How did you arrive at your basic political position?
What concrete moments crystalized your thinking?
I was raised as a Lutheran. Luther always made sense to me. I loved the Ten Commandments. I thought: these are good ideas. Don't lie about people. Don't kill anybody. Stay off the neighbor's wife. Don't steal stuff. It seemed like a whole package. It was like being given a rainbow with endless rainbows inside.
For me, I had no interest in politics until I went to undergraduate school at a hippy college in Olympia, Washington. There, I met a great number of granola junkies who liked to drink kefir (it has something to do with yogurt). They sat around and called it meditation, and drank their kefir. It got in their beards and on their woolen sleeves.
I liked yogurt and kefir, although I did wish the woolen-shirted longhairs and their granny-dressed opposite-gender pals would wash, and that legs and faces were shaved once in a blue moon. I ended up spending a lot of time alone, since other people at the college smelled like mould.
I graduated and lived ten years in Seattle. Everyone I knew was a fierce Democrat. I didn't care. One Democrat did make sense to me: Paul Simon. I actually went to a meeting at his headquarters, but he didn't make it to the caucus. Seattle went for Jesse Jackson. Paul Simon was a Lutheran, but I didn't know it at the time.
In graduate school, most of the people I knew were angry Marxists. One friend of mine said, "I'd like to take a broken broom stick and run it through Bill Gates' forehead."
"Oh," I said.
As long as he wasn't going to actually do it, but just FELT LIKE doing it, it didn't matter to me. The commandment against killing says that if someone is going to kill somebody else, I have to tell on them. Otherwise, if they just feel like it, I don't.
Ten years went by, and I went to Finland for five years. I was now forty. I missed America. I thought, why did everybody I know hate America so much? It's big, and at least on the east coast, people wash up pretty well. There's lots of space, and I missed oat bars and peanut butter, although I haven't seen kefir since I left The Evergreen State College's campus store (in the CAD building). Also, on the East coast, at least, there is a pretty good sense of humor.
I came back, and loved America! My Finnish wife is Lutheran, so I started going to church, and I liked that too. I thought: church is really great. People sing. They don't hate each other or America. And they know about the ten commandments, which is pretty much the sum and substance of all philosophy.
Actually, come to think of it, I don't know how I arrived at my political position.
I think I always thought Locke was the Key: life, liberty, health, and PROPERTY (the last the most important, and also a corollary of thou shall not steal).
I always thought Luther's version of the Ten Commandments was the underpinning for sanity. Everything I learned I learned in Sunday School. But it's taking me a lifetime to understand the ten commendments. They're extremely tricky.
Because the Republicans talk in a way that sounds like the Ten Commandments to me (I can translate their thoughts into the ten commandments), and the Democrats talk in a way that sounds like angry Marxism, I am with the Republicans.
73 comments:
From here it's pretty easy to see why I am against the Obamas. They speak like Marxists, not like Christians.
Obama bore false witness against the police officer in Cambridge. This was Marxist thinking, not Christian thinking.
When Michelle said it wasn't until her husband was elected as senator it was so un-Christian. First, you have to want what God wants for you, and not envy others. Secondly, you have to honor your mother and father -- and your country. It's basic to being a Christian, as I understand it.
You cannot redistribute other people's wealth. That's outright theft!
I could go on.
I liked McCain because he clearly reverenced his father.
Obama never talks about his parents, and I'm not sure if he even went home for his grandmother's funeral. He was too darned busy with the campaign.
He hardly ever makes sense to me in a Christian sense.
McCain always does.
Even Palin does. When she was shocked by some of the comments on TV and couldn't respond, it's because the questions they were asking here (Charlie Fibbs, was I think the name), the questions were just completely un-Christian, as was the tone).
The attacks on her daughter are un-Christian.
This whole healthcare thing is just outright theft, and plus they are not building a coalition by sharing everything they are thinking. It's so Marxist in inspiration how they act and think.
Democrats didn't use to be like this. Senator Paul Simon wasn't like this.
Even Carter wasn't like this (now he's more like this).
Hinkmeisters.
Sotomayor's boasting about her race and gender wasn't Christian. It was Marxist.
This is why I was against her.
I suppose it's a fairly simple rubric.
When Stu tries to talk in terms of the Ten C's: when he says that the insurance pools are deliberately made to be unfair, I do listen. But I don't trust Obama and his government because everything they say seems to come out of bitterness and envy and resentment and a kind of sick paranoia about "fat cat" bankers (that's his most recent spiel).
I really don't like how he talks much. At best, it is liberation theology a la Wright. It is a language I can't countenance, and which strikes me as evil to the bone.
Kirby,
I've been a lifelong Lutheran, and active except for three years while an undergraduate. I arrived at my political positions by internalizing what I learned in Church, and trying to live through it.
I take seriously the consistent message of justice, love, hope, and restoration that flows through the prophetic literature, and the life, preaching, and death of Jesus Christ. Of course the ten commandments are a good idea—if people generally lived according to the ten commandments, human society would be considerably more just.
The problem of creating a just society is by no means an easy one. It is certainly not just a matter of walking into a voting booth and pulling one lever or another. But those choices do matter.
Kirby,
In my faith there is not only the sin of commission, but the sin of thought.
Jesus says that because of his coming the law was fulfilled and that we were to be freed from most of the 600 commandments of the Old Testament. Above all these was I am thy God; love me, and love thy neighbour.
But he also said that that didn't let us off the hook. Now that we had a direct revelation of the God/man we were expected to hold ourselves to a higher standard--not governed by a million minute laws governing behavior (such as how one stacks one's dishes,) but by our God-given conscience guided by the Ten Commandments.
Because of our revelation of Jesus, it was no longer just a sin to commit murder (or self-murder), but to contemplate it. It was a sin to harbor impure thoughts about your friend's husband even though you hadn't actually jumped in the sack with him.
In some ways, I think that elevation of conscience above strict legalism gave us the modern West (in the best sense). It is why we distinguish(for better or for worse) between murder and premeditated murder, aggravated assault and aggravated assault with malice aforethought. It isn't just our actions but our intentions--it gives us shades of grey such as manslaughter.
But it also means that one ought to feel as guilty for ogling and lusting after that hottie on the ski-slope as you would feel had you slept with her.
Is it the same in Lutheranism?
Stu, I think this is one of the reasons that we can have productive discussions: we care about some of the same principles, but apply them differently. We at least have a common vocabulary.
Emmy, I'm not sure where Luther would go with the pluck out the eye bit. Of course everyone who watches TV would have to pluck out their eyes, which would tend in turn to wreck the ratings system.
I think the idea is that no one can help but fail to think of the ten c's in reverse which is why they are there. You can't not think about them, even reading them, you think about committing the crimes they entail. It's a vicious circle.
I think commission is where one should stop. I'm not sure it's humanly possible not to think about the breakage of them. If it were possible, would we need them. I think Luther goes closer to Paul and to the notion that exactly what we don't want to think,is what we do think.
Purity is not possible in intention, in other words.
I think Luther was a darker and more accurate thinker than Aquinas, but Luther was more actively engaged in the world in many ways.
Luther is closer to Augustine than to Aquinas.
It is somehow only through the commission of a guilty crime that we come to understand eternity of our soul as we watch it tremble and turn to ashes -- or so I think.
Let's hear what the others think.
The basic principle that I gleaned from the 'might as well take out your eye stuff' is that it's impossible, Impossible, to be pure and sinless...
Not, as Emmy put it, that we should feel as guilty for ogling someone as for committing adultery.
When it comes to our relationship with God, we are all sinners, all fallen, all unworthy - and Christ bridges this gap. None is innocent - heck, even gettin' horny once in a while means you're unholy relative to God - and we all, dammit, get damn horny once in a while!
On this earth, however, we should feel a lot more guilty about adultery than about oglin' a looker - of course! All sins are equivalent in that they separate us from being worthy of God's presence - all sins are Not equivalent in terms of their affect on our lives and the amount of 'guilt' we should feel.
Kirby: You have the political position you have right now because you are in an occupation in which being Republican is contrarian, and at heart you are a contrarian when it comes to groups and groupthink. I thought we all knew this to be clear about you...
As for my political position, it comes from having been brought up in Austin, having spent a lot of time in outdoor education, and having gone to very conservative churches... The conservatives I was around just had just less just interesting and just less specific and just less applicable/pragmatic/practical/realistic language than the liberals....
Liberals have different answers for different questions and different problems.
Conservatives just answer all questions with a few basic trance words.
My position also, of course, comes from having become an actual thinking person during the time of the booms of the later Clinton years and the sloppy, unprincipled, ideological governance of the Bush years.
I also don't trust the shallow drumbeating patriotism of the right. It comes off as playacting and manipulation.
And the Wharrgarbl from the right has always been louder, longer, and more in line with the actual party's language.
Also it might just come down to this:
I like my political parties like I like my women.
I much prefer girls who, if they Are going to have negative feelings, get sad instead of angry.
When it comes to politics and political leaders:
Conservatives tend to get angry.
Liberals tend to get sad.
Give me sad any day. Angry is destructive. Sad, just unproductive.
Of course, I prefer 'em to be happy. Neither party really does that very well, of course - though the Democrats are much better at this. Conservatives just tend to be always angry. Democrats are sad depending upon circumstance...too sad too often, but not Always sad, the way conservatives are Always angry about politics.
(note, the above is full of generalities...Kirby asked a general question, and these were the impressions I got from my experiences/observations).
read the summa contra gentiles then tell me luther was a more accurate thinker than t of aquino
thank you emmy for the rather brilliant rundown of ethical presentiment afforded in catholic thinking...you hit upon an essential insight and it's one that most protestants fail to get to due to the adversarial position of defiance against the will of god as dictated by me ( i apologize for the magisterial tone of my position but i gaurantee to everyone that it is loaded with charitable intentions)
thomas is very keen about distiguishing between the "passions" - lust anger covetousness avarice sloth...and a host of other minor passions...and the actual act of acting upon passions...thomas seems to know that the passions are a given and not in themsleves inimical to the will of god...the passions are morally neutral...here thomas brings in the will...and here is the crux of the sin thing...the mercy of god is directed to us in order that we might come to terms with the promptings of the passions and the regard for the intellect and the recognition of the true state of the human being as one in need of god's mercy as a way of ordaining the will to god only
this being said it would be impossible to deny that the sermon on the mount is upping the ante -- and i am in complete agreement that the maturity of our christian lives is determined by our willingness to shoulder the responsiblity that was once given to the "law"
jesus is saying
the law is written in your heart
if your actions are not originating from the purity of your heart then you are in danger of sin if not sinning egregiously already
jesus is saying
not
"why did you murder?"
but
"are you able to know in your heart what prompted you to want to murder?"
are you able to own the intention
are you able to acknowledge the truth in the mind that condemns your action even before you do it?
so emmy
while thomas nuances the whole problem
of what is in our hearts and what we actually do and to what extent our "thoughts" are sinful i think he is in full agreement with the sermon on the mount
jesus says to the lustful man
the question you must ask yourself is not
to what hottie is my lust directed
but
how is my lusting limiting my ability to see this person as a child of god and not merely an object of my possible pleasure
then the psychological dynamic is not
what can i get away with under the law - or what might be the legal consequence if i'm caught
but
what is my responsibility to god in honoring all people- every one
Very good comment by JH. I especially liked the ending -- to look in your heart to see what's going on. Very very good.
