It's an ugly term derived from Latin meaning "the taking of one's own life." I don't know how many of you have dealt with this issue; and, if so, on what level. I make no presumptions that I know anything more or have experienced anything more deeply than you have. Yet, I am today just beginning to rationally deal with the choice of a good friend to make this dreadful decision. This is a first for me.
So many blessings, so much to live for, so much to expect - snuffed out so quickly as present but known pain succombs to an eternal and uncertain void. At least it's some comfort to "know" that he had accepted Christ. Still, in those final moments, did he really "know" that?
We can all relate to pain. We can all relate with occasional feelings of hopelessness. We can all relate with the temporal thought that our present suffering might never be relieved. Still, I don't know a living soul who can truly relate with the decision to end it all. While I struggle to understand those feelings, I cannot understand the thought process which leads from those feelings to the most selfish of destructive acts.
Despite my own questions, I am consumed with compassion for the deceased. I can't imagine the level of pain and/or depression which eventually leads one to pull the trigger. What level of pain could cause one to inflict such lifelong injury on those whom he loved the most? It defies reason.
If you've been affected by this occurrence, please know that you're not alone in either your suffering or your questioning. If you're considering this outcome ... don't. Just don't. Reach out in your weakness. Reach out and seek answers from those who don't have them. Reach out for solutions from those who cannot offer them. Reach out to those who can do nothing but reach back. Reach out before everyone else is left remembering you.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
"Roger that!"
Some thoughts as we approach the 4th of July.
Although the Declaration of Independence was actually approved by the Second Continental Congress on July 2nd of 1776, the 4th of July is the day on which we Americans have celebrated our independence ever since. We find the flag somewhere in the garage and display it in front of our houses. We take a day off work. We have a cookout, drink and celebrate. We attend parades and fireworks displays. We play patriotic music.
We do all of this ... why? In rememberance. In remembrance of what? In remembrance of whom? What does it mean 233 years later to "remember" our independence? We "remember" the likes of George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. We "remember" shallow understandings of civil revolt, passionate speeches and the bloody battles which followed. Perhaps, though, we "remember" all of this too easily? In our minds they are storied, heroic, larger-than-life figures and events. They have become surreal and almost mythical in the 21st century. I suggest that if we pause to "remember" them on a deeper level, two things might happen. First, this Independence Day might take on a more rich meaning. Second, we might be compelled to "remember" some others who walk among us today and are no less deserving of this respect and appreciation.
American colonists considered themselves to be Englishmen. By and large, they had no intention of seeking their own country. They didn't want to be their own nation (at least not at the outset), they just wanted to have their individual and collective rights as Englishmen honored. They considered themselves loyal to the Crown, though they be an entire world away. As Englishmen, they understood their "rights" to have been previously expressed in the English Constitution, that formality which finally codified the truths contained within the Magna Carta and countless other written expressions of truth through the ages. These rights, as every Englishmen recognized, were granted by God and then recognized by the Crown. No piece of parchment or royal decree GAVE them these rights. God gave them these rights. Words on parchment simply evidenced the Crown's agreement that these rights had always existed.
The most fundamental of these rights was that of "liberty." The right they most fervently sought, the foremost cornerstone of their common cause, was the right to be represented in the government which ruled over them. To these men and their followers, liberty meant the God-given right to live free of unfair, unreasonable and undefendable governmental oppression. They did not seek any particular set of circumstances. They were not fighting over any particular law. Most admitted that they would accept being on the losing side of a legislative issue if their voices were simply heard in the process by a representative of their own election. They simply sought the ability to participate in the processes which resulted in the laws which in turn cast their common circumstances. They wanted this liberty for themselves and their fellow colonists; but, only in so far as they believed that every human born anywhere on this planet possessed the same right.
Their families, friends and neighbors pleaded with them not to undertake this effort. They were socially and commercially ostracized out of fear of guilt by association. They were ridiculed as irrational, sophomoric and impetuous. When these men, all of whom were already very prosperous individuals in their own right, made the fateful decision to join in and lead this revolt, they did so in sober and full recognition of three facts: (1) their cause would probably not succeed; (2) they each stood a very good chance of losing all of their property and even their very lives; and (3) despite the previous two facts, it was a stand worth taking on purely ideological grounds. In contrast to the well-remembered glorious futures of a few, the majority of them enjoyed a very different future. Most of them did end up losing all of their property, some lost their families, and still some even lost their lives. They were declared traitors by the Crown. They were hunted as criminals by the most powerful military in the world. They were betrayed by family, friends and neighbors. They fled their homes and businesses in fear, seeking refuge wherever possible. In other words, most of our Founding Fathers paid a sacrifice that most of us can't even begin to imagine paying.
Over 230 years later, as we "remember" these patriots, please extend those thoughts and admiration to another group of Americans whose sacrifices are no less honorable and no less costly. Regardless of whether or not you think that we should be at war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, please consider two very important facts on this 4th of July. First, those whom we sent to carry out these missions volunteered for just such a time as this, prospectively pledging all they had in any effort to crush any enemy who would declare or conduct war against Americans. Second, even though it wasn't an official aim of any DOD war plan, these soldiers quickly learned that the primary byproduct of their efforts would be to secure "liberty" for millions of oppressed people. This realization served to strengthen the commitment of these soldiers to their cause. They took pride in finding themselves as guardians of these folks. This was the very same "liberty" for which our Founding Fathers fought - that liberty granted by God which knows no temporal limitation, no geographic boundary, no racial or religious distinction, and no political affiliation.
In order to bring an end to the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan (thereby denying Bin Laden's Al Qaeda safe-harbor), American forces knew that they would need to befriend indigenous Afghans who were willing to resist the Taliban. They would have to be successful at forging a mutuality of common interests. We wanted to defeat the enemy who had attacked us; and, they wanted to achieve "liberty" for themselves. Neither could happen without the other. The same formula existed in Iraq as those who had suffered for decades under Saddam's ruthless indifference agreed to join our efforts to take him down in order to reclaim their rightful "liberty." We had no interest or aim in trying to convert these Muslims to Christianity; yet, we made no effort to hide our belief that liberty is only secured by that process we have come to call democracy (the right to vote).
We took volunteer soldiers, almost all of whom enjoy an annual income lower then the average American, and we sent them into harm's way. No doubt, their family and friends couldn't stand to think of the possible outcomes. No doubt, none of these soldiers wanted to die. Still, they went because like our Founding Fathers, they knew that their cause was just and worthy of suffering the unthinkable in its pursuit. They each knew they might pay the ultimate sacrifice. Still, they went.
Without diminishing the service of any, we should most poignantly remember those who voluntarily undertook the most impossible assignments. These soldiers were asked to do that which most thought probably couldn't be done; yet, one by one, unit by unit, they agreed with concern but without hesitation. This was the reason for which they had trained all those years. Yes, many of them "itched" for the chance to go to war; but, not out of bloodlust, rather out of the desire for any chance to serve - to serve in pursuit of a worthy cause. We stretched thin the world's most advanced military technology. We pushed individuals beyond what was already understood to be "the breaking point." We asked them to plan for the unforseeable and overcome the unimaginable.
