Thoughts and Ruminations

Interviewer Jonathan Karl: In hindsight, do you think that any of the tactics used against Khalid Sheikh Muhammed went too far?

Cheney: I don’t

Karl: And on KSM, of course, one of those tactics reported was waterboarding, and that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that, you think, was appropriate?

Cheney: I do.

Historical Context:

I was listening to a mini-debate on On Point with Tom Ashbrook the other day and a caller made an interesting point that sent me a-searching on the Internet afterwards.  The caller simply said this.  

“Let’s seek a little historical context here.  In 1945, when we found out Japanese officials had used a similar waterboarding treatment, we hanged them from the neck until dead.  Just thought I’d offer that.”

Well, after hearing that I was pretty shaken up.  Wouldn’t you be?  I already had deep ethical disgust for this treatment along with America’s secret CIA prisons where they do pretty much whatever they want to suspects to force “confessions” from them, but now I had something I could sink my teeth into.  As I searched on the Internet to find legitimate sources, I found the situation wasn’t as cut-and-dried as the caller made it on the radio, but waterboarding was clearly a war-crime.  That much is inarguable.  And some were hanged for combining waterboarding with other immoral information extraction techniques.  Here’s some words from those sources.

From Robin Rowland over at The Garret Tree,

The bottom line is that when “water treatment” was practiced against our side, it was called a war crime. That was the ruling against the Japanese after the Second World War by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and by the military courts that tried what were called in the Far East, the “B” and ”C” level war criminals.
When the leaders of Japan were found guilty of multiple and horrific war crimes, one of them was the “water treatment.” Those who actually did the “water treatment” –the officers who directed torture (B level) and those who carried it out (C level) were guilty of war crimes. Some were executed.”

The man who authorized those techniques at the Singapore YMCA, Lt. Col. Sumida, was sentenced to hang. Sumida, in his statement during the trial said, “I felt the state of peace and order and this serious incident were related and that a thorough measure should be taken to prevent the recurrence of such serious incidents.

From an article on washingtonpost.com,

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he said.

And just to provide a bit of levity here, so the criminality of waterboarding argument isn’t accused of being a partisan ploy (which is baseless anyways in light of the larger historical context), here’s John McCain during the Republican presidential primary,

There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn’t have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans,” McCain said during a news conference…”I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak,” the Arizona senator said. “America is a better nation than that.

And if you’re asking me, it doesn’t take waterboarding being widely considered torture to solve the issue. Beyond the legality of the practice, there’s how employing the practice and openly admitting to it affects how the world views the United States. How much does it destroy our integrity in the eyes of the world; our moral standing? And isn’t that the more important issue here? In what has been termed a “war on terror,” wouldn’t we want to go out of our way to avoid terrorizing people we suspect might be terrorists. Again, not people we know are terrorists, but people wesuspect are terrorists? Does anyone feel the same as me, or am I out on an island here?

A fairly famous person just admitted that his blunt and polarizing statements (which included using the term “crusade” in reference to a military incursion into the Middle East) weren’t very wise.  Though he moved quickly to cover the possibility of it looking anything like a real confession.

I just have a couple thoughts in reflection on this change in American politics. Since Bethany says I have a habit of taking the wind out of people’s sails sometimes, I’ll say the positive things first.

1) This is no doubt a major historical moment in America. I haven’t seen the video of Barack’s acceptance speech in Chicago, but from Bethany’s description of Jesse Jackson and Oprah and others weeping, it gave me chills. To think that just over 40 years ago, black students were beaten and jailed for daring to eat at a Memphis lunch counter with whites, and this happened just two days ago? Amazing.

2) Barack is an inspiring figure, and the global celebrations that sprung up from hearing of his election is telling for the integrity of America worldwide. The world is tired of eight years of George Bush’s absurd foreign policy drama of crusading, unilateralism, and machismo. His us v. them and good v. evil policies have caused Islam to become more radicalized and made our world a more dangerous place. Barack will have a different foreign policy presence, to be sure, and the effect of that foreign policy all the way down to daily life in villages in the Middle East would surprise us, I think.

