, yesterday, when called on his statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, he sat there and lied once again, saying that he really meant that the workers were strong, that the “fundamentals” were the workers. He did not mean the workers when he made that statement over 20 times in the last several months. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
McCain has failed the most basic of ethical tests. He is morally and ethically unfit to be the president of the United States. The same is true of Palin.
I cannot abide a liar.
There’s a saying that the truth is the first casualty of war. Well, if that's true, then the presidential race must be World War III. I know many of you would never vote for a Democrat even if your life depended on it…BUT, I cannot abide a liar. Especially one who promised to run an honorable campaign.
McCain has been lying about so much that I cannot believe anything he says – I do not believe he will do anything that is good for this country or the average person. I have listened to both McCain and Palin tell a bushel full of lies. I have fact checked their statements and found most of them to be cherry-picked half truths and outright bald-faced lies, not only about their opponent but about their own records: i.e. McCain being against lobbyists and Palin turning down the “bridge to nowhere” are both outright lies. Palin did not sell the jet on Ebay – she sold it through a broker at a great loss to the state. She did take earmarks as governor -- $256 million she sought last year, and the $197 million wish list for 2008. Now the McCain/Palin team is obfuscating the troopergate investigation, refusing to honor subpoenas, when, before being nominated for VP, she once agreed to cooperate. This sounds too much like the Bush administration personnel refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas. Hang the rule of law.
The notion that there is any serious equivalence between the campaign sins of Obama and the massive moral sins of McCain is inane: “Ideological differences aside, John McCain's campaign has been more dishonest, more unfair, more -- to use a word that resonates with McCain -- dishonorable than Obama's… McCain's transgressions, though, are of a different magnitude. His whoppers are bigger; there are more of them. He has outright lied about his opponent. He has misrepresented [to put it nicely] his vice presidential nominee's record. Called on these fouls [lies], he has denied and repeated them....” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
Is there any reason to trust that a man running this campaign full of lies would go on to be an honest president? The only answer is NO.
He's a fantastic and shameless liar. In a heated campaign, some half truths will be told, but this is sickening. During an interview with the women of "The View" last week, McCain offered one lame excuse after another for his conduct: Obama's ads are “hard-hitting”, too… The tone wouldn't be so negative if Obama had agreed to the townhall debates… his own lipstick comment was different because he was referring to health care. McCain refused to admit that Obama had not been speaking of Palin in using that time-worn cliché.
Too many times, I have watched McCain directly questioned about his lies and listened to him deny that he is lying. The mark of a moral person is not their occasional failures, but their response to them. Does he correct and apologize? Does he ultimately care about the truth, about reality? Or does he refuse to acknowledge his lies and continue to repeat them, even after they have been proven beyond the slightest doubt?
Now the economy is so very bad that even McCain has to admit there is a problem. But, yesterday, when called on his statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, he sat there and lied once again, saying that he really meant that the workers were strong, that the “fundamentals” were the workers. He did not mean the workers when he made that statement over 20 times in the last several months. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
McCain has failed the most basic of ethical tests. He is morally and ethically unfit to be the president of the United States. The same is true of Palin.
I cannot abide a liar.
How can people vote Democrat and be Christian?
Someone recently asked me, “How can people vote Democrat and call themselves Christian?” In other words, how could I call myself a Christian and vote for someone who is pro-choice and wants to give gay people civil rights?
There is a wide spectrum of beliefs among born again Christians on global warming, immigration, poverty, the Iraq war, and so forth. Much of this relates to how groups within the born again community view the world. Some of us have a view of the world that emphasizes dialogue and tolerance. This does not mean that we are weak and against the use of force, but instead believe in using it as the very, very last resort.
According to the Barna Group, a Christian polling service, among the born again Christians, more than four out of 10 are registered Democrats, three out of ten are registered Republicans, and the remaining two out of 10 are independent. I am an independent – always have been. Things are different among the evangelical Christians, though, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats almost three-to-one.