Though extraordinary, these soldiers are as normal as me and you. They have spouses, children, bills to pay, family issues, worries about the future and every other sort of normal concern. 75% of our military today are married with children, and most are over the age of 25. One day they were sitting at the dinner table with their families, or trying to figure out how to stretch this month's paycheck another week, or helping to coach a little league baseball game. Less than a week later they were hanging on for the helicopter ride of their lives, skimming 50 feet in whiteout conditions over a desert wasteland in the back of a Chinook moving 150 miles per hour. Despite the freezing cold, the rear door was left open in order that they could try to jump out should they be hit by enemy fire. No lights were allowed for fear of detection. Their pilots used only night-vision and thermal imaging technology to keep from running into the ground. They were headed for an invisible landing zone, deep in the heart of their enemy, marked in the darkness by a single infrared strobe light. They were anxious to be purposefully dropped off in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no expectation of a quick rescue should something go wrong. We are all now accustomed to the surety of a 911 system; but, these guys knew that there was no hope if their mission suddenly went south.
Before leaving they had individually already made up their minds as to how they would die if it came to that. They would die fighting, leaving it all on the battlefield. They updated and recorded their wills. They wrote letters to be delivered only upon their death. They spent a precious few hours with their wives and children, knowing it may be the last. As they headed out, they removed all insignia from their uniforms and surrendered all personal effects which might serve to identify them as Americans.
They entered a world which our culture can scarcely understand. For all intents and purposes, they might as well have been entering the 12th century. Even though they brought to bear the world's most sophisticated weaponry, the delivery of those weapons was now dependent on horses, resourceful thinking and dead-reckoning. Once they realized their dilemma, they could have simply requested exfiltration; but, they didn't. They stayed, they fought, and they overcame. From Operation Redwing to Robert's Ridge to ODA574, they did what most of us would not have done. Just as Washington, Adams and Jefferson did so long ago, they voluntarily did what most of us would not have done.
And, just like those Founding Fathers, they did it out of devotion to the cause of liberty. In this instance, their efforts to preserve our liberty required that they secure liberty for millions of oppressed in Afghanistan and Iraq. In each case, they needed the help and alliance of the oppressed themselves in order to topple cruel regimes who posed a threat to Americans. Can you imagine UK football games being preceded by the public shooting and beheading of women accused of infidelity? Can you imagine their heads being displayed on pikes in the middle of the field as athletes waited to compete? Can you imagine the government demanding that this despotic act occur before the opening kick-off? That is what life for these people was like before we "invaded." Our self-interested efforts to maintain our own safety happened to also be the only hope that these people had of escaping that sort of cruelty.
I know a few of these soldiers. My cousin's Chinook was shot down while attempting a rescue of some Army Rangers high on a mountaintop in Afghanistan. He almost lost his hand after a Taliban AK-47 round shredded it. After months of rehab and as quickly as the Army would let him, he returned to his unit and his cockpit. Another priceless friend led an Army National Guard batallion as they left their day jobs for a tour in Iraq. He had a child on the way, and had to say good-bye to his wife and daughter. Day after day for months he led patrols on the hunt for IED's, knowing each time they left the compound that today might be the day. Joy doesn't begin to describe the feelings we had as all but one of them finally rolled back into a small Tennessee town on charter buses. I suspect that most of you also know one of these soldiers. Some will never come home.
So, this 4th of July, as you celebrate and "remember" those heroic colonists who led the fight for your independence from government without representation, remember these soldiers as well. As you remember and repeat the eloquent verbage and speeches forever associated with that period, remember the quiet resolve and dedication with which today's soldiers head out in the face of fear. Our nation called. The cause of liberty called. And in response every one of them simply said, "Roger that," "Semper Fi," "Hooah," or "Aye Aye." And in every case, there was an exclamation mark at the end. The fight for independence isn't locked away in the annals of history - it continues today. While we celebrate the efforts and results of our Founding Fathers, let us remember that we also owe equal homage to those who continue that fight today.
"Independence" is not an American idea. It doesn't belong to us. We weren't the first to fight for it. It's a God-given right for which countless battles have been waged. Some were won and some were lost. Despite the odds, each enemy of this right of mankind was squarely engaged by volunteer heroes. As we Americans celebrate this "Independence Day," we owe ongoing honor and remembrance to those who continue to agree to pay the ultimate sacrifice.
Happy 4th of July.
I
Although the Declaration of Independence was actually approved by the Second Continental Congress on July 2nd of 1776, the 4th of July is the day on which we Americans have celebrated our independence ever since. We find the flag somewhere in the garage and display it in front of our houses. We take a day off work. We have a cookout, drink and celebrate. We attend parades and fireworks displays. We play patriotic music.
We do all of this ... why? In rememberance. In remembrance of what? In remembrance of whom? What does it mean 233 years later to "remember" our independence? We "remember" the likes of George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. We "remember" shallow understandings of civil revolt, passionate speeches and the bloody battles which followed. Perhaps, though, we "remember" all of this too easily? In our minds they are storied, heroic, larger-than-life figures and events. They have become surreal and almost mythical in the 21st century. I suggest that if we pause to "remember" them on a deeper level, two things might happen. First, this Independence Day might take on a more rich meaning. Second, we might be compelled to "remember" some others who walk among us today and are no less deserving of this respect and appreciation.
American colonists considered themselves to be Englishmen. By and large, they had no intention of seeking their own country. They didn't want to be their own nation (at least not at the outset), they just wanted to have their individual and collective rights as Englishmen honored. They considered themselves loyal to the Crown, though they be an entire world away. As Englishmen, they understood their "rights" to have been previously expressed in the English Constitution, that formality which finally codified the truths contained within the Magna Carta and countless other written expressions of truth through the ages. These rights, as every Englishmen recognized, were granted by God and then recognized by the Crown. No piece of parchment or royal decree GAVE them these rights. God gave them these rights. Words on parchment simply evidenced the Crown's agreement that these rights had always existed.
The most fundamental of these rights was that of "liberty." The right they most fervently sought, the foremost cornerstone of their common cause, was the right to be represented in the government which ruled over them. To these men and their followers, liberty meant the God-given right to live free of unfair, unreasonable and undefendable governmental oppression. They did not seek any particular set of circumstances. They were not fighting over any particular law. Most admitted that they would accept being on the losing side of a legislative issue if their voices were simply heard in the process by a representative of their own election. They simply sought the ability to participate in the processes which resulted in the laws which in turn cast their common circumstances. They wanted this liberty for themselves and their fellow colonists; but, only in so far as they believed that every human born anywhere on this planet possessed the same right.
Their families, friends and neighbors pleaded with them not to undertake this effort. They were socially and commercially ostracized out of fear of guilt by association. They were ridiculed as irrational, sophomoric and impetuous. When these men, all of whom were already very prosperous individuals in their own right, made the fateful decision to join in and lead this revolt, they did so in sober and full recognition of three facts: (1) their cause would probably not succeed; (2) they each stood a very good chance of losing all of their property and even their very lives; and (3) despite the previous two facts, it was a stand worth taking on purely ideological grounds. In contrast to the well-remembered glorious futures of a few, the majority of them enjoyed a very different future. Most of them did end up losing all of their property, some lost their families, and still some even lost their lives. They were declared traitors by the Crown. They were hunted as criminals by the most powerful military in the world. They were betrayed by family, friends and neighbors. They fled their homes and businesses in fear, seeking refuge wherever possible. In other words, most of our Founding Fathers paid a sacrifice that most of us can't even begin to imagine paying.