3)The neo-conservative agenda for governance and economics is falling apart at the seams. Alan Greenspan admits it, and not many others. The country heard the McCain fearmongering “Obama’s a socialist” claims and let it slide off our backs like water on a duck. Most reasonable people I’ve talked to believe that the best approach for a just economy is a mix of capitalist and socialist ideas. The days of McCarthy’s “red scare” don’t fly today like they did fifty years ago.

4)Obama has a VP who won’t be afraid to light a fire under him. Whoever else becomes a part of Obama’s cabinet (and I do believe he will surround himself with wise advisors rather than power-seekers or suck-ups), Biden won’t passively knuckle under to Barack. And that’s good.

The negative:
1) Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth on abortion. He claims to want to reduce abortions, spoke clearly of abortion as a moral issue, yet defends Roe v. Wade at every opportunity. I would like to see him navigate a centrist path for Americans on this where we can provide room for abortions in desperate medical situations but remove abortion from being a free, unencumbered choice like whether I get the chocolate or vanilla shake at BK. He claimed in the debates that no female makes that decision lightly. That’s laughable. A number of females treat it very lightly; as a way to remove the unseemly consequence from self-centered sexuality.

2) While I do believe Obama carries some strong doses of wisdom and discernment, he can run the risk of becoming a chameleon and pandering to whatever group he’s speaking to. An example of this is the Israel/Palestine issue. He studied up on the Palestinian people’s plight as an Illinois senator, dining with and listening to an important Palestinian advocate (Rashid Khalidi, whom McCain childishly attacked in his last desperate days), yet when he spoke before AIPAC (the powerful pro-Israel political action committee), he spoke like Israel was the only virtuous and suffering group. Which one is experiencing much deeper human rights abuses on a daily basis, Barack?! It’s clearly the Palestinians! Speak up for them on the world scale, and in supporting them, reject their extremist elements (Hamas) and help Israel and Palestine work towards peace as a gutsy leader. If you’re looking for mentors, call Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu. They’ve got enough guts to call the situation what it is. I’d like to see Barack make some gutsy, polarizing stands from time to time that make people pick sides. I don’t want this all of the time, just some of the time.

I have a video from Ralph Nader that I embedded below here where he gives some stern warnings about Barack. He offers some really important perspectives on Obama that will take some of the luster off the “golden boy” image.

3) Barack is a corporate president-elect now. A whole lot of his money came from corporations, and if you don’t think that came with strings attached, you’re about as naive as George Bush on that carrier in 2003. And if Barack wants to be re-elected, he’s got to get some things done for those corporations over the next four years if he wants to have a shot to win again. This will lead to him compromising significantly, hedging stronger statements by emphasizing both sides, and generally caring for corporations over the common person…that is, unless the people of America unite to force him and the Congress to vote a certain way like blacks did in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act.

So, as you can see, I’m conflicted about this guy. I think he’s the best leader for America amongst the two candidates, I think his VP is the best leader for America amongst the two candidates. If I had my druthers, either one of my two favorite leaders Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich would be in this place. They couldn’t get there because their integrity matters too much, so. *sigh* All is not hopeless, yet all is not peaches and cream either.

I’ll state this and hopefully a million times more in my life; the biggest hope for America is a citizenry that unites around issues of justice and equity and works consistently and passionately toward that end. Our present political system corrupts the very people who have the best ideas; they need you and me lighting a fire under them to make solid change happen. I’m still learning how to do that, but at least I’m trying, right?

My lovely wife sent a link to me on Friday that astonished me; as in, my jaw hit the ground.  The link was from a letter written by James Dobson’s political action group on October 22nd entitled “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America.”  If you’ve got the time to skim something for about fifteen to twenty minutes, I’d encourage you to follow the link to the letter to get an idea of where Dobson went with it.  If you want my summary of it, I’ll give it to you in precisely sixteen words:  a fearmongering childish unwise piece from a leader I’ve come to expect these things from.

Later in that same day I came across a group on Facebook that I promptly joined called “A Christian Bipartisan Rejection of Focus on the Family’s Letter from 2012.”