One of the commandments -- the last in Luther's lineup is to not envy -- this means that we should accept our lot in life, and not want something more that is not allotted to us.
I think that this really goes the other way against Marx, who argues precisely that we ought to take what we can. This is the liberation theology line. That we need to emancipate ourselves from God's will, or, and here is the rub, is it only from the will of the powerful?
How do we know for instance -- if we are living under Adolf H. -- was Bonhoeffer was -- whether it is our lot to endure it, and if it is up to us to assassinate him?
Luther always argues that no matter what we do we are always tainted with fallenness -- whether we are for or against something, our intentions can never quite be pure, but are always tainted by self-ishness.
That's why saints in the Lutheran tradition are somewhat laughable.
I find THAT somewhat more accurate as a view of human nature.
At any rate, heigh ho, heigh ho, it's off to church I go. I hope everyone enjoys their service.
i was raised catholic
in the 60s and 70s the social trends of social justice and civil rights and no more war became predominant themes in catholic teaching -- many people adopted the understanding of the social gospel taking the gospel to the streets as it were -- this indeed had a longer history in the 18th - 19th and 20th century there was the phenomenon in france particularly of the "worker priests" and that was all inspired to a large extent by franciscan theology - a theology of action more than contemplation although i think contemplation is an essential aspect of franciscan determination -- also missionary efforts were bolstered during this time
so i learned about civil rights and the christian obligation for the poor -- as part of my growing consciousness of being catholic
while i went to a catholic college namely the one where i presently live
i was in fact a pagan in college something like a noble savage i was intent on reading but not intent upon religion per se
after college i continued my plan of noble savagery much to my detriment but i must say there were moments of real enjoyment - taking things to rather dangerous extremes and one or two moments of altered consciousness as well - at least i think there were
but i did discover wendell berry and barry lopez and rachel carson and i worked with people who were involved with things like the nature conservancy
wendell berry became my guidelight and i still refer back to him as the prophet for what america most needs - i still regard myself as a wendell berry democrat
when i was 17 i made a family declaration that i would in no way participate in the war in vietnam i would go to canada if i were drafted..this was to be a rather contentious issue between my father and i - he seeing it as being the result of being suckled drunk on the tit of prosperity and then rebellious and defiant and stupid about what my obligation was to my country which so nurtured me - i saw it and still do see war as really stupid and the fact that there are people who refuse it altogether only encourages me
when i was 26 i returned to the catholic faith after drifting about in and existential nietszche and sartre and camus fogg - i began attending mass everyday again as a way to address what seemed to be impossible for the world to give me
what i really sought was some sort of discipline the kind of discipline a well disciplined woman might provide because in fact i was and still continue to be quite undisciplined in all manner of things although i was very disciplined in learning to understand and play bach's music on the guitar...and i approached scripture study with a marked degree of discipline - still i am of a bedouin disposition - my very being eschews the academy
the discipline of monastic life forces the monk to recognize the reality of human frailty on a constant basis but the judgement of it is always realized in a context of shared faith and the cultivation of the understanding of god's infinite mercy
and i need that
we are communists first christian communists - we hold all things in common (but it shall not be misunderstood -- there is hierarchy)
so i tend to think that communal appropriation of everything is possible and would be benefical to people if they'd just get down to real business
we are democratic in our acceptance of new members in the acknowledgement of our leader the abbot in the appropriation of moneys and goods in matters of building or appropriating or selling of land etc
marxs' thought resonates well within monastic life for in the rule of benedict there is a decided preference for the underdog...but these days the business people have all the clout they run the money they tell us what's going down...i am oppressed in my community of socialist freedom by the moneymongers in monks' clothes
the big money boys have to realize in essence they are working for the ones who cannot make the big bucks out there...this sets up a class distinction of sorts
there are monks who enjoy money and power in a way that i will never enjoy it
my political position on matters like abortion are informed by catholic doctrine -- and in fact on all political matters i read through the lens of catholic teaching
catholic consciousness is defined by a given universalism - an openness to what is good in all ways of thought - this is given in the context of a rather severe critique that has attended the question - what is good? down through the ages
jesus asks not
what does the bible say?
but
what is written in your heart?
jh
I'd like to expand upon my remarks, and address why I am not a conservative, at least not in the peculiar sense that the contemporary US right uses that term. It seems to me that the contemporary US right is formed and fueled by rage that someone somewhere is getting something that they didn't deserve, and that they (the conservative) is somehow being cheated as a result.
And yet the core of our faith is that our God loves us so much that we're going to get what we want most and deserve least, salvation. Moreover, as I look at where society is actually working, I see people getting lots of good things that they don't deserve, and in turn making sacrifices for others who can never replay them.
Consider the relationship between parents and children in a healthy home. The parents care for and love the children, proving for all of their material, social, and spiritual needs from birth often through college. As some point, as the ego-centric nature of the teenage years gives way to greater self-understanding and reflection in the twenties, the child recognizes and confesses the enormous debt they owe their parents. At this point, the parents will often say words to the effect, "you can only repay me by giving to your children the things that I gave you."
You can't build a healthy society around pure individualism. Inde- has be balanced with inter- dependence. If we each got what we deserved, we'd be less than worms. We'd be worm shit, as Luther himself so delicately observed.
God's vision of a just society is not a society in which contracts are enforced rigorously so that the rich can grind down the poor. It is a society in which all are restored to wholeness, all are valued, and to which all contribute. It is, in short, a society characterized by healthy interdependence. Today's Epistle was from 1st Corinthians 12, St. Paul's great metaphor of the Church as a body to which all of its members contribute, and all are honored. In the greater context of 1st Corinthians, one of the problems St. Paul was addressing was a perverted celebration of the agape feast (the predecessor to our sacrament of Communion) in which the rich and poor ate separately, the rich feasting and getting drunk, while the poor had nothing. St. Paul condemns this as showing contempt for the Church of God. The Church is not a museum of ritual, it is intended to teach us how to live, and so St. Paul is not merely condemning long-forgotten perversions of Corinth two thousand years ago, he is condemning us and our society today.
I'll believe that all of these biblical literalists care more about God's sense of justice than their own self-interest when they bring back the Jubilee. BTW, today's Gospel consists in part of Jesus quoting Isaiah 61, the reading for Yom Kippur at the beginning of the year of Jubilee (I got this from the excellent Hermeneia commentary). The entire passage is Isaiah 61:1-9, although only 61:1 is (slightly mis-)quoted by Luke. It is well worth reading the whole Isaiah passage, to find out in whole, and not just in part, what scripture Jesus pronounced as having been fulfilled on that day.
JH,
You are an excellent teacher! Whenever you speak on doctrinal matters you have my full attention!
I do have a question.
If, say, a sinful thought (like the one you used as example--seeing another person as a possible object of pleasure rather than a brother or sister in Christ) is not just a passing musing, but say it becomes an obsession. Surely this sin is greater because it throws up a more permanent roadblock between the sinner and Christ.
Everyone has naughty thoughts from time to time which is why we pray for purity of mind and body (but not yet!) but if those thoughts get in the way of a healthy family life and a healthy relationship with God it seems just as bad as if one had actually committed the sin.
What are your thoughts on this?
I find your commentary on the nuance of Thomas to be most useful, and I'd like to dig into the matter further.
Kirby,
Catholics don't advocate, nor have we ever advocated the gouging out of eyeballs. I believe this to be a metaphor.
I think what's lovely about our way of thinking about sin is that, ever so slowly, God allowed His children to grow up. We'd always had free will, but like children we had to have strict boundaries and limits imposed upon us through the Law. Adults need only the most basic of guides (the Ten Commandments) and their own conscience to strive to live according to God's will. That, and Grace.
I think this shows a deep respect and love for His Creation. We are not helpless and that still, small voice speaks to us all. Ignoring that still, small voice is a sin because God has given us responsibility of self-government based on His Commandments. When we ignore that conscience, we're ignoring God. Even errant thoughts accomplish this separation between the adult child of God and his Creator.
I think that when one reads the Ten Commandments and one imagines breaking them one by one and what that would feel like or entail is something different. I think it is a lesson in conscience rather than a sin of commission. When I imagine breaking any of the commandments it is only in the vaguest of terms and images. I do not feel guilty for exercising my conscience in this way.
If I were to sit down, however, and say "covet not thy neighbor's goods," then think of all the things my neighbor has that I envy him for, and begin to begrudge him his possessions then I have committed a sin. It has become personal. If, however, my musings remain abstract and pass quickly, I do not see this as coming between God and myself but rather a useful lesson in how I might avoid indulging in such envy and avarice.
What say you, Kirby?
brett your statement - i like my political parties like i like my women...that whole thread could be a country western song
i think it's alright to be horny
but i also think that should be checked at the door of the voting boothe...in a very crude way i think the repubs sought to use perky palin as a male hormone incentive
the dems mistake in mass. - they ran a woman -- less than 40% of males under 50 have college education in mass. which is interesting given the number of colleges there-- i believe martha coakley is very capable but the fact is they want to go head to head with a black man there and only a white guy can do that (as far as they the lumpskulls can tell) the old dynamic is not dead
obama paid a price for thinking the republicans could be people to work with and not against...they'd block obama just to know they could...they are sore sports they have nothing to offer in terms of better ideas they just use diatribe and fillibuster and talking out the anal orifice of politics...because they think they're right
and i think you're right about the sad and angry dialectic
i sure hope obama comes out playing hardball this year
enough of this softball crap
i was worried about you in your lurch forward toward brown's luscious daughter and i must admit the image of her is an appealing one but then we always have to think
could i live with her
would she be a good mother
from everything i can tell from this blog you're much more intelligent than the author of this blog
i like the way you call his bluff
(lord knows there's lots of it)
kirby
there's nothing inherently christian about honoring ones country
most catholic bishops insist that national flags have no place inside the body of the worship area of a church...some places ignore this but it's fairly standard...it's one of those do what seems best issues but the rules state that all worship places need to be welcoming to anyone from any country from any race from any part of the world
marx - the ultimate anonymous christian
jh
Stu, talk about your childhood, and specific autobiographical moments in which you came to your viewpoint, if you can. I think it will help me to understand who you are and where you are coming from.