Over 230 years later, as we "remember" these patriots, please extend those thoughts and admiration to another group of Americans whose sacrifices are no less honorable and no less costly. Regardless of whether or not you think that we should be at war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, please consider two very important facts on this 4th of July. First, those whom we sent to carry out these missions volunteered for just such a time as this, prospectively pledging all they had in any effort to crush any enemy who would declare or conduct war against Americans. Second, even though it wasn't an official aim of any DOD war plan, these soldiers quickly learned that the primary byproduct of their efforts would be to secure "liberty" for millions of oppressed people. This realization served to strengthen the commitment of these soldiers to their cause. They took pride in finding themselves as guardians of these folks. This was the very same "liberty" for which our Founding Fathers fought - that liberty granted by God which knows no temporal limitation, no geographic boundary, no racial or religious distinction, and no political affiliation.
In order to bring an end to the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan (thereby denying Bin Laden's Al Qaeda safe-harbor), American forces knew that they would need to befriend indigenous Afghans who were willing to resist the Taliban. They would have to be successful at forging a mutuality of common interests. We wanted to defeat the enemy who had attacked us; and, they wanted to achieve "liberty" for themselves. Neither could happen without the other. The same formula existed in Iraq as those who had suffered for decades under Saddam's ruthless indifference agreed to join our efforts to take him down in order to reclaim their rightful "liberty." We had no interest or aim in trying to convert these Muslims to Christianity; yet, we made no effort to hide our belief that liberty is only secured by that process we have come to call democracy (the right to vote).
We took volunteer soldiers, almost all of whom enjoy an annual income lower then the average American, and we sent them into harm's way. No doubt, their family and friends couldn't stand to think of the possible outcomes. No doubt, none of these soldiers wanted to die. Still, they went because like our Founding Fathers, they knew that their cause was just and worthy of suffering the unthinkable in its pursuit. They each knew they might pay the ultimate sacrifice. Still, they went.
Without diminishing the service of any, we should most poignantly remember those who voluntarily undertook the most impossible assignments. These soldiers were asked to do that which most thought probably couldn't be done; yet, one by one, unit by unit, they agreed with concern but without hesitation. This was the reason for which they had trained all those years. Yes, many of them "itched" for the chance to go to war; but, not out of bloodlust, rather out of the desire for any chance to serve - to serve in pursuit of a worthy cause. We stretched thin the world's most advanced military technology. We pushed individuals beyond what was already understood to be "the breaking point." We asked them to plan for the unforseeable and overcome the unimaginable.
Though extraordinary, these soldiers are as normal as me and you. They have spouses, children, bills to pay, family issues, worries about the future and every other sort of normal concern. 75% of our military today are married with children, and most are over the age of 25. One day they were sitting at the dinner table with their families, or trying to figure out how to stretch this month's paycheck another week, or helping to coach a little league baseball game. Less than a week later they were hanging on for the helicopter ride of their lives, skimming 50 feet in whiteout conditions over a desert wasteland in the back of a Chinook moving 150 miles per hour. Despite the freezing cold, the rear door was left open in order that they could try to jump out should they be hit by enemy fire. No lights were allowed for fear of detection. Their pilots used only night-vision and thermal imaging technology to keep from running into the ground. They were headed for an invisible landing zone, deep in the heart of their enemy, marked in the darkness by a single infrared strobe light. They were anxious to be purposefully dropped off in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no expectation of a quick rescue should something go wrong. We are all now accustomed to the surety of a 911 system; but, these guys knew that there was no hope if their mission suddenly went south.
Before leaving they had individually already made up their minds as to how they would die if it came to that. They would die fighting, leaving it all on the battlefield. They updated and recorded their wills. They wrote letters to be delivered only upon their death. They spent a precious few hours with their wives and children, knowing it may be the last. As they headed out, they removed all insignia from their uniforms and surrendered all personal effects which might serve to identify them as Americans.
They entered a world which our culture can scarcely understand. For all intents and purposes, they might as well have been entering the 12th century. Even though they brought to bear the world's most sophisticated weaponry, the delivery of those weapons was now dependent on horses, resourceful thinking and dead-reckoning. Once they realized their dilemma, they could have simply requested exfiltration; but, they didn't. They stayed, they fought, and they overcame. From Operation Redwing to Robert's Ridge to ODA574, they did what most of us would not have done. Just as Washington, Adams and Jefferson did so long ago, they voluntarily did what most of us would not have done.
And, just like those Founding Fathers, they did it out of devotion to the cause of liberty. In this instance, their efforts to preserve our liberty required that they secure liberty for millions of oppressed in Afghanistan and Iraq. In each case, they needed the help and alliance of the oppressed themselves in order to topple cruel regimes who posed a threat to Americans. Can you imagine UK football games being preceded by the public shooting and beheading of women accused of infidelity? Can you imagine their heads being displayed on pikes in the middle of the field as athletes waited to compete? Can you imagine the government demanding that this despotic act occur before the opening kick-off? That is what life for these people was like before we "invaded." Our self-interested efforts to maintain our own safety happened to also be the only hope that these people had of escaping that sort of cruelty.
I know a few of these soldiers. My cousin's Chinook was shot down while attempting a rescue of some Army Rangers high on a mountaintop in Afghanistan. He almost lost his hand after a Taliban AK-47 round shredded it. After months of rehab and as quickly as the Army would let him, he returned to his unit and his cockpit. Another priceless friend led an Army National Guard batallion as they left their day jobs for a tour in Iraq. He had a child on the way, and had to say good-bye to his wife and daughter. Day after day for months he led patrols on the hunt for IED's, knowing each time they left the compound that today might be the day. Joy doesn't begin to describe the feelings we had as all but one of them finally rolled back into a small Tennessee town on charter buses. I suspect that most of you also know one of these soldiers. Some will never come home.
So, this 4th of July, as you celebrate and "remember" those heroic colonists who led the fight for your independence from government without representation, remember these soldiers as well. As you remember and repeat the eloquent verbage and speeches forever associated with that period, remember the quiet resolve and dedication with which today's soldiers head out in the face of fear. Our nation called. The cause of liberty called. And in response every one of them simply said, "Roger that," "Semper Fi," "Hooah," or "Aye Aye." And in every case, there was an exclamation mark at the end. The fight for independence isn't locked away in the annals of history - it continues today. While we celebrate the efforts and results of our Founding Fathers, let us remember that we also owe equal homage to those who continue that fight today.
"Independence" is not an American idea. It doesn't belong to us. We weren't the first to fight for it. It's a God-given right for which countless battles have been waged. Some were won and some were lost. Despite the odds, each enemy of this right of mankind was squarely engaged by volunteer heroes. As we Americans celebrate this "Independence Day," we owe ongoing honor and remembrance to those who continue to agree to pay the ultimate sacrifice.
