Thursday, February 25, 2010

Shame On You!



Well it’s that time of the month again. No, not that. It’s time for the monthly Shame on You awards. As always, narrowing down the field to three was tough, but this month’s nominees have earned their spot by going above and beyond. In honor of the Winter Games in Vancouver, I thought I’d go with an Olympic format. Game On!

The Gold goes to Senator Richard Shelby who has decided to place a blanket “hold” on all presidential nominations until a pair of billion-dollar earmarks for his home state are fast-tracked. At least 70 nominations are being held up, many non-political, by the Senator, who himself blasted Democratic efforts back in 2005 at blocking the appointment of John Bolton to the post of UN ambassador. Funny how selective his memory is. Shelby is no stranger to controversy. Last February, the Alabama senator seemed to question the citizenship of Barack Obama by commenting on a rumor that spread like a cancer throughout the campaign.

“Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Whether Shelby is an actual member of the Birther movement, or just another political hack looking to garner favor among a myopic element within American society, this much we do know: all impromptu misstatements notwithstanding, this latest stunt has earned him a place atop this month’s list. You can’t call for transparency within the Administration and an end to wasteful spending, while grandstanding for earmarks and holding the government hostage. Shame on you, Mr. Shelby.

The Silver goes to the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Three major Native American reservations in South Dakota, particularly the Cheyenne River Reservation, have been buried under snow and ice with major power failures for weeks during what can only be described as the worst winter in recent memory.

On a “Worst Persons” segment on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann ripped the Committee. “Power lines down, thousands of other Lakota and other tribes people, already face 75 to 85% unemployment, before a blizzard and an ice storm that added six inches of ice weight to utility poles hit. Two weeks since those lines were knocked down and most of the electricity went with it. They managed to get the water turned back on at Cheyenne River, unfortunately most of the water goes into a pipe system that failed during the storm. The pipes are broken. With the wind chill it was minus 19 there today. What did we find out about this on the Senate Committee of Indian Affairs – some means of donating to the affected tribes, means of underwriting the energy companies now distributing propane tanks by hand? An emergency hearing on a crisis there? Nothing. There’s a committee meeting Thursday to discuss regular business.”

Now in the Committee’s defense, Senate rules do prohibit solicitations of aid of any kind “even in circumstances like this.” And since the Olbermann piece, the Committee has responded to the emergency by allocating funds for the removal of snow, rebuilding of roads, and the repair of power lines and water pipes. But why did it take so long for the Committee to act in the first place? And why only a paltry $300,000 in aid, with total costs projected to be two to three times that amount? More damaging was the fact that for almost a month, while thousands of native-Americans needlessly suffered, the very agency charged with being their advocate was virtually silent and inactive. Inexcusable!

But the Bronze goes to a surprise entry: Keith Olbermann. Last month’s special election in Massachusetts was about as divisive as they come with plenty of hyperbole to go around on both sides of the political aisle. But Olbermann went above and beyond when he went on a tirade against the newly elected Scott Brown in one of his Special Comment” segments last month.

“In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.”

Now you’d think that would be enough for even Olbermann, but the following day, he dug the hole a bit deeper by adding, “I need to apologize for comments made here last night about the Republican candidate. I’m sorry, I left out the word sexist.”

So over-the-top was Olbermann’s tirade that Jon Stewart mocked him on The Daily Show the following day, by doing a parody of his Special Comment segment, to wit, “How far, sir, how far will you fall?...But now, you're just kind of calling people names. To wit, you said this of Joseph Isadore Lieberman, Democrat Connecticut: "a Senatorial prostitute." Of Roger Ailes, "fat ass." Chris Wallace, "a monkey posing as a newscaster." Rush Limbaugh, a "big bag of mashed up jack-ass."...And of Michelle Malkin, you said, "a mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic...mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." That my fine, feathered friend sounds a lot more like violence against women than anything Scott Brown ever said. You can't resort to childish attacks as hominem as they are nauseam. You've ceded the high ground, and now you wallow in the fetid swamp of baseless, of baseless name-calling, and as we both know, sir, that's my thing. It is beneath you, it is next to me. A man of your intellect need not be me: petty, pompous, pusillanimous, or poopy-head.”

http://vodpod.com/watch/2908316-im-falling-in-love-with-john-stewart-all-over-again

Now whether one agrees with Olbermann’s viewpoints or not, and I have on most occasions agreed with them, the fact is that engaging in such displays debases whatever validity one wishes to bring to the forefront. As Stewart succinctly pointed out you can’t resort to childish attacks and name calling which cede the high ground. By doing so you undermine your credibility and give the wingnuts on the Right that much more ammunition with which to shoot you down. Shame on you, Keith!

Saturday, February 06, 2010

A Declaration of Sorts



When in the natural course of a man’s journey, he finds he is at an impasse between the reality of his situation and the natural fears he harbors regarding that reality, there demands but one course of action. To deny the reality ultimately is to deny his own heart and to call the God he worships a liar and a fraud, which by His nature is impossible. In this regard, the variable is not the nature of God, but the response of his supposed humble servant. If there is but one Truth, and all others are false, than there must be one action, which though arduous, is nonetheless non-negotiable. Our comfort has never been of much concern to God, so why should we give it any of ours?

The truth is the best of us, at any given moment, has been led astray by lies. We have chosen security over risk, comfort over difficulty, blind ignorance over awareness, and peaceful coexistence over confrontation. We have seen the two principal characters that dominate all four of the Gospels: Jesus and the Pharisees. We have publicly lauded the former, while privately comporting ourselves to the latter; and when push came to shove, even openly embracing the latter. We have, in spite of our stated creed, shown contempt for all that He stands for in the name of an ethic, which is neither historically accurate nor biblically permissible. We have seen the suffering of others and talked about costs; we have witnessed cruelty and injustice and acted timidly - worse, we were indirectly culpable in that suffering through our support of policies that wreaked unspeakable carnage on those who were guiltless in the eyes of the Lord; we have listened to the lies of the enemy and were complicit; we have been challenged to speak out and shrugged our shoulders in indifference. We have stood on principles that are about as secure as quicksand and remained steadfast in our arrogance, confident we were doing God’s bidding. We have, to put it bluntly, behaved shamefully in the eyes of the One who sent us.

And what evidence can we offer up as a rebuttal? Our good works? Our good deeds? Which works? Which deeds? We feed a few people, encourage newcomers to accept Jesus as their Lord and savior, attend weekly group meetings, pray for deliverance from our petty pains of the day and sing a bunch of songs that supposedly represent our act of worship. But in the end nothing changes. Where is the hand of Jesus in all this when many of the very same people who run the vast majority of these supposed ministries do not believe in the core tenants of their own faith? That the words “God helps those who help themselves” do not appear anywhere in the Bible and should be an affront to all they hold true, is irrelevant. That those less fortunate go without basic needs is of no great concern to them. They speak of charity but have none to give. They have professed to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps and condemn all who have not the means to do likewise. Their convoluted logic is wrapped in a flag that they worship above the cross our own Savior carried to his death. They trade in the true role models of the Bible for those of their country and then deliberately misrepresent what those very same countrymen stood for. They concoct scenarios in which gremlins and boogymen from the government will take away their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, all the while professing a devotion to a God who long ago sacrificed his own life, liberty and happiness for our sake and demanded the very same from his children. They know not that their hearts expose their very deeds. They are oblivious to the fact that the Lord sees all. They are lost in their self-aggrandizing.

These are the ambassadors of our faith. They sit in positions of leadership, well versed in biblical scripture, but ignorant to its meaning. They are eager to pray for each other and “praise” His name out of one side of their mouths, while spewing utter nonsense and hate out the other. Without quite realizing that their hypocrisy cancels out whatever credit may have been afforded them, they are nothing if defiant. They are like Sméagol becoming Gollum, consumed by a worship of something hideous and ungodly, yet unaware of its all-consuming power. By throwing in with the enemy they have become his ambassadors. The truth can longer stir them to repentance. They are dead to it.