I will say this, and I’m not exaggerating.  There have been few times that I’ve been this horrendously horrified to call someone a brother in Christ as I have now with James Dobson.  He is a confused, bitter, co-opted, unwise man.

I made a decision on Friday to write my own “Letter from a Christian in 2012.”  Maybe someone else will read it, but I wrote it to organize some of my thoughts as a counterpoint to Dobson’s rhetoric that smears the body of Christ.  I’d like to encourage you to read my equally long “Letter” that was intentionally written to parallel Dobson’s letter at certain points.  Maybe you can place them side by side and follow along simultaneously.  In case you didn’t see the link above, here’s the link to my “Letter”.

Before I say anything really substantive, I should say this.  As of July 12th, 2008 at 9 a.m. in the morning, I knew virtually nothing about Ralph Nader.  I had heard a little about his consumer advocacy, but I thought he had primarily carried the auto industry effort out against Chrysler Corp, not General Motors.  I had seen some pictures of him, but never known what he stood for.  I had heard the nasty rhetoric from Democrats in 2000 when they claimed he “lost the election” by tipping the balance from Gore to Bush.  And that’s all I knew.

July 12th, 2008 was the day that changed.  

Bethany and I happened to be in Richmond for a church annual meeting, and had the morning off.  To kill some time and relax a bit with each other, we ate at a diner, then browsed around in a local bookstore with lots of dusty books and a dog named Copyright (I’m not kidding).  While we were browsing, I happened to see a flyer on a corkboard towards the middle of the bookstore that advertised a Ralph Nader rally taking place at the Virginia Holocaust Museum downtown.  I was immediately intrigued, and though Bethany was initially reluctant at first, she agreed and off we went.

I won’t go in-depth into what Nader had to say, but I will give you a link to a Youtube account that recorded his speech (in 7 parts, I believe); it’s well worth watching. The man is brilliant, an example of integrity, and very accessible.  I am much less cynical about the possibilities of America now than before.  I also had an opportunity to ask a question (after debating whether to stand up, clammy hands, shaky voice and all) to Ralph, and he graciously responded (I’m the disembodied voice).  

Here’s the video.

And yes, sadly, I rambled in my question, but I was N-E-R-V-O-U-S.

I admit.  I am a naive person when it comes to a good number of things in my life, and that includes the legislative record, press releases, and supposed statements or non-statements.  So when I watch a political debate and hear the same “he-said, she-said” stuff you’d hear in a divorce court, I get confused and frustrated.  If I really want to know the truth, I’d act on my frustration and direct in in healthy ways (say, choosing to go deeper into the issues rather than lazily saying “Politics is meaningless and stupid”); but it sure helps when others do that investigation and help us naive voters with some further wisdom.

That’s why I love fact check websites after debates or on certain issues and claims. While they certainly can be spun a political direction as well, they offer something deeper.  

CNN has their own fact check website.  And factcheck.org has a good one as well that may carry a little less spin than CNN as a self-confessed “non-partisan, non-profit consumer advocate for voters” (though the liberal bias stuff is much more political rhetoric and perception than anything else). *update* I found the site politifact.com today, which has a more wide-angle look at political quotes and stances; also non-partisan. *update*

Let’s go deeper than buzzwords as we consider our vote.

**In the last week, I’ve seen this legislator interviewed and given time to speak through extended comments in an unprecedented act of civility and (grudging, at times) respect to his leadership; networks ranging from left-leaning (MSNBC) to conservative (FOX News).  Here’s the letter I received from his office today.**

Dear Friend,

Yesterday marked a day that will go down in history, when Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike took on full responsibility to protect the interests of taxpaying Americans, and defeated the deceptive bail out bill, defying the dictates of the Administration, the House Majority Leadership, the House Minority Leadership and the special interests on Wall Street.

Obviously Congress must consider quickly another course. There are immediate issues which demand attention and responsible action by the Congress so that the taxpayers, their assets, and their futures are protected.

We MUST do something to protect millions of Americans whose homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions are at risk in a financial system that has become seriously corrupted. We are told that we must stabilize markets in order for the people to be protected. I think we need to protect peoples’ homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions, to order to stabilize the market.