Happy 4th of July.
I
Monday, June 15, 2009
True "Tolerance"
I listen to a lot of talk radio and catch something daily from most tv shows that discuss politics. As a self-imposed discipline, I listen to both sides regularly (not just the ones with which I think I'll agree). Even though, for me, this flows from a part of my Christian beliefs, here's something with which I think even the secular humanists could agree. Let's all practice some true tolerance.
I hear voices on the left promoting a kind of tolerance which seems to mean never disagreeing with anybody's viewpoint or opinion. I hear voices on the right promoting a kind of tolerance which seems to mean simply giving those with whom they disagree a chance to speak. In the end, though, the voices from both sides usually end up making derogatory remarks about those on the other side. Aside from sticking to the issues, they so easily move on to assailing the other person's intelligence or character.
Think about this. I don't care how much I disagree with your views or opinions, if you were my neighbor, I hope that I wouldn't treat you any differently that I would my ideological twin. If Barack Obama, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, Bill Ayers, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Jeremiah Wright were my neighbors, I hope that I would cherish the opportunity to get to know them and their families. In terms of living our everyday lives, we would all want the same thing. We would all want to be appreciated for the person we are, not what we believe. We would all cherish compassion when a child was diagnosed with cancer. We would all appreciate a hand cleaning up after a tornado. We would all expect to look out for each others' kids as they played in the neighborhood or walked to school.
So, here's the challenge. The next time we feel like railing someone for their views or opinions ... take a deep breath ... imagine if they were your neighbor ... imagine you and your spouses and all the kids are sitting on your back porch ... THEN and only then, speak your mind. I think that's how we should all define tolerance.
I hear voices on the left promoting a kind of tolerance which seems to mean never disagreeing with anybody's viewpoint or opinion. I hear voices on the right promoting a kind of tolerance which seems to mean simply giving those with whom they disagree a chance to speak. In the end, though, the voices from both sides usually end up making derogatory remarks about those on the other side. Aside from sticking to the issues, they so easily move on to assailing the other person's intelligence or character.
Think about this. I don't care how much I disagree with your views or opinions, if you were my neighbor, I hope that I wouldn't treat you any differently that I would my ideological twin. If Barack Obama, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, Bill Ayers, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Jeremiah Wright were my neighbors, I hope that I would cherish the opportunity to get to know them and their families. In terms of living our everyday lives, we would all want the same thing. We would all want to be appreciated for the person we are, not what we believe. We would all cherish compassion when a child was diagnosed with cancer. We would all appreciate a hand cleaning up after a tornado. We would all expect to look out for each others' kids as they played in the neighborhood or walked to school.
So, here's the challenge. The next time we feel like railing someone for their views or opinions ... take a deep breath ... imagine if they were your neighbor ... imagine you and your spouses and all the kids are sitting on your back porch ... THEN and only then, speak your mind. I think that's how we should all define tolerance.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Emperor Has No Gold
After World War II, the U.S. led the development of an international system (known as the International Monetary Fund), which linked the value of foreign currencies to the US dollar and the US dollar to the price of gold. Under this system which became known as "The Gold Standard," the U.S. promised to redeem U.S. dollars with gold to the central banks of other nations. This is how the U.S. dollar became the "world currency" because everybody knew how much it was worth.
This system collapsed in 1971 when the U.S .abandoned the gold standard. Why did we do that? As our government admitted at the time, the Treasury had printed way more money than we had gold to back it up (and had been doing so for years). In other words, we were "overdrawn." Seriously overdrawn. If everyone holding U.S. money or notes redeemed at the same time, we'd be in bankruptcy (kind of like the run on banks at the outset of the Great Depression).
When we originally initiated the gold standard, Ft. Knox held our reserves which were then worth $227.36 billion. At that time, our national money supply (basically the amount of money we had printed and put out there) was $62.5 billion. For every dollar we had printed, we had 3 and 1/2 times that much in gold). Today, even with the skyrocketing price of gold, Ft. Knox is worth $140.4 billion; but, our money supply today is ... at least $8.4 trillion. We have printed at least 60 times more money than we have gold. I say at least because several years ago the government quit making the number public - I guess they had their reasons.
Okay, so why is this important?
Since leaving the gold standard, we have continually had to borrow "real" money from other countries. All we've ever been able to do is pay the interest. In order to keep paying more interest each year AND fund an ever-growing federal budget, we just kept printing more money. Lately though, our two largest creditors (China and Japan - see my earlier post) have become worried about our solvency. They have both said that they might stop lending us money. This sounds eerily familiar to me. Let's see - AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, Chrysler? Isn't that why they collapsed? Once the world, especially their creditors, got a clear look at the books, it was apparent that they all owed more than they could pay. They were no longer able to borrow money for operations and Whammo - we have an economic crisis! So what did we do? You guessed it. We printed even more money and gave it to ourselves. Brilliant!
Question - what happens when the world gets a clear look at our books? Who's gonna bail us out?
This system collapsed in 1971 when the U.S .abandoned the gold standard. Why did we do that? As our government admitted at the time, the Treasury had printed way more money than we had gold to back it up (and had been doing so for years). In other words, we were "overdrawn." Seriously overdrawn. If everyone holding U.S. money or notes redeemed at the same time, we'd be in bankruptcy (kind of like the run on banks at the outset of the Great Depression).
When we originally initiated the gold standard, Ft. Knox held our reserves which were then worth $227.36 billion. At that time, our national money supply (basically the amount of money we had printed and put out there) was $62.5 billion. For every dollar we had printed, we had 3 and 1/2 times that much in gold). Today, even with the skyrocketing price of gold, Ft. Knox is worth $140.4 billion; but, our money supply today is ... at least $8.4 trillion. We have printed at least 60 times more money than we have gold. I say at least because several years ago the government quit making the number public - I guess they had their reasons.
Okay, so why is this important?
Since leaving the gold standard, we have continually had to borrow "real" money from other countries. All we've ever been able to do is pay the interest. In order to keep paying more interest each year AND fund an ever-growing federal budget, we just kept printing more money. Lately though, our two largest creditors (China and Japan - see my earlier post) have become worried about our solvency. They have both said that they might stop lending us money. This sounds eerily familiar to me. Let's see - AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, Chrysler? Isn't that why they collapsed? Once the world, especially their creditors, got a clear look at the books, it was apparent that they all owed more than they could pay. They were no longer able to borrow money for operations and Whammo - we have an economic crisis! So what did we do? You guessed it. We printed even more money and gave it to ourselves. Brilliant!
Question - what happens when the world gets a clear look at our books? Who's gonna bail us out?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The "Cow Fart" Tax - really
What will "Big Government" types think of next? The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled a plan to tax farmers for the methane their livestock expel. There will be a flat, annual tax per head of various kinds of cows and pigs. Problem #1 - the EPA doesn't have any authority to levy a tax. Problem #2 - the livestock will continue farting even once their owner pays the tax. Problem #3 - they haven't told us how they intend to use the tax revenue generated (perhaps they'll plug the hole in the Ozone layer with it?). Problem #4 - they want hearings and a Congressional vote on this ASAP (sound familiar?). I guess this is the kind of America some people can finally be proud of?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Praises for Obama's speech
Below are additional excerpts from President Obama's Cairo speech, this time with my praises (again following in bold and italicized print).