They are on TV, radio and the print media, spinning lies and mocking the very faith they claim to represent, imploring others to join them in the march to damnation. But they are also sitting at home, nodding in tacit agreement with those very same lies, and actively spreading the word among their fellow cellmates and cyber comrades. Know this much: God sees not the distinction and forgets not the transgressions. Whether it is actively engaging in actions that aid and abed the kingdom of darkness, or whether it is the act of indifference towards that kingdom, the result is the same to God. These lost souls speak of truth, yet know nothing but lies. They are worse than the Pharisees, for the Pharisees did not know Jesus before his arrival. They have no excuse.

But that is not my principle concern here. That there exists within this world men and women who commit evil, and, along with their conspirators, speak lies has been apparent since we crawled up from all fours and began expressing cogent thoughts among each other. What wounds me deeply is how such evil is dealt with within the Church. This is where it gets personal. This is where all of us who know better must do better.

I speak now about a group which I fear represents the saddest lot of all: those of us who know the truth, who have ventured occasionally out of our comfort zones to speak it, but remain on the sidelines, unwilling to completely immerse ourselves for fear of retribution, or under some misbegotten belief that our position of authority or standing precludes us from speaking up. The warning of John to the Church in Sardis in the Book of Revelation serves as a wakeup call.

“These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Are not all of us commissioned to speak out against injustice, to stand up for those who are less fortunate, to challenge lies with truth and paranoia with reason, to act as Paul did when he rebuked James? Did not Jesus rebuke Peter? Did He not love him nonetheless? Why are so few of us willing to stand our ground when presented with the unalterable conclusions of our lot? Are we exempt simply because we are church elders, senior and associate pastors, small group leaders, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, doctors and nurses, lawyers and bankers, athletes and journalists, politicians and statesmen, salespeople and consumers, professors and students? What is the level of our comfort that keeps our mouths shut when our spirit cries out in anguish? Is our new suit too delicate to be soiled if only just a little? Perhaps a new car, the mortgage payment, or the children’s tuition hangs in the balance. What reputation is it we seek to protect when God’s people cry out for justice and we turn away? Did Jesus care about his reputation or his ministry?

All of us know the answers to the above questions. They are as undeniable as they are irrevocable. And yet the enemy continues his lies with nary a peep out of us. The more timid our response, the more arrogant his. Know this: God sees our hearts as well. There will be no comfort or resting place for those who knew the truth yet hid away in relative anonymity for fear of retribution. God’s wrath is far more devastating and enduring than any slight we might have to withstand from a wayward disciple waltzing his way down the road to oblivion. Our hearts are not the issue here; it is our strength of will. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and many a timid follower has fallen victim to the greatest lie of all: that someone else will pick up the mantle. We must always remember two things: our merit alone cannot save us and our fears are unjustifiable before God. Temerity is not a trait one inherits; it’s one he develops, like muscles, through constant exercise. And atrophied of the soul is the greatest sin of all.

When we pass from this world to the next, God will have something to say to each of us. He will either say, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” or he will say, “I do not know you.” The sad truth is we have it within us to control that moment. It requires a brave heart, and a resounding faith that, though it may anger others and bring about scorn and ridicule, rejoices in the knowledge that God’s favor is eternal. I have struggled mightily with what response is appropriate in situations where lies are touted as facts, fear trumps reasoning and darkness blots out light, and have come to the only conclusion possible. It is not enough to occasionally poke one’s head out of the ground and politely instruct those who are not interested in learning anything of import. Nor is it sufficient to “pray” for those we know are blind to the truth in the naïve hope that their eyes will be opened. History has shown that such prayer is not redemptive; rather it is merely an excuse for us to feel better about ourselves. Did Jesus ever once pray for the Pharisees?

And what is it that we are praying for? Devine intervention? If it has not yet occurred within the transgressor, assume it is not going to. Our concern, therefore, should not be the hurt feelings of the sinner, but the ramifications, both to us and to others, of the continuation of that sin. There are only four possible responses to such conduct. We can first agree with it and encourage it, which is unacceptable; we can disagree yet remain silent for fear of retribution, in which case we have, without quite realizing it, condoned the behavior – again unacceptable; we can disagree, but object sheepishly, hoping to encourage repentance, which is a cop out; or we can choose to stand firm and call it out forcefully, as though exorcizing a demon from a possessed man.

One look at the Gospels is all you need do to discover which method Jesus preferred. And therein lies the rub and the challenge. Jesus chose the most difficult path of all; the one most likely to garner him the fewest friends and supporters, the path that virtually assured him his death. And yet when faced with the certainty of his fate – a fate he freely chose – he did not back down, but met it willingly. Imagine if we all had to endure what he did. Would we? Could we? The answer is of course not. In our best moments we are not even remotely capable of standing in his sandals. The good news is we don’t have to. He did it for us. But we are called to stand in the shoes that we were given and show the spine that He gave us. Our cross is not made of wood and nails, but it is uncomfortable nonetheless.

How many “friends” would we lose if we were truly fearless in our stances? How many times have we waxed poetically and danced around a subject we knew in our hearts was wrong, justified it on the grounds that it would be rude to speak up, rationalized that it was not our place to bring correction, or that our position did not afford us the option of pointing out wrongs? The answer is quite probably a lot. Who cares to be corrected, even if it is for their own good? Who would stand quietly by and be rebuked by a fellow believer? Few, if any.

But that is irrelevant. When Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind me Satan,” he could’ve cared less if Peter liked being rebuked. He heard Peter behaving inappropriately and acted swiftly and definitively. His main concern was his soul, not his wounded pride. How many times would you guess that any of us have acted that swiftly or definitively? Over a lifetime maybe a handful if we are fortunate. It is not enough. Evil never rests, so why should any of us. Our reluctance to roll up our sleeves and take back the moral high ground the enemy has called his own is an anathema to our faith. Too many feeble and misguided Christians make the mistake of assuming that just because we are not to use the tools of this world to fight Satan, that God alone will protect us. The thousands who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 serve as a sobering reminder that evil exists in this world and all too frequently wins its share of battles. Ask Job whether God “protected” him. We are required to suit up and be spiritual warriors in God’s army. We are actors on his stage, not spectators in the audience.

I have looked for a spine in a Church that is as feeble as a doddering old man in a nursing home and been found wanting. I have looked for a moral compass worthy of the ministry Jesus began 2000 years ago. It is not there. Oh, there are ministries that feed the hungry and house the homeless and to be sure they do good works. They are pacifiers only, for the real problem lies in the inescapable conclusion that the Church corporately and privately has bedded down with the oppressors of the afflicted. It is worse than the lawmakers of Jesus’ day; it resembles more the Roman Empire, corrupt and rotting from within. It is a shell of its once glorious self. The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are nothing more than symbols of a mostly dogmatic religion that long ago lost the meaning of why those men so freely gave up their lives.

While there a few notable exceptions to this rule - small churches whose light occasionally permeates the darkness - the very simple truth is that they are far too small, and way too ineffective to make a difference. And even when the pastors of these sanctuaries manage to stay out of the political fray that has engulfed the Church as a whole, the vacuum that ensues, far from creating the apolitical environment they had wished for, actually encourages the sort of conduct that now defines most of our faith in the eyes of the world. The result is that these parishioners end up “representing” and “dominating” the congregation’s message. If you want to know what a church stands for, you needn’t look at its literature; all you need do is visit the facebook, twitter and myspace pages of its members. In between the “have a blessed day” and “Jesus is good” exhortations, lies the painful and ugly truth that reveals the nature of the spiritual malady that besets many of them. It’s all there in black and white. What people say in open forums or in chat rooms is far more revealing and damning than what they say at the alter on a Sunday morning service. But what gets left unsaid and unchallenged by the stewards of these churches and the rest of their congregations is far more lasting. Where is the outrage to such ignorance? One can only conclude that its absence is due either to denial of its existence or a tacit agreement with its tone; neither is acceptable.