We cannot delay taking action. But the action must benefit all Americans, not just a privileged few. Otherwise, more plans will fail, and the financial security of everyone will be at risk.

The $700 billion bailout would have added to our existing unbearable load of national debt, trade deficits, and the cost of paying for the war. It would have been a disaster for the American public and the government for decades and maybe even centuries to come.

To be sure, there are many different reasons why people voted against the bailout. The legislation did not regard in any meaningful way the plight of millions of Americans who are about to lose their homes.  It did nothing to strengthen existing regulatory structures or impose new ones at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve in order to protect investors. There were no direct protections for bank depositors. There was nothing to stop further speculation, which is what brought us into this mess in the first place.

This was a bailout for some firms (and investors) on Wall Street, with the idea that in doing so there would be certain, unspecified, general benefits to the economy.

This is a perfect time to open a broader discussion about our financial system, especially our monetary system. Such a discussion is like searching for a needle in a haystack, and then, upon finding it, discussing its qualities at great length. Let me briefly describe the haystack instead.

Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:

The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

Confused?

This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the “$700 billion” transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.

The banks needed Congress’ approval. Of course in this topsy turvy world, it is the banks which set the terms of the money they are borrowing from the taxpayers. And what do we get for this transaction? Long term debt enslavement of our country. We get to pay back to the banks trillions of dollars ($700 billion with compounded interest) and the banks give us their bad debt which they cull from everywhere in the world.

Who could turn down a deal like this? I did.

The globalization of the debt puts the United States in the position that in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates which involve cutting health, social security benefits and all other social spending in addition to reducing wages and exploiting our natural resources. This inevitably leads to a loss of economic, social and political freedom.

Under the failed $700 billion bailout plan, Wall Street’s profits are Wall Street’s profits and Wall Street’s losses are the taxpayers’ losses. Profits are capitalized. Losses are socialized.

We are at a teachable moment on matters of money and finance. In the coming days and weeks, I will share with you thoughts about what can be done to take us not just in a new direction, but in a new direction which is just.

Thank you,

Dennis Kucinich

**Nate speaking again.  Here’s another good link with some good comments to follow regarding Kucinich’s leadership on this issue.**

I heard this question from a caller to Tom Ashbrook’s On Point today, and it’s a good one:

“How is it that any time we talk about safeguarding Social Security or national health care, we’re told, “The money’s not there,” when in the last couple weeks, the government has extended hundreds of billions of dollars of loans to wealthy Wall Street firms?”

I think that’s a great question, and I think I’d sharpen the question even further by offering my own;
“Why is it that each time we talk about safeguarding Social Security or national health care, we’re told, “That’s enabling the poor,” while when investors treat Wall Street like a casino and start to reap the consequences of their actions, the government leaps to their aid and bails them out in what is clearly enabling their actions?

Do you think if the normal citizen was caught in a bad loan, they could approach the Federal Reserve and simply switch from the bad loan to a better one?

I will say that it’s been great to see Washington step up to the plate and deny the multi-million dollar severence packages of the former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEOs; men who still profited greatly from destructive financial decisions that resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and nationwide economic stability.

And in response, evidently both McCain and Obama have stepped up their rhetoric on the Wall Street crisis.

Obama called for more aggressive regulation, saying,
“The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store,” Mr. Obama said. “Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to C.E.O.’s while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

Hopefully Obama would act justly and back up his words in a presidency or continued Senate role. He has received $9.9 million dollars from individuals in the securities and investment industry, so he’s certainly not free from the voice of Wall St. folks and their strings attached to contributions. And when it comes to the so-called “golden parachutes” of CEOs, Obama has co-sponsored a bill with eight other Democrats that is currently before the Senate Banking Committee, S.1181, that would amend the Securities Act of 1934 to include a separate shareholder vote on executive compensation.  With the present situation being a board of fat cats approving clauses for another fat cat, I’d say extending approval to shareholders at large is a step in the right direction when it comes to restoring some equity in how business is done. Sounds a little too drastic for Washington, since there’s a good number of them who are former top executives in the private sector.  We’ll see.