“So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.” Only 4 paragraphs in, he comes clearly to the point. The current state of things cannot continue. There are certainly factions on all sides (Muslim, Christian, Jew, American, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab – recognizing that these labels are often not mutually exclusive) who sow hatred. It really doesn’t matter who started it or who does it more. President Obama is right that everyone needs to take steps in their respective communities to end the expressions of hatred, whether they be based on religion, ethnicity or geography. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9). Though there are deep theological differences, Christians are clearly called to disavow hatred. We can show mercy, strive for justice, and seek peace without surrendering our faith that it is we who follow the One True God. You can’t praise and revere Mother Theresa and think differently.
“There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.” Candor on all sides has to be the first step towards achieving any lasting peace. Again, I assert that, without surrendering our stance that Christ is the only way, we can surely listen, learn and respect. Without giving into anyone else’s definition of “seeking common ground,” I read in Matthew 5:43-48 that Christ specifically called us to “love our enemies” and “be perfect as God the Father is perfect.” I have to believe that His words must be capable of being reconciled with any number of Old Testament accounts of God smiting the enemies of His people. The Cross changed history, opening up His blessings to all who would come.
“[S]ince our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.” I know that in my previous entry I criticized a portion of this statement, and stand by that criticism. Still, it is a positive tool in the effort to spread “freedom” for our president to remind others that, even in predominantly Christian America, people of other faiths have always been welcome and their contributions and accomplishments have been applauded.
“Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: ‘Out of many, one’." Preach it, brother! In these few sentences he sums up what it means to be “an American” as well as any Founding Father would have. We need to remember that the “created equal” phrase originally referred to what was considered to be a God-given right (from the One True God, not Allah). Nonetheless, that right was a right to approach or reject God on an individual level. “Liberty” (as understood by our founders) encompassed the right to be wrong, the right to be unmolested in being wrong, and the right to be treated equally with those who weren’t wrong (if that makes sense). There is no “Muslim country” (whatever that means) who can say the same thing. Educating Muslims as to this core American tenet, so long as we live it out, is progress.
“Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.” Again, an excellent point that needs to be made. How many Muslim countries have a Christian church in every town? How many Christians in Muslim countries can go about their worship with no fear for their personal safety? The apostles had no hesitation living among non-believers; in fact, they sought them out. What would have been the result if they had walled themselves off in a compound in which only believers were allowed?
“For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.” “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40).
“In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.” Amen! It is indeed his first duty as president. This duty extends to everyone within our borders, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
“The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.” Excellent confrontation of the unrighteous motives of fringe Muslims. That needed to be said plainly, especially to this audience. I’m glad that he has abandoned his perspective that we brought that on ourselves somehow.
“Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.” Again, another statement that had to be said clearly to this audience. Kudos!
“[Muslim extremists] have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims.” This is a little-known fact which should be eye-opening to fellow Muslims. Again, it indeed took courage and conviction to include this in his remarks.
“We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.” Aside from the fact that I’m concerned with this level of spending, again this fact should demonstrate to the world that in general we are a nation of mercy and charity regardless of ethnicity or religion.
“America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.” Excellent that he presents an unabashed continuation of our national commitment to stand with Israel on the world stage. The use of the word “unbreakable” was undoubtedly intentionally chosen over other adjectives; and, rightfully so. I wish he had chosen a different way to characterize the roots of our relationship (being more appropriately defined based on our belief of “The Promised Land” as opposed to simply a common desire to repay them for the Holocaust); but, perhaps that’s being a bit picky.
“Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.” These are strong and necessary words which should helped clarify for me that his desire to “engage” Iran diplomatically does not go so far as to deny the err of their ideology and current political rhetoric.
“So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.” A qualified praise here. As referenced above, America (especially Christians) should always fight for a people’s right to dignity and opportunity. However, I don’t think that Christians should support any initiative aimed at denying Israel any portion of that land which our God promised to them. Fairly definite geographical boundaries of the Promised Land can be discerned from Scripture.
“Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.” Excellent reference to the success and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. The world can continue to learn many valuable lessons from their non-violent civil disobedience.
“This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.” Another very clear statement which needed to be said, which also must have been intentionally chosen over other alternatives, despite the fact that it served to put his legitimacy and favor among Muslims at risk.
“That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” Very well said. If you go back and look at President Bush’s descriptions of the kinds of electoral process we wanted to see the Iraqis develop for themselves, aside from the constant use of the word democracy, he continually spoke of a government that reflected the will of the people. This indeed is an American ideal, although it is founded upon our notion of human rights.
“This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.” I love the use of the phrase “of the people and by the people,” although I’m aware it didn’t originate with our founders. This is a great example of calling a spade a spade. Time and time again factions engender support for their cause to “free the suppressed” only to turn around and continue the oppression themselves in some other form. This is a very “big picture” truth.
“The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights … Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.” In a word, “Wow!” No matter what criticism we might have about his “appeasement” ideology, President Obama looked evil in the eye by intentionally including this topic in his address. He could have chosen to reserve this topic for a later address, after he had gauged Muslim response to his policies. That would have been the politically safe approach. Who knows if he needed prodding, but I can see Michelle Obama telling him as he prepared his remarks that he MUST address this issue. While not a big proponent of foreign aid programs in general, I can get fully behind this kind of endeavor.
“Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity … No development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.” Without passing judgment on the as yet undefined scope of such a broader engagement, you have to applaud any effort to encourage nations to educate the lowest among them. Even if they didn’t serve as the most fertile recruiting ground for homicide bombers, it would still only be right.
“I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur.” According to the Book of Revelations, civilizations (at least ideologies) ARE doomed to clash. Still, the message of Christ before that time has to be one which continues to offer love and charity.
There you have it. Honest criticism and praise for the remarks of our president as he tries to address some of the most critical issues of the modern world. Who said that conservatives, Christian conservatives, or Christian conservative Republicans are intolerant?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Below are some excerpts from Pres. Obama’s speech in Cairo. The bold italicized portions after each represent my comments. This post will focus solely on my criticisms of his speech. My next post will contain my praises of the same (yes, both can exist at the same time).
“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” (Emphasis added). I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6) Sounds pretty “exclusive” to me. Doesn't sound to me like Christ is comfortable with only a certain market-share.
"As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment ... and throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." To Islam we owe the Enlightenment? Dude, you deserve a refund on that portion of your Ivy League tuition which was attributable to History. Not as if I agree that responsibility for the Enlightenment would necessarily be a compliment, but … my history books taught that Immanuel Kant is credited with coining that term and leading to its emergence. He was a Protestant German. I have never seen any source that attributed his “thinking” to Islam. Furthermore, I thought his ideology was a response to what European philosophers (as opposed to Islamist philosophers) deemed unreasonable domination of the “church” (not the mosque) over the moral lives of individual Christians in Europe (not Muslims). Where am I wrong here? Throw me a bone. Beyond that, how has the Muslim faith (and, specifically the Muslim nations to whom he was speaking) demonstrated religious tolerance and racial equality? I'm sorry, but Sharia law, by definition, is absolutely intolerant!