I hope that Brett, Craig, Kate, Sally, Curtis, GM and others will also tell us where they came from, and how they developed their relationship (or non-relationship with God) -- in what community (father, mother, chance happening to attend a church or a black mass or what have you).
Emmy, JH -- I'm listening, but don't know how to respond yet to your questions and provocations.
I'm especially curious to know how and when we think we're right about a topic to the point we are willing to not budge on it. When Lincoln for instance decided that the slaves must be freed he committed himself to finishing that institution. A half a million people died in that effort. He himself was martyred for his effort.
In this case, the lot assigned to slaves was one he would not sanction as godly, or as one that God had ordained, but was one that the devilish patrician Episcopalian tyrants of the southern states had fashioned for their own selfish porpoises.
He put his neck on the line to end it.
In a similar way, some women and some minorities (including sexual minorities) have decided that the lot to which they have been consigned was identical to the plight of the southern slaves.
Some decide that abortion is not something they are willing to sanction, and, like John Brown, go forth into battle.
JH presumably sanctioned the burning of draft cards and other government records in the 1960s when he sided with the Catonville 9.
Obama is now unwilling to sanction the Supreme Court's willingness to allow corporations and unions to pay for political advertising and is planning a strong rebuke. (Actually, he probably likes the fact that unions are entitled to this new freedom, but doesn't like that "fat cat" bankers may strike back at him come November.)
I don't think I would ever go outside of the law to affect an end. I would never kill, steal, etc. in order to attain an end, since to me at least the end NEVER justifies the means.
I think of that kind of extra-legal thinking as an abomination.
But don't involve my children or wife, or I just might go extra-legal in about four seconds.
There are some things that are sacred.
One of the problems for me with the new Marxism -- I want what I want and I want it now -- and I also want thousands of years of back pay as reparations, and I want the white men who held me down to be completely destroyed as vengeance and as very partial repayment for my ferocious anger that I feel after misreading misleading histories of America and the Third World...
Ya da ya da ya da...
I think people are all too willing to join in a holocaust when they get that Marxist stuff going. But look what it creates: lawless countries like the Soviet Union or Cambodia in which enormous numbers are either dead, or trapped inside a gigantic prison apparatus without any records as to where they are. Violent vengeance and vigilante actions are tempting, but -- like the Weathermen like Ayers and Dorhn and other friends of Obama's -- lead to a delegitimation of any kind of legality, any kind of decency, any kind of acceptance of the constraints called for by God.
images can be so powerful
other people can be so powerful the way we see or imagine other people can be so powerful
our attraction to people can be so powerful...even overwhelming
yet i think the basic structure of potency and act in the way thomas aquinas used these ideas is still valid
in matters of moral consciousness we are afflicted with thoughts which are potentially dangerous or sinful (st benedict advises the monks to recognize god's gift in all the good the gifts the talents that one posseses - and to assume personal culpability for the evil one is aware of in ones life)-- and as you indicate dear emmy these thoughts can become obsessive -- and to some extent they can become sinful (as in the case of masturbation...but this of course suggest and act) -- one could rationalize and say well i'm not hurting anyone...but if we are to acknowledge a relationship with god something like that carries the potential to build up a barrier between the person and god
...rather than have our sexuality be "other" oriented as it most naturally is...it runs the danger of becoming narrow and shallow and merely self oriented -- and to that extent it is sinful
this being said it appears to me wrong to be neurotic about the potential for sin...especially sexual sin...the church supplies many ways in which we can be vigilant and trusting in god's mercy and i think the erring has to always go there...err on the side of mercy...grace and truth grace and truth what a wondrous dance
it seems to me very important in education to be honest about the passions about how powerful these drives are in us...and see them also as attributes and the potential for virtue...the passions when formed with the intellect give rise to great abilities great music great thought great understanding great sympathy and empathy...not simply the biological psychological givens for human tawdriness...for in facing up honestly to our passions we clear the way for being virtuous people and the world needs more virtuous people by god
on a personal note i can only say that when i arrived at the realization that my passions are indeed elemental to the way god made me i could get to the point of being grateful even in the sting of desire...and then with prayer make the effort to direct these aspects of my life to the greater good to which i aspire...sometimes trudgingly
jesus seems to have had a keen sense that the passions rarely stay just passions - the act happens one way or another - so his advise seems very clear in the SOTM - assume full responsiblity not just for the actions but for what leads up to the actions -- this might be a lifelong task for some perhaps most people - but the goal if properly understood is more than worth the effort both in this vale of tears and at the pearly gates and beyond
it is said of abba anthony the first desert monk that when he was dying at the age of 105 his last battle was with the demon of fornication...and it did not relent until 1/2 hr after he died...i never know whether or not to be encouraged or merely amused at that story
i always take great comfort before communion
-lord i am not worthy to receive you - but only say the word...
i don't know if this was clear enough
if not i could say more
nice to have you back holding up a vital voice in the midst of the cognitive mayhem known as lutheran surrealism
blessed 3rd sunday in ordinary time
jh
Stu's comment at 2:42 pm again gives me the disagreeable notion that he doesn't believe in private property. He talks in favor of the Jubilee, and implies that all debt should be forgiven, and that the hardworking and the slovenly should both live identically.
Then he implies that we ought to all be parents to the world's poor.
This is communist, people.
The family is the unit of help, and of course all parents will help their kids.
But in this formulation, all children are shared equally, and all debt is to be shared equally.
This is unworkable.
Many colleges have a program by which professors can opt to pay for their children's insurance up to age 28. Stu, check with your human resources office. I'll bet there's something cheap you can do to foot your daughter's dentistry and other concerns.
We don't have to rewrite the constitution to take care of it, nor do we need to declare a Jubilee.
Even in Judea these were only once every fifty years or so, and were only for the Jews.
It wasn't ecumenical.
Good lord. This is universalism of some kind combined with some kind of out and out communism.
This is impractical, and leads to people expecting bail out after bail out, and doesn't encourage savings, foresight, work ethic, or economy. It is blasphemy to the Protestant work ethic in which I was raised.
Good Lord.
If I could dump one section of the Bible it would be the Sermon on the Mount. I think people don't understand that he's talking about the world to come. He's already said elsewhere that his kingdom is NOT of this world.
Also, maybe there were so many people present that they misheard parts of it or something.
But I just wish we could get down to business basics by dumping that squirrelly little bit.
It leads people to go the way of Kurt Godel and get all bug-eyed.
People have to keep their feet on the ground and attend to their business as well as they can. (Pickelsworth already said this better, but I am seconding him.)
If Stu's notions were followed there wouldn't be any economy.
No need to save, no need to plan ahead, no need to own anything.
The banks would collapse, the stock market would collapse, there would be no need for farmers to grow food, or for anyone to go to work. It would be a complete collapse of the economy.
I'm hoping he's kidding. This was just about the scariest thing I've read in years. The only thing that saves it is that he's a mathematics prof.
But what worries me is that he and the president seem to be on the same wavelength.
He just finished bailing out the banks and then immediately scared the banks into a massive sell-off and now the economy is flailing again. What is it about the economy that the left doesn't get?
It's enormously nerve-wracking.
If I could dump one section of the Bible it would be the Sermon on the Mount. ... maybe there were so many people present that they misheard parts of it or something.
"Blessed are the cheesemakers?"
"I think he meant all purveyors of dairy products in general"
(Monty Python's Life of Brian)
this is an interesting thread
thanks for inviting my comments kirby
i may have to think on it a bit
before posting anything serious
sally
Sally,
Yes, it must have been cheesemakers! Now THAT would make sense.
I'm looking forward to getting your spiritual bio, and Emmy's, and Jacques', as well.
in france there is a cheeze for every day of the year
i think we need a constitutional congress a new one one in which we will in fact rewrite the constitution perhaps we need to say this one is old and the realities it addressed and could consider are no longer part of our life here the country is bigger the money is more powerful the people are more diverse there's more complication in society
no yes yes yes
i think we need a new constitution one that looks to the future when we'll have things like artificial intelligence and be taking leisure trips to mars i'm callin rahm emanuel whose name just so happens to be god is with us i'm callin him tomorrow with this idea...a new constitution...yeah that's it
this old one is getting moldy it stinks of old english social philosophers...now that i think of it it is almost a worthless document and we're just barely hanging on by the fingernails...we need a new constitution one that is established by indigenous people and hispanics and the japanese keep the europeans and all the jews out of this one...OK some jews can be a part of this because they were't really in on the first one...but their role must be defined very clearly they will only get to be in charge of roads the jews can take over the roads and that's it
hollywood goes to mexico
arizona goes to the papago and the yaqui and the apache wall street goes to the japanese and only the japanese it can no longer be a free market that's passe' no now it must be a very closely controlled market and the japanese know how to do that the chinese can take over all the food and they can work closely with the french who have a stake in this experiment...the catholics i think should just check out all together start growing big gardens and raising nice animals for eating and have really weird scary liturgies and make lots of children and homeschool and not participate any longer in the ridiculous experiment....maybe it's been long enough...maybe we'll provide some necessary manual labor for brutal and greedy wasp entrepeneurs who never seem to go away no matter what no matter how sleazy they get they just hang around and some catholics will be able to work manual labour again like we did for the dirtbags in the early 1900s but we will determine our own hours and our wages...and if you don't comply well there are the italians who still show a great love for the church even though they don't really go to church anymore...we have a long relationship and they will be our military force
yeah a new vision
i think it's time to make the USA canadian rental property the canadians will run everything from a real estate point of view we'll just let them do that and all medical care can be by the canadians too they can fly around to various hospitals and go home to canada on the weekends have hockey parties or whatever they do
a new constitution
now we're talkin
think outside the box for awhile
time to change my guitar strings
yowzaaah
a new constitution
i'm in to that
who will be in charge of the brave new world
jh
that's right
jh
a monk will be in charge of everything
I became a Christian when drinking didn't work out.