McCain has forcefully talked about cleaning up Wall Street, saying,
“We are going to reform the way Wall Street does business and put an end to the greed that has driven our markets into chaos…We will stop multimillion dollar payouts to CEO’s who have broken the public trust. We will put an end to running Wall Street like a casino. We will make businesses work for the benefit of their shareholders and employees. And we will make sure that your savings, IRA, 401k and pension accounts are protected.”

While it’s great to hear big rhetoric in the aftermath of this crisis, I have to comment that it’s a little strange to hear John McCain talk about reforming Wall Street when detailed analysis of his consistent position as a public servant has been completely against regulation of investment firms of any kind. Rings a little hollow. And I chuckled a bit when I heard McCain speak about stopping “multimillion dollar payouts to CEOs who have broken the public trust,” being that McCain’s top economic advisor (and one-time candidate to be his running mate) Carly Fiorina was dismissed as the CEO of Hewlett Packard in 2005 after a merger with Compaq floundered, stock prices plunged 50 percent, and 20,000 people were laid off. Fiorina walked away with a $21.4 million severance package.

Asked whether McCain was talking about CEOs like Fiorina, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said McCain was “talking about the issues that are before us today.” You know, he’s right. How unwise to consider how the past gives insight on the present and future. Clearly the past doesn’t have anything to say about one’s present positions.

“We’re talking about Freddie and Fannie and CEOs like Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns, Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide, folks that are largely responsible for what happened and walk away with this kind of multimillion dollar payout,” Rogers said. “I don’t think there’s any analogy there,” he said, referring to Fiorina.

To suggest there’s no analogy there is laughable, especially when 20,000 people lost their jobs at HP The American people should be smart enough to catch on to this. I emphasize should be…we often let ourselves be dumber and more naive than we really are.

Last night, Bethany and I watched the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency for the first time (I’d read some of the Transcripts of the event from before). Something Barack Obama said sparked something in my head that interacted with something I read a week ago that Kurt Vonnegut said in his novel Player Piano I’m reading right now. It’s crazy how different things can come together like this.

When it comes to Vonnegut, I have to confess. I knew very little about the guy several months ago. Some of my friends mentioned their sadness at his death, but I just knew him as a novelist who wrote a book with a weird name that people liked (Slaughterhouse Five). But four weeks ago, everything changed for me; at least everything having to do with Kurt Vonnegut. Bethany and I had just finished watching the stellar movie Sicko and were mindlessly watching the credits and the final credit said: “Kurt Vonnegut: Thanks for Everything” or something like that. In that moment, something clicked, a couple synapses in my brain fired differently than before, and I committed to reading this man’s work.

So Bethany and I traipsed over to the local library a couple days later, and after a conversation with a well-Vonnegut-read librarian, I began with his novel Cat’s Cradle. Maybe I shouldn’t have started with that one, because Kurt flat-out floored me with wit, irony, and powerful points he made in very quiet ways. I’m sure I’ll talk a little about how Cat’s Cradle affected me in the future sometime, but in this post I’d like to quote the section from Player Piano that’s messing with me right now, and put it side by side with Obama’s thoughts I heard last night. These two things have affecting my wrestling with the role of government and my thoughts on wealthy and poverty for the last week or so. I’ll post my more extended reflections tomorrow, but maybe these will spark something for you the reader as well that take you in a bit different direction than me.

As with any book, this section may not make much sense to persons outside of the world Vonnegut sets up in Player Piano, but I think this one is more straight-forward, and thus more quotable. This is a conversation between Dr. Paul Proteus and his wife Anita, who are social elites in their town, as Paul is the highest-paid person in town and manager of the most prestigious firm in town (Ilium Works). To provide some wider context, the advent of machines in industrialization, (brought on by the inventiveness of the engineer class of which Paul was a part) caused many persons to lose their jobs at the Ilium Works and thus plunged them into despair. Those who weren’t considered intelligent enough to go to college to be an engineer then had to choose between enlisting in the Army or doing menial labor for the state in what was called the Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps (or, “Reeks and Wrecks” for short). Paul just a couple hours earlier had traveled into a depressed neighborhood called “Homestead” to pick up some whiskey for his friend and those persons who lost their jobs had found out who we was. Here’s the conversation;