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." I really have to stand back, take a deep breath, and chuckle here. Does he really want to go there? After all of that education, does he really not know how inane this statement is? Do his speechwriters honestly think that nobody else can or will access the annals of history in regards to his assertions? A “part of America’s story?" Darn right! A good part? Hmmm … maybe not. Remind me ... why was the Treaty of Tripoli necessary in the first place? Oh yeah, it was the scenario that first gave rise to the U.S. Marine Corps. After decades of seeing American merchant vessels and their civilian crews taken hostage and held for ransom (sound familiar?), the newly formed American government sent Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to London in one final attempt to negotiate a truce to these raids. Our newly founded country with no money in the bank had already paid millions (billions in today's economy) in ransom to secure the freedom of each bunch. Finally, America had had enough and sought a diplomatic solution in London. When meeting with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, he replied in writing to the Americans that, “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.” Later, as the president of a nation who had grown tired of paying ransom, and after these Muslim nations had failed to make good on their promises, Jefferson finally said, “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute [ransom].” A special group of naval sailors was formed and trained for a daring raid in the harbor now known as Tripoli to scuttle a captured American ship and free American hostages. The raid was a success, the group later became known as “Marines,” and that’s why their anthem today includes the words “from the shores of Tripoli.” Adams’ statement in the Treaty of Tripoli has been acknowledged by historians ever since as an attempt at ‘appeasement’ (or dialogue to use Obama’s language). The same historians also agree that those appeasement efforts were eventually fruitless. Were anything else true, no American today would even have a chance of knowing what “Semper Fidelis” even means. How many Americans hear that on the nightly news? The use of these facts, by someone with such a storied education, without including the context or any homage as to either the eventual outcome or the fate of the Americans who lost their lives in the effort, is a shameless and unforgiveable act of intentional deception and deplorable indifference to the truth by someone who knows better.
"And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library." I really can't believe he said that. Of what import is it that Jefferson had a copy of the Koran? He had between 9,000 and 10,000 books (the largest personal library in America at the time). If Jefferson had possessed a copy of Mein Kampf, could that now be construed to mean that he legitimized Hitler's beliefs? No. It would simply have meant that he READ it.
"So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Just a jab here … it’s a shame that he’s never expressed part of his responsibility as POTUS to include the fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity, wherever they appear. Even if he thinks that it is, he's never told a Christian audience.
"I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: 'I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be'." Just a side note here. Refer above to the [actual] history regarding the Barbary Wars. It was Jefferson who eventually said, “Millions in defense but not one penny in tribute [ransom].” This is a blatant misuse of Jefferson’s words, one which must be assumed to have been done knowingly (after all, they don’t just let anybody become presidential advisors or speechwriters, do they?). Jefferson himself ordered the creation of what later became known as the Marine Corps, specifically so that he could send them to Tripoli in order to combat tyrranical Muslim thugs who had taken Americans hostage and threatened our national interests by disrupting merchant ships, and he only did it after years of trying to "talk with them."
"I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August." May 24, 2004 - President Bush, in a nationally televised speech before the Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., laid out his commitment to return sovereignty to an Iraqi government in an effort to help prove that the United States has no plans of permanently extending its occupation. 2004! Still, somehow, that's a new Obama principle? Control of the vast majority of Iraqi provinces had already been handed back to Iraqis before Obama was even nominated at the DNC.
"All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer." Okay, just two things here. First, he spoke of “God” as being “the god” of “three great faiths.” Sorry, but I have a problem with that. Second, the "Story of Isra" is a purely Muslim notion, and it didn't involve all of the children of Abraham mingling peacefully. Please!
"Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." See again the statement of the Ambassador of Tripoli to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams above, let alone the never-ending pronouncements from Osama bin Laden and others. Right-wing, American, Christian conservatives are intolerant (see his campaign speeches), but somehow Islam suddenly has a proud tradition of tolerance. Sorry ... hold this for me while I vomit.
"There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today." Just as soon as I thought I was done with those comments which most excite me … here he goes again. Please consult Jeremiah 31:3, Romans 1:20, Romans 2:15, and John 6:44 (among other voluminous scriptures). Would the One True God have given me and my Muslim neighbor different versions of the same “truth?” I guess that would make him two-faced at best and a liar at worst, wouldn’t it? And, the Sharia law which governs in many Muslim states specifically rejects this "truth."
"The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you." Okay, I’m sorry; but, I’m really far too gone on this aspect to reply in a very staid or sophisticated manner on this one. “We know that it is God’s vision” that all of the “people of the world can live together in peace?” Who missed Sunday School a few times? Have you ever heard of the Book of Revelation? I guess Armageddon is really going to be one giant block party. Maybe the Baptists will bring a covered dish?
BUT … before you crystallize your opinions or begin to cast aspersions … tune in for my next post regarding those portions of Pres. Obama’s speech which I applaud. What? How can you applaud anything after those eviscerating comments? [ Dramatic pause] … because I believe that God inhabits every believer. He inhabits part and we inhabit the rest. You can look at my life and find parts, actions and statements which agree with God’s truths; and, you can look again and find the exact opposite in other parts. Though he is the “leader of the free world,” Barack Obama is no different. The focus is, and should remain, on the truth of Him who was without blemish. We should not confuse our celebration of the salvation of an individual with a critique of his views on scripture. Once saved, always saved. And, yes, I believe that he is saved.
“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” (Emphasis added). I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6) Sounds pretty “exclusive” to me. Doesn't sound to me like Christ is comfortable with only a certain market-share.
"As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment ... and throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." To Islam we owe the Enlightenment? Dude, you deserve a refund on that portion of your Ivy League tuition which was attributable to History. Not as if I agree that responsibility for the Enlightenment would necessarily be a compliment, but … my history books taught that Immanuel Kant is credited with coining that term and leading to its emergence. He was a Protestant German. I have never seen any source that attributed his “thinking” to Islam. Furthermore, I thought his ideology was a response to what European philosophers (as opposed to Islamist philosophers) deemed unreasonable domination of the “church” (not the mosque) over the moral lives of individual Christians in Europe (not Muslims). Where am I wrong here? Throw me a bone. Beyond that, how has the Muslim faith (and, specifically the Muslim nations to whom he was speaking) demonstrated religious tolerance and racial equality? I'm sorry, but Sharia law, by definition, is absolutely intolerant!