Whether it is the spiritual and social tunnel vision so widely adhered to by the majority of evangelicals or being on the wrong side of virtually every major cause of the day, the silence is deafening! How can any of us condemn moderate Muslims for failing to call out the extremists within their ranks, when our mouths remain shut where it concerns our own miscreants?

Ever since it left its fledgling days behind, the Church has married itself to power structures that were at odds with the very message of the Gospels. First the Holy Roman Empire, then the assault throughout Europe during the Crusades; then Feudalism, then Mercantilism, and now Capitalism. Most of the Protestant Ethic, so widely quoted by latter-day biblical gurus, is nothing more than a self-justification of the same rubbish the followers of Calvin adopted after his death. Those who are saved are blessed with prosperity, and those who are blessed with prosperity must be saved. Satan always completes his circles. For those who would argue that the Church did stand against the tyranny of Communism and fascism, I would counter only when it was threatened by a force inimical to its own vested interests did it finally find its voice and lash out. How much courage does it take to speak out against a totalitarian regime?

Many will say, and perhaps rightly so, that Jesus was ambivalent toward the established government, and chose instead to focus his attention on the religious leaders of the day. Fair enough. It was, after all, our hearts he was looking to capture. But while he remained mostly silent on the perversions and injustices of the Roman Empire, his ministry was filled with parables that spoke about greed, corruption, selfishness, pride and arrogance. Can anyone with half a mind dare suggest that the current economic system employed by the West and touted by so many conservative evangelicals is not loaded with these traits? With a few notable exceptions, most of the financial gains of the last two hundred years have come on the backs of those in relatively powerless positions. The very same disenfranchised flock that Jesus came to deliver has been exploited by the power brokers who call Christianity their own. That the Church has not disowned them is an abomination.

Were Jesus physically alive today, would he not behave much like he did when he walked into the Temple and drove out the money changers? Would he not say to the wealthy of today, “Sell all your possessions and give to the poor?” Are we not commanded to do as Jesus did? But, you would say, are these not impractical demands? Of course they are and one would certainly doubt the sanity and wisdom of any God who would expect his children to live in such abject poverty. Then why are our hearts so indifferent to the sufferings of those who do live in such squalor conditions? If it is unjust and unreasonable to expect us to forego our personal possessions for the sake of being humble, why is it permissible to allow others to do so? Is humility only for the poor?

Claims by supposedly “mature” Christians that the Church’s main purpose should not be to involve itself in the machinations of the world, are as reprehensible and hypocritical as the rebuking these modern-day Pharisees bestow on the conscientious objectors that occasionally dent their ranks. For one thing, the Church has had a long and well established involvement with the politics of the world, mostly on the wrong side; for another the largest offenders have been anything but apolitical in their stances. They have, if anything, been advocates for conservative movements that rarely, if ever, adhere to Christian principles. They are experts at what they stand against - abortion, same-sex marriage, global warming, universal healthcare, government assistance programs - yet rarely speak out for the poor and disenfranchised, as Jesus did, preferring instead to speak of some master plan God must have in store for them, as if that alone would mollify their discontent. To quote Ebenezer Scrooge, “Are there no workhouses?” And when they do find causes, like making sure we all say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays - as if that alone could instill a spirit of Christ within the world – it becomes comical and downright sad.

Those of us who dare question the motives of these charlatans are called liberals, lefties, socialists, enemies of freedom, un-Christian, or simply disruptive and bringing disharmony to the Body. We are made to feel as though it is we who have the problem, not them. Can’t we all just drink the Koolaid and get on with the business of indoctrinating the ignorant and scorning those with the brains to know better?

Balderdash!

Such scoundrels not only miss the forest for the trees, they miss the trees as well. When Jesus fed the multitudes, did he ask who had a job first? Did he call them lazy oafs looking for a handout? What is it that these people are looking for? An engraved invitation? Perhaps the heavens will open up and the Almighty himself will call them out? If the only litmus test of our faith is our sexual purity or the quality of our financial portfolio, we are indeed lost. We should be advocates for the poor to the fullest extent, even if it means challenging the very economic system that caused their poverty in the first place. Archbishop Óscar Romero of El Salvador, a proponent of Liberation Theology, was assassinated by extremists in his country for speaking out against human rights violations and for defending the poor. Mahatma Ghandi, who almost single-handedly won India’s independence from Britain through non-violent civil disobedience, was likewise assassinated by extremists in his country who disapproved of his stance toward Pakistan. Martin Luther King, Jr., a prominent civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, who lead the famous “March on Washington” in 1963, was assassinated in his own country for his stance on racism and segregation. All three men saw injustice and rebelled against it; all three men placed their principles ahead of their personal safety; and all three men paid the ultimate price. Where are the Romeros, Ghandis and Kings of our generation?

I have always felt that true Discipleship should mean more than just signing up people to join a religious movement. We are not the Price Club, so why do we behave as though we are? Disciples making Disciples is supposed to mean more than just increased attendance at the 9:30 Sunday service. It should mean instilling a yearning to know the true heart of Jesus. And that heart, if we are sincere, should cause us to squirm in our seats at the knowledge of just how far we fall short of his standards. Furthermore, it should produce in all of us a righteous anger towards anyone who would challenge those standards, regardless of social or political status, or even if they are church leaders.

But aren’t we called to obey our religious leaders whom we’re told represent Christ on Earth? And isn’t criticizing our leaders a sign of disobedience? Actually, we are called to obey Jesus. Was Jesus being disobedient when he called the religious leaders of his day a “brood of vipers” not once, not twice, but three times in the Gospel of Matthew? Was Paul being disruptive for rebuking the churches in his letters when they had strayed from the true message of Christ? I think not. In deed for the Son of God, Jesus was about as unorthodox a prophet as any in the Bible. He had little use for conventional wisdom and often challenged his Disciples to think outside the box. He was blunt and, when it suited him, rude towards his adversaries, shunning those he viewed as proud and arrogant, while bestowing compassion and mercy on those he viewed as meek and powerless. When Michael Jackson died last year the hordes of supposed Christians who derided his lifestyle was embarrassing. In deed, it was the world that comported itself with far more compassion than many of our own flock. Once more the “voice” of Christianity missed the boat, if not fell off it entirely. That they “worship” a God who hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes still continues to allude many of them. Their ignorance is astounding.

Why then with such a shining example within its midst does the Church insist on watering down the very reason for its existence? Why are so few Christians bothered enough by the injustices of the world to take a stand and walk the path their Lord walked two millennia ago? Why are so many so quick to judge the wicked around them, while ignoring the wickedness that resides within their hearts? And why are so many of us “afraid” to call it out?

Well, as Bob Dylan once wrote, “It ain’t me babe.” I am tired of scratching my head wondering what to do, when the answer has been right there in front of me all along. A little over four years ago I stood at a crossroads in my walk and pondered giving up on the Church altogether, such was the toxic atmosphere gripping it. A very wise and Godly man convinced me to stay and face my demons. He encouraged me to write about what troubled me most in the Church. For him, it showed more courage to stand my ground and speak my peace than it did to pull up stakes and run. After all, when faced with death threats and imprisonment, Paul did not wither and retreat. He stood up to injustice and incurred the wrath of both the Jewish lawmakers and the Roman authorities. In the end it cost him his very life. And while I am no Paul, I do belong to the same faith he called his own; a faith that compelled him to chose martyrdom over comfort. What excuse could I find to toss in the proverbial towel as it were and high tail it?