Anita said, “Tell me about today.”
Paul responded, “Nothing about today. One more, like all the rest.”
“You got the whiskey?”
“Yes, I had to go across the river to get it.”
“Was it such an awful ordeal?” she chided. She couldn’t understand why he hated to run errands into Homestead, and teased him about it. “Was it so awful?” she said again, bordering on baby talk, as though he were a lazy little boy coaxed into doing a small favor for his mother.
“Pretty bad.”
“Really?” She was surprised. “Nothing violent, I hope.”
“No, Everybody was very polite, in fact. One of the pensioners recognized me from the old days and threw an impromptu party for me.”
“Well, that sounds like downright fun.”
“Does, doesn’t it? His name is Rudy Hertz.” Without describing his own reactions, he told her what had happened. (persons had stared at him with loathing) He found himself watching her closely, experimenting.
“And that upset you? She laughed. “You are a sensitive darling, aren’t you? You tell me you’ve been through a nightmare, and nothing happened at all.”
“They hate me.”
“They proved they loved and admired you. And, what’s more, they should.”
“The man with the thick glasses as much said his son’s life wasn’t worth living on account of me.”
“You said that. He didn’t. And I won’t have you saying ridiculous things. Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making things up to feel guilty about? If his son isn’t bright enough for anything but the Reeks and Wrecks or the Army, is that your fault?“
“No; but if it hadn’t been for men like me, he might have a machine in the plant-”
“Is he starving?”
“Of course not. Nobody starves.”
“And he’s got a place to live and warm clothes. He has what he’d have if he were running a stupid machine, swearing at it, making mistakes, striking every year, fighting with the foreman, coming in with hangovers.”
“You’re right, you’re right.” He held up his hands. “Of course you’re right. It’s just a h#$ll of a time to be alive, is all- just this g#$%&*n messy business of people having to get used to new ideas. And people just don’t, that’s all. I wish this were a hundred years form now, with everybody used to the change.”

Now, as you reflect on the conversation, I’d encourage you to consider that Paul and Anita are approaching the issue from the perspective of having all their needs and wants taken care of. They live on the other side of town from these persons they’re speaking of, and to even be around them made Paul very uncomfortable. Does our position in life affect the way we think about what is right in the world? Put another way, recognizing our limited experience, shouldn’t we have the courage to put ourselves in the uncomfortable places of our world? Those places where we can’t stand back and sling around stereotypes and labels?

And on another topic, is progress measured by how much persons aren’t familiar with the past, where everybody is “used to the change” and doesn’t ask questions?

Now here’s the clip of the Barack interaction with Rick Warren:

Warren: What’s the most significant position you held ten years ago that you no longer hold today, that you flipped on, you changed on because you actually see it differently?

Obama: I think a good example would be the issue of welfare reform where I always believed welfare had to be changed. I was much more concerned ten years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results. I worked in the Illinois legislature to make sure we were providing child care and health care and other support services for the women who were going to be kicked off the rolls after a certain time. It worked better than I think a lot of people anticipated and you know one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to have work as a centerpiece of any social policy.

Warren: Ok.

Obama: Not only because — not only because ultimately people who work are going to get more income, but the intrinsic dignity of work, the sense of purpose.

Warren: We were made for work.

Obama: We were made for work, and the sense that you are part of a community, because you’re making a contribution, no matter how small to the well-being of the country as a whole. I think that is something that Democrats generally, I think, have made a significant shift on.

And later in the interview, Obama comes back to something that Vonnegut touches on:

Warren: In a minute, in one minute because I know you could take the entire hour on this, tell me in a minute why you want to be president?

Obama: You know, I remember what my mother used to tell me. I was talking to somebody a while back and said the one time that she’d get really angry with me is if she ever thought that I was being mean to somebody or unfair to somebody. She said, “Imagine standing in their shoes, imagine looking through their eyes,” that basic idea of empathy. And that I think is what’s made America special, is that notion that everybody’s got a shot. If we see somebody down and out, if we see a kid who can’t afford college…that we care for them too.