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." I really have to stand back, take a deep breath, and chuckle here. Does he really want to go there? After all of that education, does he really not know how inane this statement is? Do his speechwriters honestly think that nobody else can or will access the annals of history in regards to his assertions? A “part of America’s story?" Darn right! A good part? Hmmm … maybe not. Remind me ... why was the Treaty of Tripoli necessary in the first place? Oh yeah, it was the scenario that first gave rise to the U.S. Marine Corps. After decades of seeing American merchant vessels and their civilian crews taken hostage and held for ransom (sound familiar?), the newly formed American government sent Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to London in one final attempt to negotiate a truce to these raids. Our newly founded country with no money in the bank had already paid millions (billions in today's economy) in ransom to secure the freedom of each bunch. Finally, America had had enough and sought a diplomatic solution in London. When meeting with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, he replied in writing to the Americans that, “It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.” Later, as the president of a nation who had grown tired of paying ransom, and after these Muslim nations had failed to make good on their promises, Jefferson finally said, “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute [ransom].” A special group of naval sailors was formed and trained for a daring raid in the harbor now known as Tripoli to scuttle a captured American ship and free American hostages. The raid was a success, the group later became known as “Marines,” and that’s why their anthem today includes the words “from the shores of Tripoli.” Adams’ statement in the Treaty of Tripoli has been acknowledged by historians ever since as an attempt at ‘appeasement’ (or dialogue to use Obama’s language). The same historians also agree that those appeasement efforts were eventually fruitless. Were anything else true, no American today would even have a chance of knowing what “Semper Fidelis” even means. How many Americans hear that on the nightly news? The use of these facts, by someone with such a storied education, without including the context or any homage as to either the eventual outcome or the fate of the Americans who lost their lives in the effort, is a shameless and unforgiveable act of intentional deception and deplorable indifference to the truth by someone who knows better.
"And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library." I really can't believe he said that. Of what import is it that Jefferson had a copy of the Koran? He had between 9,000 and 10,000 books (the largest personal library in America at the time). If Jefferson had possessed a copy of Mein Kampf, could that now be construed to mean that he legitimized Hitler's beliefs? No. It would simply have meant that he READ it.
"So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Just a jab here … it’s a shame that he’s never expressed part of his responsibility as POTUS to include the fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity, wherever they appear. Even if he thinks that it is, he's never told a Christian audience.
"I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: 'I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be'." Just a side note here. Refer above to the [actual] history regarding the Barbary Wars. It was Jefferson who eventually said, “Millions in defense but not one penny in tribute [ransom].” This is a blatant misuse of Jefferson’s words, one which must be assumed to have been done knowingly (after all, they don’t just let anybody become presidential advisors or speechwriters, do they?). Jefferson himself ordered the creation of what later became known as the Marine Corps, specifically so that he could send them to Tripoli in order to combat tyrranical Muslim thugs who had taken Americans hostage and threatened our national interests by disrupting merchant ships, and he only did it after years of trying to "talk with them."
"I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August." May 24, 2004 - President Bush, in a nationally televised speech before the Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., laid out his commitment to return sovereignty to an Iraqi government in an effort to help prove that the United States has no plans of permanently extending its occupation. 2004! Still, somehow, that's a new Obama principle? Control of the vast majority of Iraqi provinces had already been handed back to Iraqis before Obama was even nominated at the DNC.
"All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer." Okay, just two things here. First, he spoke of “God” as being “the god” of “three great faiths.” Sorry, but I have a problem with that. Second, the "Story of Isra" is a purely Muslim notion, and it didn't involve all of the children of Abraham mingling peacefully. Please!
"Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." See again the statement of the Ambassador of Tripoli to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams above, let alone the never-ending pronouncements from Osama bin Laden and others. Right-wing, American, Christian conservatives are intolerant (see his campaign speeches), but somehow Islam suddenly has a proud tradition of tolerance. Sorry ... hold this for me while I vomit.
"There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today." Just as soon as I thought I was done with those comments which most excite me … here he goes again. Please consult Jeremiah 31:3, Romans 1:20, Romans 2:15, and John 6:44 (among other voluminous scriptures). Would the One True God have given me and my Muslim neighbor different versions of the same “truth?” I guess that would make him two-faced at best and a liar at worst, wouldn’t it? And, the Sharia law which governs in many Muslim states specifically rejects this "truth."
"The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you." Okay, I’m sorry; but, I’m really far too gone on this aspect to reply in a very staid or sophisticated manner on this one. “We know that it is God’s vision” that all of the “people of the world can live together in peace?” Who missed Sunday School a few times? Have you ever heard of the Book of Revelation? I guess Armageddon is really going to be one giant block party. Maybe the Baptists will bring a covered dish?
BUT … before you crystallize your opinions or begin to cast aspersions … tune in for my next post regarding those portions of Pres. Obama’s speech which I applaud. What? How can you applaud anything after those eviscerating comments? [ Dramatic pause] … because I believe that God inhabits every believer. He inhabits part and we inhabit the rest. You can look at my life and find parts, actions and statements which agree with God’s truths; and, you can look again and find the exact opposite in other parts. Though he is the “leader of the free world,” Barack Obama is no different. The focus is, and should remain, on the truth of Him who was without blemish. We should not confuse our celebration of the salvation of an individual with a critique of his views on scripture. Once saved, always saved. And, yes, I believe that he is saved.
I can't (shouldn't) resist
After reading the full text (yes, the full text) of President Obama's Cairo speech, I can't resist making some criticisms of his remarks. At the same time, as a fellow Christian, I shouldn't resist applauding certain aspects of it as well. My next post will focus on the criticisms. The one following will focus on the applause. In the end, however, I will address the implications of following a leader who can so easily engender both in the same speech. Until then...
"Feeding the Hand That Bites"
Forget about credit cards and upside down mortgages. Americans have much more shameful debt habits than these. Most of us just don’t know about, and none of the press talks about, our other “dirty little secret.” According to our Treasury Department, we collectively owe other nations $3.2652 trillion just part of our over $11 trillion total debt). http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
I say “we” because our government doesn’t really make any money, so whatever they owe – we owe. Aside from the size of our debts, the most shocking aspect is from whom we borrowed it (and, thus, whom we owe). Of our national debt: 24% is owed to Communist China ($767.9 billion); 21% is owed to Japan ($686.7 billion); and, perhaps most shocking, 6% ($192 billion) is owed to a group the Treasury identifies as “The Oil Exporters.” We know who China and Japan are; but, who are these “oil exporters?” Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria. Other than being our 3 largest creditors, what do these nations have in common? With the exception of Japan, they lead the world in human rights violations.
I know, I know … the waterboarding puts us on that list too, right? Baloney. It was only performed on 3 individuals, which (even if you agree it is a human rights violation) amounts to but a grain of sand next to the mountain of wrongs for which these countries are responsible. Chinese officials regularly beat and forcefully abort pregnant women. The Nigerian government does nothing to curb female genital mutilation (FGM), child sexual exploitation, human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution, and forced child labor. The Saudi government beheads women who are accused of witchcraft, and, as a matter of law in rape trials, accepts the testimony of a male defendant as fact while that of the female victim is treated only as a presumption (meaning at least one male witness must verify the rape in order to get a conviction). I could go on and on.