I have been dwelling on the words from John 15: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” And while I realize it does violence to scripture to misquote it for personal gain, I feel strongly that this passage is speaking to me and has for some time now.

But as a former pastor of mine had a habit of saying, “Now what?” What does one do when faced with such an indelible truth? I have always been a fan of Robert Frost, and greatly admired his epic poem, “The Road Not Taken.”

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.


To the undiscerning eye, the poem seems to be encouraging self-reliance, not following where others have led. But I have always felt that, rather than advocating a preference, Frost is simply saying that choice is inevitable, but you never know what your choice will mean until you have lived it.

And that, after all, is the essence of life itself. We are, all of us, the sum total of our choices, good and bad, wise and unwise, popular and unpopular. What we fear most is not the choice itself, but the ramifications of that choice. Being brave is easy when no sacrifice is needed and everything goes your way. It’s the courage that we hold onto in the face of certain condemnation that defines our walk. The Bible is basically a collection of stories of people who took the road less traveled, and for them, as for us, that has made all the difference.

It is no less true for me. I have come to a fork in my road that I can no longer ignore. A decision must be made regarding the impasse that I spoke of earlier. I have agonized over this decision for quite some time now, and, while I am still torn inside, I am bound by an inner voice that simply will not be still any longer.

Since becoming a Christian in late 1991, and even before that I suspect, I have wondered what my purpose on this Earth was. And while I have never been one to hold back my feelings on matters that meant a great deal to me – hence my blog – I confess that it has been a bit of a crutch. As far back as I can recall, writing has always come easy to me, perhaps a bit too easy. While I was no Shakespeare, I took great comfort in knowing I could make persuasive arguments for just about anything I put my mind to. Even when I was in college, I was always the protagonist, questioning authority, searching for the truth wherever it might be, and looking more at the macro than the micro when it came to economics and society. You could say that has been my biggest asset and my biggest problem. While the world needs its poets and provocateurs, it also needs its foot soldiers too. Putting pen to paper is one thing; getting up on one’s feet and marching forward is quite another.

The truth is, I have not always practiced what I’ve preached. In deed I have been far more comfortable playing the role of the critic than the selfless servant. I have been stuck in neutral in my walk and the time has come to put my money where my mouth is. I cannot call others out for their abhorrent behavior, while sitting comfortably behind a keyboard. To continue to do so would be hypocritical. The paradoxical truth of Frost’s poem is that one cannot proceed down two divergent roads at the same time; in the end only one road can be taken. Historically, I have always chosen safety over uncertainty, and playing the Monday morning quarterback was the role of a lifetime. Well that comes to an end today. Safety and comfort have worn thin with me. Wherever my new road may lead I am determined to meet it head on, come what may.

I would be lying if I said I was not apprehensive about what lies ahead. And while I do not know as of yet how it will all unfurl, I am, if nothing else, defiant. This does not mean I will “disappear” or stop writing. Our assets are God-given, and I would certainly hope that I am capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time to use a colorful metaphor. No, the path I choose is to step out and make a difference. The more I look into it, the more intrigued I become with Liberation Theology. While opponents of it have often cited that it takes a narrow view of the Bible, it’s propensity for radicalism is strikingly analogous to the ministry of Jesus. I wonder what it would be like to belong to a church that was that much of an advocate for the poor and oppressed. If there is such a thing as social justice then its proponents will be the ones who bring it to fruition, and I intend to be there with them.

Men like Jim Wallis have made social justice their life’s work, and are living proof that politics and Christianity needn’t be a four-letter word to be effective and righteous. Many of the social causes of the ‘50s and ‘60s were championed by people just like him. Likewise, Richard Stearns, who wrote “The Hole in Our Gospel,” has devoted himself to bringing to light the injustices of our world and has challenged his readers to question the pursuit of the “American dream of health, wealth and happiness,” and instead consider how our choices impact others.

In April 1967 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke to a convocation of concerned clergy and laity at the Riverside Church in New York City. His words continue to challenge us four decades later.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice, which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.


There has been enough pontificating on man’s inhumanity to man to fill a landfill. In every revolution there are men and women who have a vision and the will to carry it out. Jesus started with twelve apostles and look where we are now. If those of us who care about what He represents begin in earnest today, we can reshape this world and transform it into the land of plenty. We may wonder where to begin. It starts with rejecting what we know to be false, and then doing the next right thing the Lord puts in front of us. And while, like Jesus, prayer is essential to our strength, there are times when we spend a little too much time on our knees. The time to rise up is at hand. There are no insignificant servants or deeds on this journey. “Stand up! Stand up, for what you believe in. You know that God will back you up.” Those words come from a Veggie Tales song. Funny how songs work. They either remind us of what we once had or challenge us to grab what is within our reach. God gave us gifts to not only bless us, but to be a blessing to others. We can never fail so long as we remember that God does not call the equipped; he equips the called.

For those of you out there who feel as I do, have seen the terrible injustice and evil in the world, have become restless in your own journey, but privately wonder whether you have it in you to make a difference, I’ll leave you with this scripture from James 4:17. “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.” God is watching and judging us. We are all in this together, and with the grace and strength that comes from above we will persevere!

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Obama: One Year Later



It was December 1944 and General George S. Patton was sitting in a room full of generals. The Germans had just launched The Ardennes Offensive, better known as The Battle of the Bulge, and General Eisenhower wanted to know who among them could relieve the beleaguered forces at Bastogne. Patton spied the room for a brief moment and then blurted out, “I can attack with three divisions in 48 hours.”

The other generals were astounded at Patton’s bravado and openly questioned how he could make such a commitment of his soldiers who were already involved in a substantial campaign and would have to travel over 100 miles in the middle of a fierce snow storm. His reply was equally astounding, “They’ll do it because they’re good soldiers and because they realize as I do that we can still lose this war.”

In one sentence Patton had nailed it on the head. Of his many memorable quotes, none were so on point and foreboding as that one, for Patton was not one to count his chickens before they hatched. Despite the apparent superiority of the Allied forces and the shrinking morale of the German army, the war was not over. The enemy had not yet been defeated. A misstep here, a misstep there could spell disaster. We all know what happened: Patton’s divisions arrived in time to rescue Bastogne and within months, the Germans had surrendered. The war in Europe was over. The moral of that story was simple: never assume anything. The fight is never over so long as your adversary is still alive. To quote the great Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

Pity President Obama never met George Patton. Pity the Democratic Party never met George Patton. Since their meteoric ascension last November, which gave them virtually unfettered power, both Obama and the Democratic House and Senate have behaved like a football team entering the third quarter with a three touchdown lead playing prevent defense. Anyone who has ever seen a football game knows full well that teams that employ such a defense usually prevent themselves from winning. They are constantly on their heals while their opponents continue to march up and down the field. The rationale given for this defense is based on the assumption that three touchdown leads are rarely overcome. And certainly of course, the way the political landscape looked last year, that assumption seemed as secure as gold. The Republican Party was in retreat and disarray, politically isolated and socially in the hands of individuals who neither had the intellectual capacity to understand the position they were in or the vision to plot a course out of the wilderness. Pundits began to openly wonder if a comparison to the Whig Party was not appropriate. But, as any competent sportscaster will tell you, that’s why they play four quarters.

From the beginning of his administration, Barack Obama has displayed an uncanny inability or unwillingness to follow through on the promises he made on the campaign trail. And even when he has found the willingness to pursue those promises, his ineptitude has been his own worst enemy. He has behaved like the coach of the team ahead by three touchdowns, desperately trying to hang on to the lead seemingly given to him by Providence. And the opposing side, far from calling it a night, has consistently chomped away at the lead, one grueling first down at a time. The result is an administration and a Congress that has lost the momentum and is in jeopardy of losing the game outright. Instead of taking it to them and forcing the issue, which got them the lead in the first place, the play it safe approach the Democrats have chosen has played right into the hands of the Republicans. And the Republicans have capitalized on their new-found fortune. Why bother crafting a message when your opponent keeps punting the ball back to you?