A person can be a born again Christian without being evangelical. I am one of these. I was reared in the Methodist Church, which is mainline Christian but not usually considered evangelical – at least not in the same way as, say, the Southern Baptists. Many born again Christians are not evangelical. All born again Christians have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ and believe they will join with God after death (often called “going to Heaven”) because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ.
Evangelicals are a subset of born again Christians. Besides their confession of sins and personal commitment to Jesus Christ, their beliefs also include the inerrancy of the Bible, the existence of Satan as an influential spiritual being, the importance of verbally sharing one's faith in Christ with others, and the idea that not only their life but the world, too, is guided by God’s will.
Now to the reasons why many Christians vote for Democrats:
While many born again Christians are personally pro-life, they are more galvanized by other issues and concerns. The fact that many born again voters rank abortion and gay rights lower on their agenda does not indicate that those issues are unimportant. But these non-Evangelical born again Christians, like myself, are not single-issue voters but, instead, more concerned about a wider variety of concerns. In that context, I see other matters as possessing more immediate importance for our nation: such as, but not limited to, caring for “the least of these” in our society, finding a way for to help people going bankrupt and losing their homes to pay their healthcare bills, doing something about global warming by cutting down on pollution, stopping the overseas flow of American jobs, ending the war in Iraq by making the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security, turning our attention to the war in Afghanistan, going after the Taliban and bin Laden, and doing more than just threatening war with Iran – instead we should actually talk with them and use sanctions to pressure them (which I see that the Bush administration is finally doing).
Many born again Christians tend to be put off by the "culture wars" between the Democrats and Republicans and more drawn toward conversation and reconciliation. In fact, negative campaigning with smears against character get me very, very upset. For better or worse, many of us non-evangelical born again Christians express an interest in influencing the culture through setting good examples through modeling the right behavior and not through the “do as I say, not as I do” mantra.
Many born again Christians believe that gays should not have the right to marry but still have the same civil rights as everyone else - even though they believe that homosexuality is un-biblical and a sin. I realize that this will seem a huge contradiction. We Christians do not want a gay “union” to be called “marriage” because it is one of our sacraments. Marriage is holy and between only a man and woman. While it is true that you can legislate morality - after all, what laws do is define what is right and wrong, which is the essence of morality - a growing number of born again people, including myself, desire to offer compassion to proponents of homosexuality. In other words, while not ignoring the fact that homosexuality may be a sin from a biblical perspective, yet also realizing that Jesus' primary doctrine is to love other people. Many born again Christians strongly reject homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, yet at the same time have a number of homosexual friends or acquaintances and do not want to judge them.
My personal view is that God, alone, is called to judge people. We're simply called to love them. Yet it seems to me that the reverse is true with many Evangelicals: while they say that God loves everyone and only hates the sin, they judge others with hateful vehemence. This upsets me to no end.
But there is another reason why I have not voted Republican for almost two decades: Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
This Bible verse means that you should not lie about another person. The Republicans, in my view, have become a cultural and character-assassination based party since the 1970s. They are vicious toward anyone who does not stand with them or who might question them. They are especially vicious toward their Democratic opponents. Specifically, McCain has broken his word about not using negative, character assassination in his ads. The GOP is practicing lies and hatemongering toward anyone who does not stand with them – Rovian tactics. Why can’t they base a campaign on just policy differences – and tell the truth? Both Palin and McCain stood up there on the stage during the GOP convention telling lies and half-truths about Obama’s policies on taxes, the war, etc. They mocked community organizers, a very Christian mission.
I cannot stand this vitriolic, sarcastic, character-bashing negativity that is streaming from Republicans. It makes me physically ill. I am extremely disappointed in McCain, who was once-upon-a-time my hero. But back in 2000, I didn’t see his true colors. I do now.
So, I, as a Christian, will be voting for Obama come November.
There is a wide spectrum of beliefs among born again Christians on global warming, immigration, poverty, the Iraq war, and so forth. Much of this relates to how groups within the born again community view the world. Some of us have a view of the world that emphasizes dialogue and tolerance. This does not mean that we are weak and against the use of force, but instead believe in using it as the very, very last resort.