I became a conservative when I lived in France and observed how they related to their government.
Kirby,
I just had a Brett experience, of having a comment disappear into the aether. So this is something of a reconstruction.
Stu's comment at 2:42 pm again gives me the disagreeable notion that he doesn't believe in private property.
Actually, I do believe in private property, just not the unreasonable concentration thereof. In particular, it seems to me that once a person has reached a certain level of material comfort, then they ought to dedicate themselves to service, and allow others a share of the resources granted by God's grace and developed by our collective efforts. But instead, we see billionaires torturing themselves and others in the sisyphean task of becoming multi-billionaires. What is worse, they use the resources they've gained to tilt the playing field in their direction, thereby adding corruption to avarice.
He talks in favor of the Jubilee, and implies that all debt should be forgiven, and that the hardworking and the slovenly should both live identically.
Actually, I raised the Jubilee to point out the hypocrisy of the religious right and its patrons. They argue against homosexual rights based on nothing more than a couple of bible verses, and have the presumption to describe themselves as "literalists" who follow every jot and tittle of the law. Yet they ignore, indeed pervert, the far more fundamental and central messages of God's justice as represented by the Jubilee.
You completely fail to understand the significance of the Jubilee, which wasn't that the slovenly are rewarded, but that there were limits to what they could do. The land is ours only for our lifetime. Our allotments must serve the needs of our descendants too. We do not have the right to sell the gift that God granted to our children, the right to use the land he has given them for their lifetime. My criticism of modern society is that the benefits of being rich extend through multiple generations, and as the rich change the rules to their benefit, they've tenured themselves and their descendants "in," and are in the process of tenuring everyone else to a servant class.
Whether or not the Jubilee represents the right way to achieve God's goal of justice is, it seems to me, an economic question. I'm quite willing to consider alternative strategies, but not alternative goals.
Then he implies that we ought to all be parents to the world's poor.
This is communist, people.
This is God's will, clearly articulated in the Bible. If you want to call it "communist," go ahead, but understand that your argument is with God, not with me.
If I could dump one section of the Bible it would be the Sermon on the Mount. I think people don't understand that he's talking about the world to come. He's already said elsewhere that his kingdom is NOT of this world.
True. But it is in this world. There's something important here that you seem to be missing. You preach two kingdoms, but at this very moment, seem eager to relegate one to heaven and one to earth. That's not how it works.
Since you asked,
I was raised a Christian. I read a great deal about other faiths around the time I was confirmed and considered them. I preferred the example of Jesus' life.
Again in college I deeply studied Judaism and considered converting as I appreciated the inherent slow way of life in much of Orthodoxy--and the renunciation of original sin and some other points of doctrine that have their place but only really go so far toward describing God. And I still valued the example of the life of Jesus.
So I became essentially a Christian Monist/Anarchist, rejecting all creeds and trying to live as Jesus and the disciples instructed--then I found Heather and the Church of the Brethren, with which I have a few points of doctrinal disconnect (I don't care about baptism nearly as much as, well, it seems everyone) but with whose message I readily embraced--with its emphasis on the balance of faith and works--that is, that you are saved by grace but you demonstrate that through works--and its only creed: "We have no creed, none but the New Testament."
I've been generally conservative most of my life. I remember watching the Reagan-Mondale returns as a 6-year-old.
I had friends (and teachers) in middle school and high school (and beyond) who were devout socialists but it was clear that sound monetary policy and socialism are simply incompatible.
I believed, for many years, that the American system of governance was sound, but in the last two years I have given up wholly on Republican democracy (because it can only devolve into democracy) and now consider myself a monarchist--albeit one who knows that the problem of succession is nearly insurmountable.
If I could dump one section of the Bible it would be the Sermon on the Mount. I think people don't understand that he's talking about the world to come. He's already said elsewhere that his kingdom is NOT of this world.
And this is why I say you can be a Lutheran or a Christian, but not both.
Kirby wrote:
If I could dump one section of the Bible it would be the Sermon on the Mount. I think people don't understand that he's talking about the world to come. He's already said elsewhere that his kingdom is NOT of this world.
GM replied:
And this is why I say you can be a Lutheran or a Christian, but not both.
Allow me to suggest (again) that Kirby's views are not necessarily representative of mainstream Lutheran thought. He brings his own twist.
Yes, JH, that was a wonderful! I have never been neurotic about sins of thought of that particular kind, though I am quite conscious of my various passions and regulate or sublimate them in the best ways I know how--through marital love, through the clarinet, harp, and flute, through cooking and sewing, through praying and CREATING.
Passions can be our means to creation, like so many great artists, musicians, dancers, authors have used before us.
If there's one thing I've learned about myself, I adore creating.
I wonder if this is an urge placed in my heart, and in the hearts of other artists and writers, to mirror in some small way a tiny sliver of The Creator.
I sometimes think Catholics are more realistic about sins of the flesh than certain types of Protestants. I think we allow ourselves more joy in the Creation.
I knew a fellow who was raised in a very strict Southern variety of Protestantism. He'd never even heard classical music, was never allowed to even spin in circles like children do lest he become 'drunken', never allowed to take any form of caffeiene (even in the form of milk chocolate). No dancing, no television (ok by me, actually), no RADIO!
This poor fellow went to college and almost exploded with the potential of his life that he'd never realized before. On his first day he listened to the radio while drinking a Pepsi. He loved it, but felt guilty afterwards because he was sure he was displeasing God.
One of my good friends was a novice monk struggled with his sexuality, but he sublimated it into the playing of beautiful music on the pipe organ. He's a nationally known performer, but he found his loving and accepting faith home in the Church where he is a music director.
Our passions don't have to be our enemies with God's help. They can be directed to a higher purpose--sometimes, for the betterment of mankind. That's God's ultimate trick. Only He can take our fallen natures and mold us into something beautiful. Swindling the devil, one cantata at a time!
Jubilee. There could be a rich discussion about Jubilee. I think that it is underused. However, I can't agree with Stu that this is some kind of indictment of "literalists." Jubilee has everything to do with God's covenant with his people Israel, the law that he gave them, and the particular land that he gave them. The word "jubilee" is found only in Leviticus and once in Numbers. To try to establish it as law would be a kind of enthusiasm that Luther would recognize, but rail against (the law is over.) But insofar as it directs us to acts of charity and compassion for our neighbor and recognition that we are stewards of our possessions, then I think it relates to us.
Kirby:
I grew up in a home with an atheist father and a Catholic mother. My mother's mother, Eileen, was a great source of spiritual teaching early on. She taught me my prayers in Latin, English, and Polish while braiding my hair for the day. It helped me remember the Trinity.
She took me to Mass two nights a week, and the whole Holy Week. I loved it when she took me to Midnight Mass on Christmas eve. I was the only young person there and it made me feel special.
I took Catechism from Kindergarten to 8th grade. I never actually partook in the Sacrament of Confirmation, and I often wish I had. At the time, my uncle was dying on his couch with stage four cancer, and I helped care for him. I was challenged in my faith, and didn't actually recover until I was 16 and in college.
During my wanderings, I studied everything. I suppose you could call me a bit of a witch. I had fun at the seasonal festivals of beltaine (early May) and Sawain (Halloween). I learned accordances like what herbs are best used on which days of the week in conjunction with which color candle. I still know what to put in my pillow if I want to engage in lucid dreaming.
Ever since childhood I had a strong interest in Mythology (especially Greek) but during this time I read everything I could get my hands on--Norse, Celtic, Icelandic, and Germanic myths, but I can honestly say I never felt there was any revelatory truth in them.
One thing that brought me back into the fold was a bolt-out-of-the-blue experience. I was watching a friend of mine practice Bach on the piano. His thick, sausage-like fingers were covered in hair. They moved with such agility and such expertise over the keys, it seemed almost supernatural. I imagined those knuckles on a gorilla, dragging over the dusty ground. How could such gorgeous, heavenly music come from the hands of an animal such as this? God. And that was all.
I came back to the Church. My attendance has been a bit spotty, but my heart is with God. I long to be a better Christian, and I hope with God's help I will be.
i've had whole texts disappear into the aether as well i sought to follow them and hit my head on the computer screen then i woke up in a swoon...sniffle sniffle cough cough
stu thanks for the granite strong articulation of gospel community for christians and the notion of jubilee which our lord proposed for us yesterday in the sunday gospel
one of the advantages of catholic liturgical practice is that the themes of sunday are echoed throughout the week
today we celebrate the conversion of paul
a sort of cosmic existential gospel jubilee for him
sometimes i think kirby is advocating a me and mine against the world ethic...it appears to me that excessive reliance on lockean notions of social arrangement lends itself very easily to greed and competition and waste
how often do we have to learn that it's far more efficient and far more economically feasible for people to share and barter and release the shackles and chains of poverty if we can from some people
now that we completely control nature i guess we can just lump those silly notions of taking care of the land and helping in the shepherding of difficult souls
lifting burdens where we can...aren't there machines that do that now??
once again it is beneficial to the rich to relieve the plight of people locke locke locked in poverty like a locke smith with a key to keynes and nothing to do but weep
i sure hope david horowitz isn't editing these comments
he's a devil
get out of afghanistan now
stop the fighting
bring the soldiers home
it's a hoax
we've been duped again
but no worry
god's on our side
jh
The problem is who will oversee the redistribution of money, and how that tends to create a new king. Obama and his bevy of czars have decided they are the new royalty and can do whatever they like. Scott Brown said NO YOU CAN'T.
Every party, every Jubilee, has someone orchestrating and overseeing it. That person gets too much power.
Locke instead allows each person individual power and say, and Madison goes further, decentralizing the power.
Obama and the socialists want to concentrate power and the left says yeah yeah yeah give us all the power we're so gooooooood.
But that's bad.
It's important to think not only about the ends, but about their implementation, and about how the means to an end, can derail, and often does derail, any specific goal.
Obama and his bevy of czars are trying to derail the democratic revolution. He's minutes from crowning himself emperor.
While it might be nice to have an emperor who believed exactly as you do (this is what GM wants), it's a pain in the neck if you get one who doesn't.