Astonishing!

The facts do not lie. They reveal in exact detail the nature of the malady that currently besets the majority party. Despite a mandate of epic proportions, not once in the first few months did Obama and the Democrats craft a message that clearly outlined what they stood for. Up till now they ran on the premise that they were not Bush and the Republicans. That worked for a while. The angst against the GOP was well deserved. Bush and his cronies had gotten us into two wars and wrecked the economy. True Clinton helped a bit when he allowed the Glass-Steagall Act to be repealed, thus setting in motion a series of events that eventually lead to the financial collapse. Still someone had to pay and the American people decided a change was needed. The problem was that Democrats misread the nature of the angst. They wanted change, but they also wanted boldness. What they got was a party that couldn’t get out of its own way; that often acted like it didn’t know who was driving the bus. By contrast, the Republicans seemed unified and displayed surprising determination. Their message was "no", "no", "no", and while many political pundits wondered about the wisdom of such a stance, it proved surprisingly successful.

Case in point, virtually every poll taken in the weeks and months after Obama took office showed overwhelming support for healthcare reform. A strong public option was what the public wanted. But the Administration, in an attempt to avoid the 93-94 fiasco, off-loaded the whole process into the hands of Congress. House and Senate Democrats, in an effort to appease the more moderate and conservative elements within their ranks, then ostensibly tore the guts out of the bill, removing the majority of the reforms the President had called for, including the public option. And while Democrats were playing politics, the GOP geared up its propaganda machine and by mid-August, the corporate-sponsored Town Halls were stoking the worst fears of Americans with false charges of death panels and a socialist takeover of healthcare, with nary a peep out of the President or Congressional Democrats.

By the time Obama finally addressed the nation in September to make his appeal for reform, the momentum had turned and the mood of the country was growing increasingly volatile. Support for the bill, however, had started going south as early as July. Why the two month delay? Why did it take so long for the President of the United States and the Democratic Party as a whole to stand up and challenge critics of the bill? Whatever the cause, the delay proved costly, as more and more Democrats in the center succumbed to cold feet. When the Senate bill finally passed in December, not only did it lack a public option, it lacked any meaningful support among progressives in the country who correctly felt they had been sold down the river. Moreover, independents were bailing on it as well.

The special election in Massachusetts was touted by conservatives as a referendum on Obamacare; in reality, polls taken on election night were quite revealing. 22% of registered Democrats voted for Republican Scott Brown - who had supported the Massachusetts healthcare plan - and the biggest reason they did so was their dissatisfaction with the Senate healthcare bill. They had wanted a robust reform bill and what they saw was a party capitulating on principles. That, plus a lackluster Democratic candidate, spelled disaster on election day.

The stimulus bill was another example of a half-measured response to a crisis situation. Virtually every prominent economist has stated that the government needed to step in to keep the economy from going off the cliff into a depression. The problem wasn’t the stimulus, but rather its size. Keynesian economists tend to agree that during periods of recession strong and massive infusions of capital are necessary to jump-start the economy. Paul Krugman has stated that a stimulus of approximately $1.5 trillion was called for to not only thwart a depression, but to revitalize the economy and get it back up on its feet. Larry Summers as early as December of 2008 warned that the risk of “doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much.”

Unfortunately for the country, the President did not head the warnings of either man, and instead opted for a more middle of the road option that was more expedient and then committed the ultimate political faux pas by promising that unemployment would not rise above 8%. When it reached 10% by the fall, Obama’s critics had a field day. And now, with the worst over, but the economy still stuck in neutral, the political will to revisit this issue is all but gone. The forecast for 2010 calls for slow growth with little or no decrease in unemployment. GOP gains in Congress are inevitable; the only question remaining is how many Democrats will fall.

And the real shame is all this was avoidable. The senseless and destructive banter and the corporate-underwritten rage of the tea party movement gained traction within the body politic thanks largely to a President who showed an uncanny lack of spine when it came to defining his message and a stubborn reluctance to push back against the lies in the same manner FDR did so brilliantly during his three plus terms. The progressive many thought they were voting for turned into the consummate pragmatist at a time when the nation needed the visionary most. Worst, Obama’s lack of empathy coupled with the aloofness of a college professor that he sometimes showed a little too much during the campaign - and is emblematic among many liberal Democrats - began to rub independents the wrong way. Even those who still thought he was capable were growing a bit annoyed at his seeming detachment. The public was looking for the Commander in Chief; what they got was the Delegator in Chief.

But all may not be lost. Despite the setbacks of the last year and the hits this president has taken to his prestige, like the recession the worst may be over. In his State of the Union address, Obama seemed far more confrontational and determined to “set the record straight.” He challenged both Democrats and Republicans to solve the nation’s problems and stop the back and forth banter. He also acknowledged his own mistakes. It was the first time in almost a year that the nation saw a fighter.

But the biggest reason for hope is that despite the recent gains that Republicans have made, mainly as a result of the ineptitude of this President, we are still talking about a party that still has no coherent, viable solution that doesn’t include the word “no” or an overly nostalgic reliance on failed policies from the past.

But to take back the mantle and stem the tide, this President is going to have to do a much better job of defining a narrative that heretofore he has been reluctant to do. Whether he enjoys it or not, or even if it rubs him the wrong way, he is going to have to get it through his head that his political opponents are not now, nor have they ever been, interested in bipartisanship. As Jon Stewart so wryly observed, no matter how much he tries to move to the center, "They're not going to let you in the car!" The wingnuts of the GOP are running the show and their goal is nothing short of complete victory and that means stopping this President no matter the costs. Obama must stop trying to reach out to a party that has no intention of reaching back. He must abandon his pragmatism and assert his will. While he has lost a lot of the political capital he had at the start of his term, he still has the biggest and loudest pulpit from which to call out and challenge his opponents. The few times he has ventured out of his comfort zone and done this has worked. He must do it more often.

He also must become more empathetic and less detached. The articulate orator that thrilled the throngs on the campaign trail must be replaced by a more compassionate man who understands the dire straits that many Americans find themselves in, and who can relate to their suffering. Even when the depression was at its worst, Roosevelt was always able to identify with and reassure the millions who were hurting. His fireside chats were legendary and put his Republican opponents back on their heals. It also bought him the political capital to put in place the programs and reforms that helped bring the nation out of the depression. Obama desperately needs to find that spirit if he intends on being more than a one-term president. More importantly, he must honor the pledges he made on the campaign trail when he ran as a progressive. If he intends on fighting for healthcare reform, he must find a way to get progressives back on board and do a far better job at explaining what it is he wants. He cannot afford the luxury of naively believing that the majority of Americans will figure it out on their own. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if history has taught us anything it is that those who care enough to fight for what they believe in usually get their points across and prevail. Those who don’t become footnotes.

Obama must become his own General Patton and go on the offensive. He must realize that the war’s outcome is still in doubt, and that the enemy has not only not been defeated, but is launching its own winter offensive. The lead has shrunk to only a field goal, but it is a lead nonetheless. At stake is more than just a mid-term election; the future of the Republic and perhaps the whole planet hangs in the balance. The specter of a Palin Administration beckons and with it the hordes of ideologues whose intentions have been made all too plain. To the rational mind that is a fate too terrifying to contemplate. Now is the time for Obama to show the temerity he ran on and become the President this nation desperately needs and deserves.

The cost of failure is too high to calculate.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Shame On You!



It took a tragedy of historic and epic proportions to bring to the forefront that which was most important. With the earthquake that devastated Haiti, suddenly the daily trivialities of life were tossed aside and we were all driven by an inner voice to put aside our petty differences and to think of what we could do – even in some small way - to help those in need. Well almost every one.