According to the Barna Group, a Christian polling service, among the born again Christians, more than four out of 10 are registered Democrats, three out of ten are registered Republicans, and the remaining two out of 10 are independent. I am an independent – always have been. Things are different among the evangelical Christians, though, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats almost three-to-one.
A person can be a born again Christian without being evangelical. I am one of these. I was reared in the Methodist Church, which is mainline Christian but not usually considered evangelical – at least not in the same way as, say, the Southern Baptists. Many born again Christians are not evangelical. All born again Christians have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ and believe they will join with God after death (often called “going to Heaven”) because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ.
Evangelicals are a subset of born again Christians. Besides their confession of sins and personal commitment to Jesus Christ, their beliefs also include the inerrancy of the Bible, the existence of Satan as an influential spiritual being, the importance of verbally sharing one's faith in Christ with others, and the idea that not only their life but the world, too, is guided by God’s will.
Now to the reasons why many Christians vote for Democrats:
While many born again Christians are personally pro-life, they are more galvanized by other issues and concerns. The fact that many born again voters rank abortion and gay rights lower on their agenda does not indicate that those issues are unimportant. But these non-Evangelical born again Christians, like myself, are not single-issue voters but, instead, more concerned about a wider variety of concerns. In that context, I see other matters as possessing more immediate importance for our nation: such as, but not limited to, caring for “the least of these” in our society, finding a way for to help people going bankrupt and losing their homes to pay their healthcare bills, doing something about global warming by cutting down on pollution, stopping the overseas flow of American jobs, ending the war in Iraq by making the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security, turning our attention to the war in Afghanistan, going after the Taliban and bin Laden, and doing more than just threatening war with Iran – instead we should actually talk with them and use sanctions to pressure them (which I see that the Bush administration is finally doing).
Many born again Christians tend to be put off by the "culture wars" between the Democrats and Republicans and more drawn toward conversation and reconciliation. In fact, negative campaigning with smears against character get me very, very upset. For better or worse, many of us non-evangelical born again Christians express an interest in influencing the culture through setting good examples through modeling the right behavior and not through the “do as I say, not as I do” mantra.
Many born again Christians believe that gays should not have the right to marry but still have the same civil rights as everyone else - even though they believe that homosexuality is un-biblical and a sin. I realize that this will seem a huge contradiction. We Christians do not want a gay “union” to be called “marriage” because it is one of our sacraments. Marriage is holy and between only a man and woman. While it is true that you can legislate morality - after all, what laws do is define what is right and wrong, which is the essence of morality - a growing number of born again people, including myself, desire to offer compassion to proponents of homosexuality. In other words, while not ignoring the fact that homosexuality may be a sin from a biblical perspective, yet also realizing that Jesus' primary doctrine is to love other people. Many born again Christians strongly reject homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, yet at the same time have a number of homosexual friends or acquaintances and do not want to judge them.
My personal view is that God, alone, is called to judge people. We're simply called to love them. Yet it seems to me that the reverse is true with many Evangelicals: while they say that God loves everyone and only hates the sin, they judge others with hateful vehemence. This upsets me to no end.
But there is another reason why I have not voted Republican for almost two decades: Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
This Bible verse means that you should not lie about another person. The Republicans, in my view, have become a cultural and character-assassination based party since the 1970s. They are vicious toward anyone who does not stand with them or who might question them. They are especially vicious toward their Democratic opponents. Specifically, McCain has broken his word about not using negative, character assassination in his ads. The GOP is practicing lies and hatemongering toward anyone who does not stand with them – Rovian tactics. Why can’t they base a campaign on just policy differences – and tell the truth? Both Palin and McCain stood up there on the stage during the GOP convention telling lies and half-truths about Obama’s policies on taxes, the war, etc. They mocked community organizers, a very Christian mission.
I cannot stand this vitriolic, sarcastic, character-bashing negativity that is streaming from Republicans. It makes me physically ill. I am extremely disappointed in McCain, who was once-upon-a-time my hero. But back in 2000, I didn’t see his true colors. I do now.
So, I, as a Christian, will be voting for Obama come November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)