Is there a way that our political thinking can have a strong current of empathy?
Are we willing to do our very best to get outside our own experience and consider how government can bring fairness, work to give folks an equal shot?
Can government be more than it is, and can wealthy people get outside of their posh status and disconnection from other social classes that leads to labeling all poor people as lazy, dumb, and therefore undeserving of having their situation elevated?
Can government, in its best sense, draw us out of our selfishness to consider a larger common good together?
Will the rich and the poor sacrifice for that?
Are these questions not as moral as questions of abortion and human sexuality?

These are burning questions I live with. There is no easy answer, but I just don’t think government at its heart is either as big and bad as people think it is or as inept as people think it is. When public perception leans in that way for many years, perception becomes reality and governments become what people expect, I think.

And this post is what happens when different voices all smash together in an ugly collision that I must pay attention to unless I want to be a spineless, cowardly, lazy ninny of a human being. I am committed to reading for change, watching television and movies for change, listening for change, and speaking for change. Nothing or no one I come into contact with lacks the ability to change my perspectives on life. This makes for a tiring, frustrating, complex existence, but the more I embrace that complexity rather than taking the lazy/easier-way-out of a world of me or a chorus of voices that always agree with me, the more my brain gets the exercise it needs to be stronger, wiser, more humble, more receptive, today than yesterday. I feel pretty good about that today. Just don’t ask me tomorrow.

On August 29th, 2008, Barack Obama said in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess. Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.”

I heard that speech in its entirety.  It was, by and large, a pretty decent one.  But to the section I’ve quoted above, I have to say, “No, Barack.  I’m sorry, but no.”

Your speech was full of good, solid thinking on the problems of America and some solutions we can strive for together.  But I was deeply saddened at your last few sentences.  I’m not knocking the American promise; we can work together as people for the good of this country.  But Barack, the American promise is not the hope that we confess.  You claim to be a Christian, a claim that should not be made lightly, and Christians are held accountable to the Scripture that roots us as a people.  Last I checked, in that Scripture you quoted a little bit of, Jesus is the hope that we confess, and his global kingdom is the goal we progress towards as people, not America.

Barack, you have shown a balanced, principled approach to leadership in this country.  But in pursuit of being “balanced,” you have either allowed your discipleship to be co-opted by your political interests or you have presented yourself as someone without any serious, totalizing commitment to Christ that might make you look foolish in the eyes of others.  Whether this is a method or the real thing, Barack, Jesus expects more out of you, and it saddens and angers God when we place other things or commitments in the place only he can occupy.

And Barack, one more thing.  I know you have to say “God bless America” or you’ll be written off as a unpatriotic heretic.  Another one of those hurdles you have to jump through to be elected in this country. But please, in your politics and in your speech, will you represent the larger blessing we pursue, the one that reads “God bless the world”?  Clearly, America is not God’s kingdom, but there is a Biblical commitment among those who are blessed (in this case with material things); they are blessed to be a blessing.  Blessed to have a genuine concern for all the world’s citizens and all the rest of God’s creation; the kind of concern that leads us beyond America an into the major global moral issues of our day.  Please talk about/exemplify that, Barack.

On September 3rd, 2008 at the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney said:

“Just like you, there has never been a day when I was not proud to be an American. We inherited the greatest nation in the history of the earth. It is our burden and privilege to preserve it, to renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future. To this we are all dedicated and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed. President McCain and Vice President Palin will keep America as it has always been – the hope of the Earth. Thank you, and God bless America.“

I also listened to his whole speech.  I can’t say much good about his larger message, but especially in the above quotation, I was horrified and now must say, “No Mitt.  I’m sorry, but no.”

America is not and has not ever been the hope of the Earth.  As a disciple of Jesus, I firmly reject your statement.  In the incredible, beautiful letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul makes a powerful statement.  It is  may not come with the weight of an entire army behind it, nor will it come with economic might, but it is the truth nonetheless.  Here is Paul’s confession;

“For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name.” Again, it says,
“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” And again,
“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples.” And again, Isaiah says,
“The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him.”