Over the last 12 months I have chronicled many instances of political chicanery by the Right, and yes even some by the Left. While all were deserving of winning the lofty status accorded them, not until now did I finally come across two shining examples of humanity that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt just how low some can sink when push comes to shove.

And while I find it abhorrent to start this year’s Shame on You awards in the backdrop of such a horrific event, to ignore the deplorable conduct of these individuals is equally wrong. They have not only earned this month’s infamous honors, they have gone above and beyond to display in full bloom their dizzying minuscule intellects. I’d say both these individuals have hit rock bottom here, but I fear sadly that may not be the case. For now, let’s just say this one takes the cake.

There is no first place; both are equally obnoxious. So without further ado.

Pat Robertson. For most of his scandalous and hypocritical career as founder of the Christian Coalition and host of The 700 Club Robertson has said many inflammatory and outrageous things and brought great shame upon a faith that sadly has had more than its fair share of shameful chapters throughout its history. But none were more outrageous and completely devoid of any sensitivity and Christian spirit than the words he vomited over the air less than 24 hours after the Haitian earthquake.

Christy, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the French, true story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. The Island of Hispaniola is one island cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is, is, prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty, same Islands, uh, they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I'm optimistic something good may come, but right now we're helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.”


Forget for a moment the revisionist history lesson, which is always skewed when it comes to the West, the simple matter of fact was that Robertson, at a time when responsible religious leaders were doing their best to offer their prayers and imploring their congregations to lend whatever support they could afford, once more revealed the dark side of himself and Christianity to a world that doesn’t need any more examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

Too often men like Robertson have not only stuck their proverbial feet in their mouths but put a stain on all Christians in the process. The “devil” in this case is not some entity that the Haitians entered into a pact with some two centuries ago, but the ignorance and hatred that the Church has had to put up with from people of his ilk. Bill Maher, a noted comedian and self-proclaimed atheist, has made it his life’s work to expose just how fraudulent and idiotic all religions are. From his point of view he is correct. The unfortunate and sad truth is that it is the charlatans of our faith that have become its ambassadors to a mostly uneducated and susceptible world. A world that hardly ever sees the mercy and compassion of Jesus; merely the fire and brimstone of clowns like Robertson. It was at least gratifying to know that in this instance, he was outed not only by the majority of the world, but by many within the Church. Miracles, I guess, do happen.

And speaking of clowns, Rush Limbaugh really outdid himself this week. Always eager to show off his never bounding ignorance on anything resembling facts, his comments on Obama’s quick response to the Haitian earthquake surpassed even his “supercilious” heights. I’ll let the maestro tell it in his own words.

“Here's President Obama speaking about Haiti this morning in Washington at the White House. He held a press conference. Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.

“Oh, this is what he lives for. He lives for serving those in misery. Now, don't misunderstand here, folks. I don't have the whole press conference, but I wonder did he apologize for America before acknowledging we are the only people on earth that can possibly help 'em out down there in any significant way? By the way, I've checked it out, Cuba has offered nothing. Venezuela has offered nothing. They have nothing to offer.

“Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, "credibility" with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-order for them. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there.”
Despicable would be a word in a half for the depravity of this man. Like his compadre above, Rush Limbaugh can reduce any thing to its basest element. It is one thing to have a disdain for political correctness; it is quite another to behave like an insensitive ass. When even Sean Hannity’s website has a link for Haitian relief, you know you’re out in left field, or should I say right field.

Jon Stewart said it best. “I think I know the cause of your heart trouble. You don’t have one.” Apparently he doesn’t have a brain either.

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Shame On You!

Thanks to a crazy December schedule, my usual plethora of blogs has been dramatically reduced; hence this will be my one and only entry for the month of December.

With that in mind, I decided to make this blog count with the first annual Shame on You Awards. There were many contenders, but I think you’ll agree all the winners were quite deserving of the prestigious honors.

And now the envelope please.

1. Fox News. Everything that has been said about this “news” organization has already been said. From the corporate-sponsored Tea Parties where correspondents acted like cheer leaders and riled up the natives, to “news” stories with Fox employees acting as their own sources, to the wingnuts that fill the prime-time slots, Rupert Murdoch’s garbage disposal was in rare form throughout 2009. No matter what was going on in the world, chances are after watching Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy or Chris Wallace, you’d be convinced it was Obama’s fault. I fully expect one of 2010’s “news” stories to be “Obama to blame for common cold.” Fox’s poison has already resulted in rot spreading throughout the mainstream media as rivals attempt to lure back some of the customers they’ve lost by resorting to some of their own mud-slinging. “Fair and Balanced” my foot.
2. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Levin, et al. If this were a law firm, you’d be better off throwing yourself on the mercy of the court. Unfortunately for us, they don’t represent a law firm, they represent the “cream” of the lunatic Right, which has defined conservatism in this country. Their incendiary rhetoric has dragged American politics right into the gutter and badly wounded the Republican Party. Nothing is off limits and anything goes with these ideologues. They hide behind their First Amendment rights while spitting on the very Constitution they claim to uphold. They speak of liberty and freedom but know little about either. If 2009 was any indicator, 2010 should be quite a spectacle.
3. The Tea Party Movement. Of all the machinations of the paranoid Right, none were more devoid of any semblance of credibility and wreaked of outright gullibility than these deplorable nincompoops. When they weren’t chanting socialist and holding up signs of President Obama sporting a Hitler mustache at fake rallies, they were taking hostages at the August Town Halls. At heart they were symptomatic of a growing trend throughout the country, which says if you don’t like something, no matter how rational it might be, just shout it down and intimidate anyone who opposes you. Their conduct bore close resemblance to the Storm Troopers that ran roughshot in Nazi Germany. The worst part is they don’t seem to be going away. If anything they will likely grow in numbers next year as the mid-terms approach. Saints preserve us.
4. Sarah, Michele and the Rest of the Republican Party. Or as I prefer to call them, dumb, dumber and dumbest. It’s bad enough that the likes of Rush and the gang have become the mouthpiece of conservatism in this country, thus virtually eliminating any serious check on Democratic political hegemony, the Republican Party has apparently decided to kidnap itself and bludgeon its own future. Banking its hopes on a sluggish economy that they feel will steam roll them back into Congressional power in 2010, they have become the Party of No, that is when they aren’t busy embarrassing themselves. Can you say Whig Party? I knew you could.
5. President Barack Obama. A surprise entry here. Yes, he inherited the worst economic mess since Roosevelt, and yes he has managed to stave off what would’ve been a global collapse, but this president has simply been unable or unwilling to take the bull by the horns and bring the change to Washington he campaigned on. Whether it was continuing the domestic surveillance program that Bush unveiled, or not listening to economists like Paul Krugman who predicted correctly that the stimulus would not be big enough to drive the recovery needed to create job growth, or off-loading the healthcare bill completely to Congress, thus allowing the Right to define it and eventually strip it of most of the reform he promised last year, Obama has put both his Party and the nation into a precarious position. If the Republicans manage to win significant gains in both the House and Senate in 2010, it will not be because they brought anything substantive to the table; it will be due to a president who for most of his freshman year in office looked like a rookie pitcher getting lit up on the mound. He has managed to both rile up conservatives and drive away progressives all at the same time. Quite a feat. He wants to be the next JFK; the nation needs an FDR. If he doesn’t recover and find some kind of moral compass soon, this will be a one-term presidency.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

A Global Initiative.


Recently it has come to light that there exists a petition, which contains the signatures of more than 31,000 “scientists” who have collectively refuted claims of man-made global warming.

Organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the purpose of this petition is to demonstrate that “the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.”

So what qualifications does one need to have the honor of signing his or her name to such a prestigious petition? Apparently not many. Anybody with a BS can qualify, even those who are no longer living, or hold degrees in relevant fields. The OISM also wanted to let everyone know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something.