Obama is not my king, and his bevy of czars are straight out of the Maoist mold, forged in the nightmare of 1968.
all i heard scott brown say was
my daughters are available
perhaps i missed something
jh
JH, Scott Brown spoke for 45 minutes but that's the only thing most channels allowed through.
You have to listen to Fox if you want to get another viewpoint!
The other stations feature very Maoist newshounds that are all trying to hunt down and kill anything like Fox.
But Fox is too tricky for them.
I think the Fox people are all Irish Catholics, for the most part, and you must have at least some Foxies in your monastery.
It must be like the internecine wars described in Name of the Rose in your monastery.
The big question is do you want to give so much power to Obama or to anyone that they can redistribute all money? Do you want one party to hold a Jubilee at the expense of the other party?
The state is too big a player as it is. We need a less powerful state, and a more humble approach to government.
It was never the role of the government to enforce the other kingdom on this one, but only to make sure that the invisible hand isn't corrupted by monopolies.
The wealthy shouldn't be able to tilt the playing field, but the government shouldn't be able to do it either. Each one uses the other as its justification.
I think instead we need fairness and balance.
Let the unions and the corporations spend their money duking it out on the playing field.
I think with people we have to not only pay heed to the idea, but also pay heed to the idea behind the idea.
what was Ginsberg's real idea in HOWL? It was to set loose NAMBLA as howling wolves on the world of small children.
What was Hitler's real notion of Aryan pride? It was to kill the Jews.
What do socialists really want when they say a controlled economy is better for all?
They want hegemonic power in which they can pass bills in the darkest hours after midnight without anyone else even being aware.
Watch out for people.
Madison and Jefferson were vigilant. If we want to keep our liberties, we must also be wary of the false messiahs and the liars.
Obama is a false messiah and a liar. Ultimately, this will become clear to everyone.
Kirby,
Obama and his bevy of czars are trying to derail the democratic revolution. He's minutes from crowning himself emperor.
The phrase czar for a special advisor to the President was coined by the Nixon administration to refer to "drug czar" Jerome Jaffe. Its subsequent application to various advisors to the current President's advisors seems to come out of the fevered imagination of Glenn Beck, who sees a czar under every floorboard of the Whitehouse. In fact, "czar" is not a part of the title of any advisor to the current President. Then you react to this title, introduced by the Republicans as propaganda-speak to emphasize the power and independence of their own advisors, and then recycled by the Republicans as a term of disparagement deriving from the supposedly unchecked powers of Demcratic Presidential advisors, as evidence of Obama's imperial pretentions.
Right.
"Obama and his bevy of czars are trying to derail the democratic revolution. He's minutes from crowning himself emperor."
Kirby.
You need to stop saying things that can only be described as 'stupid.' Not only is this hyperbole, it's also way outside of reality.
The criticisms that lately seem to be piling up and which bother me the most are the ones based on the fact that a president is a president.
Presidents read off of telemprompters. Always have, always will (written speeches being the prototeleprompter). Yet this is turned into a major negative.
Presidents have power to act. Obama has not abused this or taken it further than others who were in his position. Yet because he gets a few things he wants, HE'S AN EMPEROR!!!!
Obama has not pushed through an ultra-left agenda. Compared to his predecessor, he has been open and engaged with the other party, full of concession and compromise.
I'm not saying that Bush was trying to become emperor. I never called him a fascist.
But you, on the other hand, consistently call Obama a communist and a future emperor. To do so and remain even vaguely intellectually consistent, you need to label Bush similarly.
The Healthcare bill is a perfect example - The Problem with the process, if anything, was that it was too long and full of endless vitriolic 'debate' and everyone knew everything about it and Obama did a bad job of selling it because he didn't realize that he still has to play salesman as well as statesman to actually get things done -
If he were Actually the emperor-lefty you think he is, he'd have forced through a single-payer healthcare system.
But he hasn't, so we get a long, drawn-out debate.
Which has its pros and cons, but is anything but an 'emperoriffic' approach.
The American people want healthcare reform - they just don't know what it is.
This is due to a mixture of weak PR on the administration's part and deceptive, strong PR on the right's part. (and, of course, the fact that the long, drawn-out, congressionally-based process of a total non-emperor means that the nature of the bill changes with each step).
Hell, the majority of the country is in favor of a Public option, as well as most of the other items that are actually In the bill still.
An economy needs regulation - how much and what kind may be argued...
But the laxing of regulations (from both sides of the political spectrum) caused the first great recession in our economy since the 30s, after which we were smart and government had more regulatory power over banks.
I like that the right looks to the 50s as a golden era, but Totally and Completely eschews the economic policies that were in place then...
And a false messiah has to call himself a messiah first.
Being labeled by Rush Limbaugh a messiah doesn't count.
You need to stop taking the right's spin at face value.
I do think that people are disappointed because the lofty expectations they projected onto Obama didn't come true (he's not a 'magic negro,' check out the Daily Show clip on that one)
http://tinyurl.com/magicbrack
and some of his campaign promises came up against the realities of the political process (which happens every time...it's funny how short our memories are).
WB,
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? It seems to me that you're intending to disagree, but that underneath that intent lies fundamentally deep agreement.
I think you err is dismissing the Jubilee (as Kirby does) as something that is a part of the covenant with Israel and therefore not a part of the covenant with us. Are we not included in Israel? Don't God's promises to the Israelites extend to us as well? Indeed, you seem to realize this in saying that it could be the basis of a rich discussion, and that the notion of Jubilee is underused.
My point, contra literalism, is that it seems to me that the right's religiously based arguments against homosexuality can be precisely mirrored by arguments for the Jubilee. To argue for one on the basis of the law, but to dismiss the other as mere law, is hypocritical.
I would argue that in both cases, the particular form of the ancient ordinance was informed by an understanding of God's will. The ordinance against homosexuality was informed by the understanding that God wants us to be faithful in our use of the gift of sexuality. The ordinance of Jubilee was intended to ensure that the land, God's gift to his people, and the basis for their sustenance, could not be taken away from future generations. The question for us today is how we should craft our ordinances so to reflect God's will, and not which specific ancient ordinances we will hold as dear, and which we will chose to reject.
So I'm willing to consider the possibility that faithful forms of homosexuality exist that are consistent with God's will, as well as the possibility that there may be alternatives to the Jubilee that better serve his wish for justice. But in both cases, I think we have an obligation to attempt to discern God's will. [I'll note that this discussion has strangely converged on the hithertofore distinct discussion that jh has been having with Emmy in this thread.]
I recognize that this position might be criticized on the basis that the ordinances we implement will be tainted by sin. I can only agree, but note that this was equally true for our forebearers.
But insofar as it directs us to acts of charity and compassion for our neighbor and recognition that we are stewards of our possessions, then I think it relates to us.
That's a big part of it, but not the whole. God's gifts are gifts to us all, and it is not our right to sell what we do not own, nor to buy what cannot properly be sold.
jh,
stu thanks for the granite strong articulation of gospel community for christians and the notion of jubilee which our lord proposed for us yesterday in the sunday gospel
You're welcome. Let me note, though, that I suffer from the canonical Lutheran response to anything that resembles praise: confusion. It may seem completely bizarre, but Lutherans are trained from birth not to know how to react approbation of any form.
sometimes i think kirby is advocating a me and mine against the world ethic
Only sometimes?!
WB,
I became a Christian when drinking didn't work out.
Hilarious :-).
I assume that you're aware of Vladimir of Russia. His day of commemoration by the ELCA is July 15th. Quite the fellow: he murdered his brother, took at least two wives by rape (in once case, in front of her parents, killing them afterwards). According to the Rus, he was advised by his aristocrats to study the religions of neighboring lands (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism), and he chose Christianity because it alone of the three permitted drinking.
And because of this, Russia became a Christian land.
Such are our saints, and such are we. God be praised.
Kirby,
Because the Republicans talk in a way that sounds like the Ten Commandments to me (I can translate their thoughts into the ten commandments), and the Democrats talk in a way that sounds like angry Marxism, I am with the Republicans.
Where you hear Marxism, I sometimes hear the voice of our Lord, preaching on mountain or the plain. And where you hear the Republicans talking of the ten commandments in their haughty and self-justifying way, I sometimes hear the voices of the Saducees that begged Pilate to crucify our Lord.
I'm just sayin'.
Kinda funny!:
http://faultline.org/index.php/site/item/incendiary/
i suppose in terms of intellectual awakening the book that really got me thinking when i was a freshman in high school was "brave new world" -
i recall on one occasion making a definitive resolution to drink nothing but single malt scotch were i to have a drink
i stopped smoking cigarettes after about 20 yrs of fairly constant puffing...i still enjoy one once in awhile but tobacco is not a part of my life
when i professed my vows as a monk i had to lie on the floor face down...i guess that was sort of making a statement...something of a political statement within the act of faith
jh
Stu,
I was both agreeing and disagreeing with you. Clearly modern America is too materialist and greedy. I think most people, myself very much included, would have much to gain from a reduced emphasis on ownership of stuff.
However! The kind of change that I long for can only come from changed hearts, not from public policy. Charity via taxation is not charity at all. It doesn't change the heart of the giver and it places a barrier in between the benefactor and benefactee. Receiving from the state is not the same as receiving from a person who has given willingly.
Haile Selassie was an emperor, one the Rastafarians invested as the messiah of black Africanism. Obama's father was Kenyan, not Ethiopian, but I do wonder how the Rastas are mythologizing the election of Obama. Aren't there lots of Old Testament allusions in their psalms?
A good friend of mine was raised very Lutheran. He wrote himself into insanity three different times and I don't think he made it back the third time. The first time it happened he'd attended a Burning Spear concert and started channeling something that was definitely not of this world.
However! The kind of change that I long for can only come from changed hearts, not from public policy. Charity via taxation is not charity at all. It doesn't change the heart of the giver and it places a barrier in between the benefactor and benefactee. Receiving from the state is not the same as receiving from a person who has given willingly.
WHAT WB SAID
Coercion is not charity.
I think some Christians go forward with Pelagius in thinking that we are perfectible. This is clearly wrong. We are fallen.
This is one of the things that confused me a bit when I was a teen. The hippies thought we were perfectible, and could share and share alike, and this meant share everything, including diseases, and spouses, and so on.
Manson was the epitome of this thinking, and also the epitome of the contradiction within it.
I was only twelve or so when the Manson murders were committed, but I was 17 in 1974, and saw many people who thought they were Jesus but were in fact much closer to Manson (who did try to look like Jesus).