Mitt, you’re a Gentile like me, so this passage is addressed to us.  It seems that the prophet Isaiah proclaimed that Jesus rules over the nations, and that the Gentiles (joining with the Jewish people) will hope in him.  So no, Mitt, America is not the hope of the earth.

And Mitt, isn’t it a little myopic of you to make the claim that America always has been the hope of the earth?  Are you aware that America has only existed for 232 years?  And if you’re looking beyond the relatively short existence of America to make a larger claim, are you trying to say that all of history has anticipated the rise of the American nation so that it may, finally, have hope?  Mitt, forgive me for being direct, but that’s, frankly, deluded, not to mention deeply vain.

I would encourage you, Mitt, to read a story of someone else that got a little too big for his own britches, trusted a little too much in his own power, believed that every other nation had anticipated his people’s rise. His name (a little confusing to pronounce) was Nebuchadnezzar.  For all intents and purposes, his kingdom was the most powerful around.  People quaked in their boots when they heard ol’ King Neb was coming.  King Neb had a dream, though, a disturbing one. You can read about it in the prophetic book of Daniel, chapter 4.  The dream was about a great and beautiful tree. In King Neb’s words,

“Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. Its leaves were beautiful, its fruit abundant, and on it was food for all. Under it the beasts of the field found shelter, and the birds of the air lived in its branches; from it every creature was fed.”

Pretty amazing tree, right?  But in the King’s dream, the tree was cut down by a certain “holy messenger.”  It disturbed the King, so he asked one of his royal advisors, Daniel (or Belteshazzar), what it meant.  Daniel had some bad news.  Forgive me for quoting his whole answer, Mitt, but I doubt you’ll go to read the chapter, being that you’re more interested in attacking liberals than in seeking the Scriptural truth.  Here’s Daniel’s words.

“My lord, if only the dream applied to your enemies and its meaning to your adversaries! The tree you saw, which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth, with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit, providing food for all, giving shelter to the beasts of the field, and having nesting places in its branches for the birds of the air- you, O king, are that tree! You have become great and strong; your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to distant parts of the earth.”

Does that sound a little like America, Mitt?  I’m going to bold the parts you might like to reflect on for a bit. Daniel continues;

“You, O king, saw a messenger, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, ‘Cut down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump, bound with iron and bronze, in the grass of the field, while its roots remain in the ground. Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven; let him live like the wild animals, until seven times pass by for him.’

“This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the king: You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes. The command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you acknowledge that Heaven rules. Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.”

Mitt, I’m not sure if you caught that.  Not only did King Neb get the reminder that he wasn’t the Grand Kahuna (or “the hope of the earth,” in your words), but Daniel reminded him of a social reality; good governance that God blesses is that which is “kind to the oppressed.”  In addition to recognizing who’s the real hope of the Earth, if you’re able to look past your political buzzwords that flush the faces of partisan hacks, America’s material prosperity is intended to flow from us outwards in a conscious commitment to the oppressed.  

Here’s a couple good questions, Mitt.

Who are the oppressed in our world?  

Who or what is oppressing them?

And how are these people reacting in order to gain a voice in the world?  

These are compelling questions that may lead you to dis-ease with your confident pronouncements.

I’m sorry about ranting a bit here, Barack and Mitt (well, not really).  

You see, I’m tired of politicians invoking the name of God while essentially spitting in his face as they do whatever they want.  I know that’s not just the politicians’ problem; heck, it’s a general global one.  But I’m about to the end of my rope with you guys, and profoundly dissatisfied with how American politics has descended into a conversation I could imagine with first-graders in my local elementary school.  

“You’re stupid.”  
“No, you’re stupid.”
“You have a fat nose and you’re poor.”  
(The other kids’ varied responses  ”Ooooo” “Oh no you didn’t!”  Some laughing, others appalled).  

Barack, you’ve shown a commitment to attempting to rise above this stuff, and so far you’ve done an OK job.  I hope you keep to that.

In closing, I will say that I hope that both of you understand why I don’t expect a whole lot out of you, with the present state of things being what it is.