I looked up one of the honorees - a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia - and thought it would be appropriate to ask him in writing to explain his reasoning behind signing the petition. Below is the letter that I emailed to him. I encourage all conscientious objectors to take up this cause to call out those who continue to stand in the way of common sense and decency. Our planet’s health is at stake. It is time to end this madness once and for all.


To Dr. W. Kline Bolton

You recently signed a petition questioning the validity of man-made global warming. I was wondering what level of expertise you possess that allows you to make such an informed opinion on the subject.

Seeing as how you are one of some 31,000 scientists that have signed this petition, some of who it seems are deceased, I feel it is appropriate for you to address this issue. With so many experts in the field convinced we have a problem that needs to be dealt with, I'm sure you can appreciate how "bad" science can distort the truth and blind us all to the obvious.

With the lives of billions of people hanging in the balance, now is the time for responsible people to put aside political posturing and wishful thinking and strive to bring about real solutions to our planet's dilemma. The consideration of a reply is requested.


Regards,


Peter W. Fegan

Saturday, November 14, 2009


Making Sense of Independent Voters and Their Mood Swings.


There’s an old saying among Floridians that you might’ve heard of. If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes. Whoever coined that saying must’ve been an independent voter. Only an independent could be perceptive enough to know how fickle the weather can be, not to mention his own voting record. While reading David Brooks’ op-ed piece in The New York Times, “What Independents Want,” I was struck by the above saying and found it curious that someone with as much gravitās into Washington politics as Brooks can be so easily fooled into reaching the conclusions he did regarding last week’s gubernatorial races. For a self-described moderate, Brooks shows an amazing lack of insight into how moderates and independents actually think. Let’s look at the piece shall we.

While Brooks correctly points out that independent voters represent “the largest group in the electorate” and lack “the think tanks to provide arguments, politicians and pundits to amplify them, and news media outlets to deliver streams of prejudice-affirming stories,” he couldn't have been more wrong about what actually happened election night and why.

As usual Brooks is thorough in presenting a narrative about the current volatility of independent voters. That he is astute enough to refer to them as “herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery” – one of his better metaphors I might add - underscores what everyone who has ever read him already knows: that he is nothing if eloquent. But then Brooks proceeds to make the same mistakes virtually every pundit on election night made; he draws the wrong conclusions from his own narrative.

The returns on election night ’09 do not portend any trend worth noting, much less a swing to the right by independents. Brooks writes,

“According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. Independents are in the position of a person who is feeling gravely ill at the same time he has lost faith in his doctor.”

Amazing how Brooks uses the image of a patient and a doctor to describe the current trend, yet fails to see the correlation and relevance that such imagery represents in the political landscape. The point is nobody stays ill forever. Today’s quack is tomorrow’s healer. Should the economy recover sufficiently by next year, I wonder what the Gallup polls will reveal about the level of government regulation. Deficit spending only means something to a voter when they’re out of work or hurting financially. Otherwise, it’s about as useful as a Glenn Beck monologue.

If we have learned anything about American voters – particularly moderate or independent voters - is that they value results over principles. Two plus two equals four always and everywhere. How one gets there is irrelevant. Brooks should know this; he has been writing about it for years. As I said in an earlier blog the results in last weeks elections represent one thing and one thing only: the American electorate is pissed off and is taking it out on whoever is in charge. Partisan hacks who talk a good talk, but who do not have any answers are out. More people may watch Fox News than any other cable news outlet, but so far it hasn’t translated into anything more significant than ratings boosts. One look at New York’s 23rd is all you need to know about how much ideology meant to a district that hadn’t voted Democrat in over a hundred years. Please!

Both political parties need to get their proverbial heads out of their butts and start offering solutions that work. Today it is Democrats who appear to be taking it on the chin; tomorrow it will be Republicans. Anyone in power who is perceived as not getting the job done will most likely be getting his or her pink slips over the next twelve months. This constant see-saw battle between the parties is nothing new, namely because it was never about ideology in the first place. It's the same thing that drives a Monday-morning quarterback and trying to figure it out or make any conclusions beyond tomorrow's sports scores is futile. The reason they're called independents is because they're independent. If they'd wanted an identity they've would've joined a major political party. Labeling them as shifting to the right, as Brooks did, ignores a basic tenant in American politics.

Just as no able-bodied seaman worth his weight in salt would ever rely on fair weather to get home safely, no political pundit should attempt to take the temperature of an entire electorate based solely on a few small elections. Counting on the weather is a fool’s errand, and has lead many a ship to a watery grave. It has also left more than just a few otherwise astute political columnists a bit red-faced.

Monday, November 09, 2009

Shame On You!

Well it’s that time again. Once more we dive into the pit of despair and ignorance and pull out this month’s winners of the Shame on You awards. As always, it was a tough job narrowing down the nominees, but I think you’ll agree that this month’s winners are more than deserving.

The envelope please:

First place this month goes to lifelong space cadet and Captain Video alumna Michele Bachmann who held her own little Tea Party on the steps of the Capitol last week in protest of the pending vote in the House on healthcare reform – a bill by the way that passed. Not only did Bachmann do her best Glenn Beck impersonation of inciting the throng of malcontents who obviously have nothing better to do than waste an entire day listening to rubbish, but in the process she managed to enlist the participation of many of her Republican colleagues, among them Representatives Steve King of Iowa, Trent Franks of Arizona, Randy Forbes of Virginia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Louie Gohmert and Ted Poe of Texas. The significance? While they were attending the “Super Bowl of Freedom” as Bachmann referred to it, all missed votes in the House Judiciary committee on Republican-sponsored amendments to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act -- measures that would have toughened the Act, and which narrowly failed.

One measure, offered by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, would have extended the "lone wolf" provisions of the Act, which would allow the FBI to conduct surveillance or search foreign nationals even if it can't be shown that the person is an agent of a foreign power. Many conservatives believe that had this provision been in effect before 9/11, the FBI might have caught Zacarias Moussaoui. Republicans said that extending the lone wolf provision this time around was crucial to protecting national security. Even some Democrats supported the measure, giving it a good chance of passage. But it failed by a single vote, 15-15. King and Gohmert were absent, no doubt doing their patriotic duty.

Maybe next time a crucial vote in the House comes up, we can all spare a few extra dollars and sponsor a Tea Party of our own on the steps of the Capitol. Maybe if we get enough contributors we can get the entire Republican Party and Fox News to leave Washington long enough so we can get some things done. Maybe Michele Bachmann isn’t so crazy after all; maybe she’s really a Democrat posing as a Republican. Hmmm. On second thought scratch that. That would require intelligence and the ability to feign stupidity. As we all know, dear old Michele is incapable of either. Shame on you, Ms. Bachmann, for posing as an earthling.

Our runner up is House Minority Leader John Boehner (pronounced Bayner, but better known as Boner for his latest faux pas). While attending the “Super Bowl of Freedom” Boehner began to read a passage from what he called the Preamble to the Constitution. The problem for Boehner was the words he was quoting came not from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,” as any grade school student would know does not come from the Preamble to the Constitution. The words Boehner should’ve quoted were as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Perhaps it’s time for Mr. Boehner to go back to the 5th grade. We can accept such ignorance from the likes of a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck, but not from the senior leader of the Republican Party.

Not content to mangle the Constitution though, Boehner outdid himself by introducing the Republican version of healthcare reform. A bill that insures only an additional three million people, does nothing to curb costs and allows pre-existing clauses to remain in practice. In other words the perfect recipe for an insurance industry that never wanted reform in the first place. The Congressional Budget Office thoroughly trashed the plan. I guess there is justice after all. Seriously though, Boehner and his Republican cronies never expected their plan to get any traction; if was all just a show to convince the gullible that they were desirous of reform when in fact reform is the last thing they want. Shame on you, sir, for pretending to care, as well as have a brain.