When I hear people talking about some kind of saltation among humanity where we will all suddenly get along -- I think of Manson, and his innumerable look-a-likes among the hippy movement.
Ginsberg was himself a kind of Manson.
I'm against any kind of messianic fervor, and especially against the notion of perfectibility.
I think we can follow the ten commandments, but we can't expect perfection from ourselves. We are still going to lust, envy, covet, and so on.
These things are part and parcel of our being, and we can't rip them out without destroying ourselves. Jesus said to let the weeds and the wheat grow together, and he would sort it out at the end.
I don't know why people keep thinking they are perfectible.
Most people can't even spell.
People who believe they are perfectible are under a spell.
Manson is the invariable result. A deranged hillbilly who thought he was the Second Coming.
This world is not heaven, and if we think it's so, we incarnate Manson, not Jesus.
We need to have patience, and a sense of humor, about others, and their claims, and about ourselves, and our claims.
I don't know why thinking we are perfect just turns us into psychokillers, but it does.
Back to Brett: Brett thought that Bush and Obama are in the same boat.
But I see a difference. Bush constantly made fun of himself. He knew he couldn't spell. He knew he didn't talk very well. He laughed about this.
Obama very rarely makes fun of himself. He gives me the impression that he thinks he's perfect.
But come on. He smokes cigarettes.
I admit however that he does talk and write quite well.
Still, he smokes cigarettes, and God knows what else he's smoking.
the whole thing with jesus is
from the beginning
he saying to his followers
this is what you are like
this is the world
here is what is amiss
here is the injustice here is the illness
here's what i intend to do
here is what i want of you
if you wish to follow me
this is the way
had he not said that i don't think athansius or gregory of nyssa or justin martyr or eusebius or abba anthony or basil the great none of these guys would have bothered with hammering out a reasonable approach to the mystery of god - they believed that god was at work in the world and this meant going from imperfect to more perfect states...walk far along the way and aspire to perfect humility...face up to what is in your heart...go with god
keep the cross daily before your eyes
that's the mistake
when the eyes veer away from the one dead for us on the cross and risen
the image of perfection in this world is a guy hanging on a bloody cross...and that's the gateway to the perfect life life perfected
i'd be careful about promoting that terrible fallen world and fallen humanity spiel too much it could lead to neurosis
bach was motivated by an idea a way to perfect the harmonic structure of the understanding of man made sound...tempered tuning was the thing it made everything balanced and playing in ensemble became infinitely easier and the piano was born...he knew somehow that he could attain to an ideal of relationships in sound and it has made quite a difference 9although hsi last work was fraught with the realization that perhaps he had merely built a sonic prison - some argue that tempered tuning was a unnatural deviation from "just" tuning where relationships of sound are understood in terms of the pleasing nature of the realtionship rather than pure mathematics although boethius worked out a scheme of harmonic understanding that is nothing if it ain't mathematical)
i'm frightened of the presupposition of attaining to perfection in the world of science and medicine i think all that stuff is macabre
kirby aren't you a proponent of -USA is the best place in the world it's numero uno we are the most logical we are the greatest advantage - way of thinking
somewhere along the way people have said hey we can do better than this....they were being motivated by something
manson - george custer -- same thing same type
no christian worth his salt ever believes that that which is perfectible is our own doing...we cannot bring ourselves to perfection
i think this is the illusion of modern commerce more than any religious deception -- you can have the perfect body you can have the perfect teeth you can have the perfect clothes you can have the perfect house (they call them homes) every commercial has a smiling perfected human in it you can have the perfect skin you can have the perfect score you can have the perfect mate you can have it all you can provide for your own state of perfection -- that is the very illusion orthodox christianity has tried to avoid
thomas aquinas attained to near perfection in thought and only because when he was finished thinking he could say with all honesty it is all straw...plus he was portly like me
the human mind opens outward naturally to a grander more perfect state of being
i care nothing for the american preoccupation with murder sensation spectacles -- i observe that somehow we live in a place that foments not only the fictionalized sort of human horror but an actualized expression of human horror - we live in a place that seems to hunger for it and creates scenarios whereby it can happen -- something of the truth emerging out of the collective soul wears the face of terror
hannibal lector is every psychologist every human presumption of power
the smiling faces of cavalry men after decimating a lakotah village
just another days work in good ole' america
the way of ever more humility is the way of perfection par excellence
i'd be careful dude
your ranting is starting to carry some hubris
shake hands with the charles manson within
jh
WB, (and GM...)
The kind of change that I long for can only come from changed hearts, not from public policy.
We've got no argument there.
Charity via taxation is not charity at all.
Of course. But it might be good public policy. That's my litmus test. Are the resources that are being collected from all of us being used to our mutual benefit? I like libraries, roads, public parks and public schools. [I know GM would argue with the latter, but the idea of mandating universal education without public education doesn't appeal to me, parallels to the health care debate duely noted.] I may not like prisons, but experience shows that they're necessary, and again, this is a community responsibility, and therefore the responsibility of government. Likewise, the military forces of the US not only protect us, but they protect commerce. There's good evidence that these infrastructure investments (for that's what they are) have increased economic activity, and have been efficient expenditures.
Please note that there is a huge distinction between extractive taxation, as was happening in Israel at the time of Christ, where the preponderance of taxes were expended in Rome, and the taxation of our republic, where the preponderance of taxes are spent in our own communities.
One of the great mysteries to me, is that the "donor states" in our republic (those which pay more in federa; taxes than they receive back in federal spending) are overwhelming Democratic, whereas the "recipient states" are overwhelmingly Republican. The biggest exception is Texas, which qualifies (barely) as a donor state.
It doesn't change the heart of the giver and it places a barrier in between the benefactor and benefactee. Receiving from the state is not the same as receiving from a person who has given willingly.
Right. But there's copious evidence that the state is much more likely to provide housing, education, food, etc., especially when times are bad. It is easy to get people to contribute during unexpected good times, but a lot harder during difficult times. About nine-hundred ninety-two those vaunted thousand points of light hid under a bushel during the credit/finance crash in late '08.
Only the state is large enough that it can afford to make infrastructre investments that pay off on generational time scales, and only the state has a guaranteed resource base that enables it to make expenditures during financially difficult times (especially if, as now, the credit markets are hosed), knowing that it can recoup losses later.
Maybe I'm all wet, but I always imagine Kirby typing with a sparkle in his eye. He writes something that's a bit oversimplified (on purpose) just to be playful. It's too hard to be systematic and you get misunderstood anyways; why not embrace the stereotype just a bit and have some fun with it? That's what I imagine is going through his head at any rate.
Picklesworth is picking up on the way in which I lob my two cents.
But I am in fact interested not in people, but in institutions.
The government has tripled its debt since Obama's entrance into office, and he's proposing new legislation like a drunken sailor approaches bawds.
The institutions have to survive.
If they go, there's no hope for individuals.
As we see in Haiti, where there are no true institutions of any kind that are anything but psychotic kleptocracies without any value whatsoever.
Is this what we want in America? A kleptocrat surrounded by a bevy of kleptocrats?
The job of the government is not to take over private industry. Those institutions have to maintain themselves, and pay taxes.
The government must be funded by taxing private industry, which in turn supports and defends private industry.
Obama has the idea that we should attack private industry and supplant it with nationalization run by himself and his bevy of psychotic czars.
The Russian Revolution tried to supplant the Czars and do just that, too.
Obama is like some sort of supernatural pest, eating away at the Constitution, and destroying all the greenery.
Banks go under, insurance companies go under.
What's he going to attack next?
I don't think he understands his role. It's not to run the whole country and the car companies, and banks, and other industries.
I doubt if he could even run a 7-11 and keep it solvent. He has no business experience and neither do any of his czars.
This is a calamity of Biblical proportions!
Stu,
What I would like to see is most of the spending that you describe coming from the states instead of from the federal government. That would give individual states the ability to respond more effectively to their own constituents. States would make different choices about what was necessary and desirable in their context.
But there's copious evidence that the state is much more likely to provide housing, education, food, etc., especially when times are bad.
Yes, that's the easily seen result. But there are the hidden consequences. The money doesn't come out of nowhere and the manner in which it is collected by the government and given out has very real costs that are too rarely acknowledged.
Of course the state is likely to provide care when times are bad--when times are good, no one needs the state and so to create & keep dependency on the state--which is necessary for a democracy--the state pumps out the goods in a time of dependency.
This is why it is in the state's interest to have a perpetual and growing underclass. This is also why it is in the interest of the state to manipulate currency & markets.
"Obama has the idea that we should attack private industry and supplant it with nationalization run by himself and his bevy of psychotic czars."
No, he doesn't.
And the pejorative use of the word 'czars' is especially ironic - it was a term that Reagan's administration created and used proudly...
And one which the current administration doesn't use, or if so, very rarely.
If you have someone at the head of something, the right says it's a 'czar.'
Trying to link this with their ridiculous Obama=communist meme.
Ah, the silliness of it all!
RE: Obama, you're simply not listening, Kirby. He makes fun of himself about as much as Bush did, and he much more frequently points to areas where he's been wrong or can improve.
Bush was incredibly unwilling to admit that he was wrong about a policy or an approach to governance. He may have laughed at himself for being inarticulate, but when it came to policy he was way too reticent to unMessiah his administration and say 'I was wrong' or 'I could have done this differently.'
Kirby,
The government has tripled its debt since Obama's entrance into office, and he's proposing new legislation like a drunken sailor approaches bawds.
Time to fire your fact checker.
The Gross Debt/GDP ratio was 57.4% at the end of '01 (remember each President has to deal with one year's worth of his predecessor's budget), and was 70.2% at the end of '08, and estimated to be 90.4% at the end of '09. The stimulus package amounts to 5.5% of GDP, and this is divided about 1/3 in 09 and 2/3 in 10ff, so if we subtract out the 1/3 of the stimulus that might fairly be billed to Obama, the "Bush increase" in gross debt/GDP was 90.4% - 57.4% - 1/3 * 5.5% = 31.2%. Stated as a fraction of pre-existing debt (i.e., expressing it in your language), this is 31.2% / 57.4% = 54.4% increase over two terms.
According the CBO, gross debt/GDP will peak at 101.0% in 2011, and will be at 99.7% in 2013. So the Obama first-term increase in public debt is 99.7% - 90.4% + 1/3 5.5% = 11.1%. So Obama is adding to public indebtedness at about 2/3rds the rate that Bush did. Moreover, stated as an increase over prior debt, this is 11.1% / 90.4% = 12.3% over one term.
Moreover, if you look at the debt/GDP curve over the course of their respective Presidencies, Bush will have taken a "good curve," i.e., a debt/GDP that was trending down at a rate of 0.6%/year, and turned over a rate that was increasing at a disastrous 18.4%/year. Whereas the current CBO projections are that Obama the debt/GDP ratio will be trending down just a bit at the end of 2013.
There is neither a tripling of the debt, nor even a tripling of the deficit (not that I expect you to be able to distinguish between the two).
But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. And don't give me the "some say differently" bull. I got my numbers from
Wiki: US public debt
The arithmetic here is simple enough that you should be able to follow it.
just because marxism didn't work out too well in russia doesn't mean it couldn't work here
i think we're really set up for it
and why not institute fullblown socialist thought before the worn out system collapses
marxist social policy will pick up the pieces before they fall
picklesworth you're wrong about kirby
we all know he's a tyrant in a sad clown suit complete with a tear painted on his cheek
we've seen nothing of terror yet
underneathe the mascara he's very serious indeed
the merging of marxist thought with catholic rhetoric occured in the last 40 yrs
it was a little bumpy it didn't work out so well
but the best of marx resonates easily with the gospel imperative for justice
obama is simply saying
so the simple can understand
hey you fat cats quit lickin yer paws in front of the hardworkin tax payin americans don't insult them with your greedy little tricks
over half of the incentive money has already been repaid
public work projects:
a new national railroad
high speed trains
the greenhouse project
greenhouses in every community
and community gardens everywhere
populate the dying small towns in the midwest and west with haitians
free clinics
reduce the work week to 20 hrs
circuses more circuses
jh
Stu, there is a hidden difference in the debts, though, isn't there?
Bush had to deal with the WTC crash which cost about 500 billion on the first day. There was another 500 billion over the next year in lost airplane revenues when cowards like myself wouldn't get on a plane (I haven't been on a plane since 9/11).
So I think the difference is one of lost revenue due to a disaster versus wild spending. I could be wrong about that.
Underneath the stated figures are other issues.
I grant that the war in Iraq has been terribly expensive.
but so was the war that Clinton DIDN'T have with Al Qaeda, which allowed them to get their men in place, while he diddled Monica.
Costs are often hidden.
Now Obama is claiming that he is going to cut spending in about a seventh of the economy which was likely not to receive any increases in the first place (front page article of WSJ today claims that that's the case) -- this appears to me to be another feint, before he takes another drive to the funding basket, slamming yet another bill or two down our throats.
The thing about your math is that it hides how the deficits appeared, and what the funding was about.
9/11 cost the country a fortune as it hit our premier flagship business office with some of our highest flying people. It was an incredibly smart strike on Al Qaeda's part, and seems to have cost us enormously.
BHO's expenditures on the other hand seem to be on things like the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse in Pelosi's district (30 million) and millions on lousy cement in Boston.
I am not sure if Bush II's war in Iraq was a good idea or not. It cost too much, but then the entire thing doesn't seem to have cost as much as the single strike on the WTC.
Cheney's argument was that engaging the enemy in Iraq was a lot cheaper in the long run than engaging them in our own cities.
Based on the numbers that appeared in the NY Times having to do with lost revenues in this state from that single attack, I think I understand Cheney's reasoning. It's alternative reasoning that never gets repeated on MSNBC, or even on CNN, but it's still sound, I think?
Clinton should have hit OBL when he had the chance, but he decided to have a big heart.
Kirby,
Stu, there is a hidden difference in the debts, though, isn't there?
Bush had to deal with the WTC crash which cost about 500 billion on the first day. There was another 500 billion over the next year in lost airplane revenues when cowards like myself wouldn't get on a plane (I haven't been on a plane since 9/11).
But these were not direct costs/revenue losses for the federal government, although there was surely an effect. If we assume that the US government was exposed to the full 35% tax rate on this, you get $350B, assuming your numbers are right, which is 2.5% of (current) GDP.
According to costofwar.com (I'm certainly willing to consider other sources, but their numbers seem about right), the total cost to date of the war in Afghanistan (what might properly be billed to 9/11) is 250B, which is 1.8% in debt/GDP space.
So the total 9/11 cost to the US government was around 4.3% of GDP.
What about the rest?
About 5.0% ($703B) is due to Iraq, a war of choice unrelated to 9/11. About 14.1% is due to TARP and Fed actions immediately following the finance/credit-crash (note that TARP was allocated and expended during the Bush Presidency, even though the FOX guys like to blame Obama for the "bank bailouts"). The cost of the Bush tax cuts is generally estimated as $1.8B, so this is another 12.7%.
At this point, we've worked our way up to 35.7% vs. our "target" of 31.2%. My guess is that most of the excess can be explained by overestimates of the cost of TARP, and by subsequent recovery of TARP funds from some institutions.
So anyway, I figure 4.3% for 9/11, and 31.2%-4.3% = 26.9% for Bush. These are, of course, back-of-the-envelope numbers, but I've tried to be utterly fair, and have used mainstream numbers.
And of course, you're overlooking the fact that Bush left Obama with an economy in full meltdown, with > 10% unemployment at the bottom (which we think we've hit, but who knows).
I think if you want to talk sense here, you have to separate exceptional events (9/11, the finance-credit crisis) from the structural budget surplus/deficit. As I see things, we were well on our way to paying down the national debt, until the Reagan tax cuts, and the subsequent Bush tax cuts, coupled with budget expansion during both Presidencies (The 600 ship navy?!, Starwars?!, Medicare Part D?!, NCLB?!), created a structural deficit, which Clinton in unwilling cooperation with the Republican congress temporarily reversed (essentially by dismantling welfare, as the effect of the "peace dividend" turned out to be less than anyone hoped). Expiration of the tax cuts in '11 will substantially reduce but not eliminate the structual deficit (the problems here are in part due to entitlement and non-war-related growth in the military budgets, together with increased interest costs due to increase in the proportionate size of the debt).
So, yes, there is a hidden difference. It's that Bush had a 4.3% debt/gdp transient due to 9/11, whereas the debt transient that Obama is having to deal with due to a totally screwed up economy looks to be about 15% (stimulus is part of this, but so is reduction in GDP growth). So yeah, Obama had much a much worse situation, and he's dealt with it with far less debt growth (e.g., he hasn't started any new wars). The fact that the Obama budget plans looking into the short future get us back into debt/GDP reduction is a huge management triumph, not that I expect that you guys will ever believe it.
Kirby,
BHO's expenditures on the other hand seem to be on things like the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse in Pelosi's district (30 million) and millions on lousy cement in Boston
Seriously!? You want to get into a pissing match over earmarks? Do you have the first clue how many skeletons there are in the Republicans' closet w.r.t. earmarks?
Do you remember the Gravina Island bridge?! Have you never heard of K-Street?
I guess the FOX guys don't remind you about all that.
Trust me, the Democrats have not had nearly enough time to rise to the level of comfortable corruption over earmarks that characterized the Republican lead Congress prior to '06. Consider
The Republican Pork Barrel
Yes, that's $24B in earmarks, in a bill passed by the Republican Congress, and signed by the Republican President. A bill that John McCain called "a monstrosity." And you (and FOX) are bitching and moaning about $30M to Pelosi's district, and acting as though this is the epitome of public corruption.
So yeah. Congress post '06, thanks entirely to the Democratic party, has mechanisms in place to identify earmarks. And yeah, there are earmarks today. But those earmarks count for a few billions today, vs. a few tens of Billions during the Bush administration. For my part, I consider this to be an improvement.
(BTW, something weird happened with a post just before this. I don't want to repost, so I'll wait to see if it appears. I think Google/Blogger is beginning to lose it. I hope they get it back soon!)
Stu,
Did you support the government's policy of making certain financial sector debts public in the Fall of '08?
It would be good if we could get other species to do our fighting for us. Army ants could do it, and they don't cost much to feed.
If the scientists would just get busy and develop navy ants, too, I think costs would go down across the board.
WB,
Did you support the government's policy of making certain financial sector debts public in the Fall of '08?
A semi-fair question. Let me attempt a coherent answer.
First off, I'll note that Obama, acting as a Senator and as President-elect, supported the TARP bailouts demanded by Secretary of the Treasury Paulson on behalf of the Bush administration. Is that the specific concession that you sought?
Beyond that, I'll note that the government's response was not simply to take on all financial sector debts in the immediate aftermath of the finance-credit meltdown. The "solution" by the Paulson treasury department in January '08 that essentially forced JP Morgan to acquire Bear Sterns nearly resulted in the unravelling of JP Morgan in November '08. The outright failure of Lehman Brothers in September '08 is a different story. I actually do think that in any bailout situation, it is important to let some actors fail. Call it the Admiral Bing approach, "to encourage the others." That said, the company that should have been allowed to fail (at least in the sense that the shareholders were wiped out, and that counter-parties were paid less than a dollor on the dollar) was AIG. I'd have been happier with nationalization/bailout of the parts of AIG's business that were not associated with CDSs.
I suspect but do not know that a failure to act would have resulted in an outright depression (a 1929 scenario) by essentially destroying the credit markets. But I do think that risk in the financial sector was manipulated (Goldman Sachs benefited handsomely from the meltdown, and is often portrayed in the left as a villain here, but I don't know enough to speak with authority). In particular, GS, DB, and others had to know that AIG did not have the capability to cover its obligations if there was a substantial decline in the housing market. It's not as though the warning signs weren't out there.
I can well remember an article by Brad DeLong from roughly early '08, talking about how the Royal Bank of Cathay was selling credit default swaps against the possibility of its own failure. As Brad so eloquently noted, the counter-party risk of the insurer had a correlation coefficient of 1 against the risk that was being insured. There was literally no possibly set of circumstances in which that instrument could have any value. Yet is was sold and bought, supposedly in both cases by intelligent people working in good faith.
So with all of this background, how do I answer your question? I supported making the debts public then, on the simple but pragmatic basis that the alternative would have been far more damaging. But I felt then, and I feel now, that ruling out investigations into the causes was a mistake. The finance-credit crash was not an "accident." I believe that it followed from material incompetence (not only at AIG, but also in the home mortgage industry more broadly), and risk engineering on the part of firms that profited.