Bringing up the rear this month is Connecticut “Independent” Senator Joseph Lieberman, who once more is proving his true colors by threatening to join a Republican filibuster against healthcare reform if it contains a public option.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Lieberman called the controversial public option, which is in the House bill and the Senate version being prepared by Harry Reid, an unnecessary provision intended to bring government-run health insurance in the future. "If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote," Lieberman said. He previously has said he won't oppose opening Senate debate on the bill despite the public option provision, and he maintained that stance Sunday.

Connecticut is home to some of the nation’s biggest health insurance companies, among them Aetna, which is the tenth largest contributor to Liebermann’s reelection committee. And Lieberman’s opposition to the public option puts him completely out of step with Connecticut voters. As this polling from 538.com’s Nate Silver shows, voters in every single one of Connecticut’s congressional districts favor the inclusion of a public option in healthcare legislation by wide margins. The stated reason for Lieberman’s stance on the public option — that it would increase the debt and create another entitlement — is misplaced and dishonest. As ThinkProgress has noted before, the public option would be self-sustaining and would cut the deficit. Leibermann knows this all too well.

It is time Democrats showed this pariah the proverbial door. Bad enough he actively campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin during last year’s Presidential election, he now threatens to side with Republicans on a bill his own constituents want. Despicable. I say strip him of his committee chairs and tell him if he wants to be a Republican, then he should have the courage to stand officially as one of them. Shame on you, Mr. Liebermann for being a fraud and ignoring your own citizenry.

Thursday, November 05, 2009


Spin City

While the GOP attempts to make gubernatorial gains in Virginia and New Jersey a referendum on Barack Obama, the real story was in a tiny northern New York Congressional District.


The spin doctors were all smiles at Fix News this past Tuesday night as Republicans won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. Shepard Smith was practically beside himself with glee as he read off the election results. At the risk of sounding a bit crude, I thought we were going to witness cable news’ first on-air orgasm. The Obama party is over! Yeah! Break out the champagne. Look out Dems, the GOP is back. 2010 is just around the corner and we’re gonna kick some major political butt.

Well, at the risk of being a party pooper, hold onto your champagne glasses – especially you Shep! - and don’t pop that cork just yet, or anything else for that matter. True losing two states’ governorships – one in a blue, the other in a purple – hurt a bit. But, as any first year political science major will tell you, governor’s races are NOT particularly indicative of mood swings within the national electorate at large; they are far more indicative of conditions within a rather small geographic area. Also, with the country in a recession, voters tend to take their frustrations out on either the incumbent or, as was the case in Virginia, the incumbent’s party. Virginia, in fact, is a case study in that for the last 36 years, the party that wins the White House loses the governorship; only twice – in 1993 and 2005 – has the state election portended anything significant for the mid-terms.

Claims by the GOP that independent voters have suddenly flocked over to the Republican Party and abandoned the President are baseless. For one thing, Obama’s approval numbers continue to be strong in both states (51% in Virgina and 54% in New Jersey). Secondly, it is always a given that no political candidate can win an election without the independent vote. Why should it be a surprise that both Republican candidates did extremely well in this demographic? And lastly, anyone who followed the New Jersey race knew all too well that Democrat Jon Corzine ran a lousy campaign; his attack ads against his opponent Chris Christie gave the 527s a run for their money. His own negatives were way too high for an incumbent and in the end they did him in.

Seriously, does anybody expect this state to turn red in 2012? Even the exit polls in northern Virginia continue to indicate that the state is far more moderate than it is conservative. If the current trend of transplanted northerners migrating southward continues, and all indications are it will, the chances are the middle-Atlantic states will mover farther to the center and away from conservatives. Barring a complete economic meltdown, Barack Obama could still fare well there in 2012 and carry the state again. The only message anyone with a half a brain can take from both these elections is that the electorate was very frustrated at the way things were going and that tends to mean change at the top. If Republicans had held both states, in all likelihood they would’ve gone Democrat and we’d be talking about the continuing Obama revolution.

But the election that the GOP doesn’t seem to want to talk much about today is the one they threw everything but the proverbial kitchen sink at: New York’s 23rd Congressional District. In a stunning repudiation of the wingnuts that have been driving the Republican bus, voters in that district elected the first Democrat to represent them since 1871. That’s right, you heard correct: 1871, not 1971. More than one hundred thirty years have passed since the last time a Republican did not call this district his home. Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Mike Savage, and the rest of the stooges who are looking to “take back” the GOP were about as effective at convincing the voters in upstate New York to vote for Doug Hoffman, as a drunk driver at a sobriety checkpoint trying to convince a cop he was dry as a whistle.

For what the results in the New York 23rd should’ve indicated not only to the GOP, but to everybody else who paid close attention, was that the voters rejected ideology over substance. They went for someone who could best represent their local interests, even if it meant voting for a Democrat. Dick Armey may have called Doug Hoffman the “real Republican,” but the simple truth was he didn’t even live in the district, had no idea what the major issues were, and the voters, in the end, saw through the smoke screen. He may have been popular in Sarah Palin’s facebook account, but it wasn’t enough to put him over the finish line.

Attempts by the Right to say that they “saved” the district from a far worse humiliating defeat by ousting liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava are lame at best. Before Hoffman was dragged into the race by the wingnuts, Scozzafava was ahead in virtually every poll. Without their interference, she most likely would’ve been elected by a comfortable margin. And as for the other claim by the Far Right that they sent a clear message to the Republican Party that those who don’t embrace a true conservative message will be challenged and defeated, point taken. Attention all moderates: your services are no longer required by the GOP. To paraphrase a well-known airline commercial, “You are now free to roam the political landscape.”

Sadly the Republican Party doesn’t even understand what happened Tuesday night. They insist that victories in Virginia and New Jersey, along with a few other local areas, as well as the defeat in New York’s 23rd are a repudiation of the President’s policies and indicate a building tide of conservatism that will sweep them into power in 2010 and 2012. And you thought children only suffered this badly from naiveté. The real truth is that the people voted for those candidates that ran to the center and spoke to their needs. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell – a conservative – ran a centrist campaign, avoided much of the controversy swirling around his own Party, “declined” offers from ultra conservatives to speak on his behalf, and offered solutions to the electorate that made sense to many of them. In the end it got him elected. Hmmm, makes you think doesn’t it? When Republicans field candidates who are inclusive, are likeable, and have real solutions to real problems they do well; when they are beholden to useless ideology, engage in divisive discourse, and are perceived only as obstructionists they do poorly. It’s that simple. If there was a repudiation of anything election night, it was stupidity and the GOP had best pay close attention if it expects to pick up seats in both the House and Senate in next year’s mid-terms.

As for the Democrats, a wakeup call was delivered loud and clear that should be heeded. True the Democrats and Obama inherited this economic mess, but they are now the incumbents, which means they are responsible for it going forward. Bush may have torpedoed the ship, but the passengers want to know how the current officers are going to keep it from foundering. Pulling the economy back from the brink was critical, and probably kept the nation from plunging into a depression, but on Main Street, where unemployment remains at, near, or, in some places, above ten percent, people demand answers. Talking about GDP growth when people don’t have jobs and can’t pay their bills shows a lack of empathy for real suffering, and that translates to election losses. While Republican gains may not be indicative of any paradigm shift in the nation’s political mood, they are indicative of a growing angst within the electorate. The public has a short fuse; hence elected officials are on a short leash. The warning to all incumbents – Democrat and Republican alike - could not be clearer: Shape up or ship out! If you can’t cut the mustard, we’ll find someone who can. In the coming years, Party affiliation will continue to mean less and less and voters will be far more interested in results-oriented candidates who can get the job done, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Vulcan! Loyalty isn’t what it used to be. Jon Corzine found that out the hard way, and ideologues on both sides of the political aisle should pay close attention. The American people want solutions, not rhetoric.