I said then, and I'll say now. Letting Lehman fail was not enough. There should have been a few public hangings, and I do not mean this in a metaphorical sense, not as a matter of vengeance, but as a matter of sound public policy: "to encourage the others." Of course, this would have been contrary to the law, but let's be honest here. The Bush administration was lawless, and this would not have been the most egregious abuse of power by that particular "unitary executive."
Nevertheless, I feel that this bailout was a direct consequence of Graham-Leach-Billings, and the failure of the Bush Administration to regulate the huge investment banks that evolved post-Glass Steagall. Therefore, I feel justified in fully billing the cost of this mess to the Republican Party.
my memory's not what it used to be
and some of that is apathy i admit
but
it seems to me that clinton was working on striking al qaeda before the lewinsky prank the republicans pulled on him...he was effectively handtied the last 2 yrs of his 2nd term...he couldn't pull together any sort of consensus on anything...that must've been hell for him to have to walk to work in the oval office with all that shite going on...had the republicans not been so ridiculous about naughty deeds in the oval office clinton could've governed
a man by the name of richard clarke said that bush and the boys had more than enough information to have a serious heads up they just didn't read it...they were busy setting up their structure for their agenda and dismissing everything the clintons had done...not a smart first move it turns out...they should've listened to dick clarke...it's a whole new american bandstand
i suspect the comments on this blog are being edited by david horowitz he's running a national witch hunt pointing out the really unamerican americans especially on college compuses so well what
hell sheize he say all liberal thought very very bad he no likey at all so i don't know i'm sayin it's david horowitz
:-/
jh
Stu,
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.
Please argue in terms of today & let the dead bury the dead.
GM,
Stu,
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.
Please argue in terms of today & let the dead bury the dead.
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy. But I am arguing in terms of today, and providing context. The position that Kirby (and FOX) are taking is that the current Democratically dominated government is fiscally irresponsible, and therefore, by implication, that we'd be better served with fiscally responsible Republican government. But history does have something relevant to say here.
And as for those supposed dead, they still live and breathe and walk and seek set-asides among us. If a Republican government comes back into power in '12, it will not have had adequate opportunity to purge itself of these so-called dead.
The healthcare plan has to shore up the country, not individuals. Country first.
In a similar way, I think the only way a church should decide a matter is whether it makes the church stronger, not individuals.
The way in which mandatory health insurance might be good for the government is that they no longer have to offer bailouts. At present there is a law in place that says that government has to bail out emergency care if the patient doesn't have insurance. In my case with a kidney stone in 2000 in Portland, Oregon this cost the government in excess of ten grand. This was because my insurance policy hadn't kicked in yet (I was one day short).
In addition, if employers had to have insurance on employees this would shoot up costs but it would also enter illegals into the system, which would then get both the companies and the employees in trouble because of the lack of paperwork. I don't know if this is what Obama is plotting, but it should be.
Business must be better regulated.
Meanwhile, we should refuse to do business with countries such as China that do not offer the same human rights to employees that we offer. That is, they should not be allowed to sell their products in our markets.
This would destroy the garment industry in Haiti, of course, but it would also shore up our own workers who have lost their jobs so that people in cut-rate countries like Haiti where there are no safeguards for employees cannot undermine our own country.
It should be illegal for American companies to allow cheaper labor to affect their business decisions.
Meanwhile, government should not force banks to lend money to people who cannot repay it, which was part of the whole collapse in the last couple of years.
Every institution should be allowed to set its own risks according to profit margins, and so long as they remain within laws that pertain to workers' rights and occupational safeguards.
You can't force a bank to give money to losers without forcing the bank under.
I'm also not so sure that the sentencing guidelines in the healthcare bill that stipulates those companies or individuals who do not offer universal healthcare should do prison time. Because this will in turn just force the government to shell out 40,000 dollars a year or whatever it is to house the new prisoners.
At present if you are driving without insurance, do you have to go to prison for this? Or is it a monetary penalty, combined with other penalties?
Draconian penalties won't work too well. But there does have to be an overhaul, including one wrt enormous lawsuits. Lawsuits for a limb lopped off incorrectly should be reduced to a minimum of about ten dollars a limb.
This will cut costs, too.
Limbs are important but I doubt if doctors ever do that on porpoise, and I think a certain amount of incidental accidents will occur according to the laws of probability.
Stu,
Believe it or not the question wasn't asked slyly. I've thought about the question, but simply don't know enough to know. I'm not in favor of the tomfoolery that the financial sector got involved with, but I'm not convinced like you that simple government involvement would have been the solution. Again, the point that I've been trying to make these past few days is that government involvement has costs that are often not attributed to it. It influences the financial sector, not only in a positive way (restraining), but in a negative way (skewing). That is why I pointed to the Community Reinvestment Act. I'm open to the idea that the deregulation was handled poorly, that is that it gave some new freedom within a still extant set of byzantine rules, though I don't know that.
As far as blaming it on Republicans, whatever floats your boat.
i'm sorry i'm really really friggin sorry
but
did my eyes decieve me
i cannot believe my eyes i even mouthed the words out loud just to see if it were true my god my god why hast thou forsaken me indeed kirby acknowledges govt assistance for health care for his kidney stone (DO YOU STILL HAVE THE STONE???)
IN A MOMENT OF SILLY ASS SOCIALIST WEAKNESS THE AMERICAN GOVT CLICKED IN WITH A BAILOUT FOR A SUFFERING ENTERPRISE NAMELY THE LITERARY CAREER OF KIRBY OLSON
so what i'm thinking now is that
he's publishing all the best writing from this blog and cashing in on it to pay back the govt out of a sense of lutheran guilt and duty driven shameful social imperative...or
he's just sitting back wondering if situational socialism mightn't be a bad idea
too bad kirby
too bad i didn't know you back then
i would have invited you here
and done the operation myself
by hanging you upside down naked in a winter tree
and tickling you with goosefeathers
you'd pass a stone or two
i tell you what dontchya know
my sense from the beginning with BHO our fearless leader and commander in chief head handshake guy for the planet warrior probably secret muslim president is that from the beginning all he wanted was a fair shake for people who really need health care and can't afford it...let's not make this a money dependency thing...america should take care of the people who can't take care of business...this will give them a better chance of taking care of business say next year when they're feeling better...the medical care industry is very wealthy they should feel more obligated to spread the wealth around...yet another way they might think about caring for the sick
in any given year only 3-5 % of the people are in need of serious health care - another 30% is the average stuff of colds flu virus accidents etc - so we're saying then 65% of the people in any given year are going to be pretty damn healthy able to take care of themselves - and able to take care at least a little bit of the needs of less fortunate folks -- in the catholic church we threaten people with shame flames and damnation if they don't give to charity -- maybe that would work in the political arena too -- it's worth a try
let the catholics run the country for two whole years and all the health care issues will be taken care of immediately i gaurantee it
we can fly all the reproductive rights advocates over to denmark for physiological adjustments of any kind...or turn one of the big cruisers into a flowting hospital or something
with banking and shopping on board
maybe i'd own one of those
christian community is a horribly flawed system but it works and there are models which have endured down the centuries
mostly out of a sense of high fashion design and implacable (albeit generally compassionate)theology..but mostly it's the lace the jewelry and the processions and taking up the promoting up a sense of stability in refreshing places like ROME
catholics are basically gypsys
in my world
we must be free to wander and build campfires at night and play haunting songs in the moon light
jh
JH, I noted that the headline of the New York Post last evening said that St. Vincent's Hospital, the last Catholic-run hospital in NYC was bought out by a rival hospital with the sole intention of closing it down, so that they could have a monopoly in that area of the city.
You can't have this conversation without pointing out that Albany has cut hospital funding seven times in the last two years, and an eighth cut is looming,” says the spokesman.. “These cuts are shredding the social safety net and pushing hospitals over the edge.”
might as well edge the catholics out
they've never really understood health care for profit anyway
they provided the structure for hospital development in the 20th century but now they're pretty useless
that way nycity can be a place where anyone who wants an abortion can just go get one...maybe they could develop a mobile abortion program like big ambulances going around providing abortion care
when the well really runs dry everyone will go back to catholic pratice
or
who will be in charge of the death panels??
jh
WB,
Believe it or not the question wasn't asked slyly.
I believe it. You've never given me the slightest reason to doubt your integrity.
I've thought about the question, but simply don't know enough to know. I'm not in favor of the tomfoolery that the financial sector got involved with, but I'm not convinced like you that simple government involvement would have been the solution.
Here's how I see it. The stock market crash of '29 was not an unprecedented event. There had been crashes before, and my impression was that they occurred about once every generation. [They were called "panics" in the nineteenth century, and evidently occurred in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, and 1893.] And there's a pretty common pattern—a speculative bubble builds up around some commodity, people get leveraged, the commodity price fails, and those that are over-leveraged get wiped out. But really big problems happened with the banks themselves got involved in these bubbles, and this is part of what made the great depression great.
So this resulted in a regulatory regime built around Glass-Steagall, coupled with an insurance system (the FDIC) that together rebuilt confidence in the concept of a depository bank. One impact of Glass-Steagall was that banks couldn't become "too big to fail," and the FDIC was built with a funding mechanism that enabled it to deal with the occasional (necessarily small) bank that did fail.
An observation is that we did not have any depressions after the great depression, even though our prior experience suggested that we ought to have had three or four in years between '29 and '00. And there were certainly speculative bubbles that occurred, but because banks were prevented from making certain types of investments, the collapse of the speculative bubble did not mean systemic risk to the banking system.
Now, Glass Steagall is repealed, and banking consolidation begins. The collapse of the internet bubble happens soon after repeal, but before the consolidating banks have gotten themselves over exposed. Banking was, after all, a conservative business, and the "rocket scientists" hadn't yet done their thing. And then comes the very next speculative bubble, in the housing sector. But now the banks are consolidated (too big to fail), and they're both over leveraged into the bubble, but also tied together via instruments like CDSs. So we have broad systemic exposure, involving consolidated banks (which GS prevented) investing in speculative instruments (which GS also prevented).
Sometimes, simple government involvement in the markets does have a big impact. I believe this was such a case. And the thing is, we had just gone through a fairly similar problem with savings and loans, which presented in very much the same way. No sooner had the shackles come off on the investment and regulatory structure for S&L's big trouble occurred.
Let me suggest that there's a general principal at work here. Big piles of other people's money represent a huge temptation. You feel this most acutely when it is the government, but at least our government is subject to voter recall. I see large institutions as having the same temptation, but without the salutary effect of the occasional voter-driven purge.
Post a Comment