Americans have grown accustomed to boycotting businesses who engage in activities which we deem unacceptable. The American government and a whole slew of corporate interests loudly shed any investments in South Africa, or entities which did business with South African interests, in protest of apartheid. More specifically and recently, evangelical Christian groups and entire denominations boycott movies for objectionable content and refuse to buy from companies that offer benefits to gay workers. But we’re paying interest to human rights abusers in order that we can fund one federal bailout after another? Hmmm…
I say “we” because our government doesn’t really make any money, so whatever they owe – we owe. Aside from the size of our debts, the most shocking aspect is from whom we borrowed it (and, thus, whom we owe). Of our national debt: 24% is owed to Communist China ($767.9 billion); 21% is owed to Japan ($686.7 billion); and, perhaps most shocking, 6% ($192 billion) is owed to a group the Treasury identifies as “The Oil Exporters.” We know who China and Japan are; but, who are these “oil exporters?” Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria. Other than being our 3 largest creditors, what do these nations have in common? With the exception of Japan, they lead the world in human rights violations.
I know, I know … the waterboarding puts us on that list too, right? Baloney. It was only performed on 3 individuals, which (even if you agree it is a human rights violation) amounts to but a grain of sand next to the mountain of wrongs for which these countries are responsible. Chinese officials regularly beat and forcefully abort pregnant women. The Nigerian government does nothing to curb female genital mutilation (FGM), child sexual exploitation, human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution, and forced child labor. The Saudi government beheads women who are accused of witchcraft, and, as a matter of law in rape trials, accepts the testimony of a male defendant as fact while that of the female victim is treated only as a presumption (meaning at least one male witness must verify the rape in order to get a conviction). I could go on and on.
Americans have grown accustomed to boycotting businesses who engage in activities which we deem unacceptable. The American government and a whole slew of corporate interests loudly shed any investments in South Africa, or entities which did business with South African interests, in protest of apartheid. More specifically and recently, evangelical Christian groups and entire denominations boycott movies for objectionable content and refuse to buy from companies that offer benefits to gay workers. But we’re paying interest to human rights abusers in order that we can fund one federal bailout after another? Hmmm…
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Is the "Muslim speech" simply a diversion?
President Obama will deliver a speech today in Cairo, aimed at repairing US relations with the Muslim world. The "Muslim thing" has been one of the most incindiary aspects of our experience with Barack Obama so far. There are no shortage of people who still honestly believe that Obama himself is Muslim, although I'm not one of them. Anyway, today's speech will certainly ignite vigorous verbal assaults on the president, providing fodder for partisan talking-heads for several days to come. One could be tempted to ascribe to the president's advisors a desire for the spotlilght to be taken off of Sonia Sotomayor for awhile, salivating over what is sure to be rancor among conservatives following the speech. After all, they love it when conservatives assail the president in ways that make them look "intolerant." (Case in point, they played up the conservative attack on Sotomayor's supposed racism and barely spoke at all of her judicial activist ideology, and once again the nation's focus was diverted from the real danger at hand). But, I think perhaps they are also quietly reveling today in the knowledge that yet another serious issue will hardly see the light of day as it is overshadowed by the "Muslim thing." Yesterday, the president met with Democratic senators in order to keep planning "healthcare reform." We haven't heard much about that lately (if at all), have we? See http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090603.htm. Unlike Hillary Clinton's loud, constant and candid message about the kind of "healthcare reform" she planned under her husband's administration, the Obama White House has barely mentioned it since taking office. Few people even know that the president's budget, normally simply a piece of legislation about how much money we spend on certain items, actually contained language mandating "healthcare reform" - language which, by definition, became a joint resolution of Congress when the "budget" was passed. Why in the world did that kind of language need to be in a budget bill (other than the fact that it was voluminous, was offered at the last minute and was followed by shouts that "we must act swiftly")? But just because we haven't heard anything about his plans to "overhaul the healthcare system" doesn't mean that they're not working on it. There are at least 3 very important things that Americans should know about the plans afoot. First, those of you who do already receive health insurance as an employment benefit (the "haves") will soon find those benefits taxed in order to fund the government's new national insurance program for those who don't (the "have nots"). You won't "pay" the tax. Your employer will. Which means of course that some of you will lose your job as your employers now have fewer dollars to spread around with no resulting increase in revenues (but have no fear because you can simply slide over into the "have not" category). Second, we have still not been provided with anything close to a definition, hint or even a broad picture of what they mean by "healthcare reform" or "overhaul of the healthcare industry." Surely people who speak for a living don't use those kinds of phrases to refer only to a system to provide healthcare to those who don't have it? So, what are they planning to do? Third, and perhaps most importantly, the powers that be plan for this legislation to be presented and voted on by Congress by August. Yes, this August! Undoubtedly it will be a multi-thousand page bill, and it will be unveiled at the last moment with supporters all clamoring that "we must act swiftly." That means nobody will have any effective chance to digest and review it, meaning they won't have any real chance to oppose it (but I suppose that won't be anybody's intent). So, while everyone is up in arms and talking about the "Muslim thing," nobody will be talking about healthcare reform and the planning that is going on behind Washington's closed doors. I guess this pattern is the "new transparency." They're not hiding anything from us, they're just hoping we'll look somewhere else until it's too late. Funny, I thought transparency would look more transparent.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Question
Do you think that the federal stimulus money could have been better spent? If so, how? If not, why?
Wow! My very own blog! What shall I do with myself?
Welcome!
I feel kind of like Conan O'Brien ... not really sure how I got here and pretty certain that I don't belong here. Okay, that's just me channeling Conan's inner self ... or what his inner self ought to be saying to ... himself. Hmmmm, where do I come up with this stuff?
Anyway (a word you will hear me say over and over again if you follow this blog because I'm always going off on some kind of tangent - just ask Julie), I decided to create my own blog because I find myself involved in so many conversations, both in person and on Facebook, which really, in my opinion, needed some form of permanent documentation because they are indispensable to human existence and intellectual progress. Just kidding. I just find them interesting and sometimes even amusing.
Really (another word I say often), I just wanted to create a place where I can converse with folks about "stuff." I'll post whatever thoughts run through my head (news of the day, inspirations, rants, random thoughts, delusions, etc.); and, the reason I'll do this is simply to start a conversation with whomever is bored enough to listen. Feel free to post the same kinds of things yourself. Since we're all busy each day "doing our own thing," maybe in this way we can "keep in touch."
In such conversations, it's only decent to refrain from any personal attacks. I will freely disagree with someone on issues; but, I'll not "cast the first stone." Remember, once you resort to personal attacks, you've already lost the argument. I also hope that nobody will use any offensive language. Our children will (hopefully) see this blog from time to time. If you can't express yourself clearly without the aid of profanity ... please consult a dictionary or thesaurus and re-engage once you're properly "armed."
I guess I use quotation marks a lot, don't I? Maybe that's my chosen method of verbal emphasis? Oh well.
Anyway (see - I told you I say that all the time), I often crack myself up, literally. If you can't tell the difference between my earnest attempts at sincerity and my childish attempts at humor, please ask for clarification before lambasting me (oohhh - another big word). God invented laughter, and it has its place in our world.
So, I guess I should get back to work now. I hope you'll choose to follow this blog (whatever that means ... I'm not blog-savvy); and, I look forward to every conversation. Let the colloquy begin!
Gerry
I feel kind of like Conan O'Brien ... not really sure how I got here and pretty certain that I don't belong here. Okay, that's just me channeling Conan's inner self ... or what his inner self ought to be saying to ... himself. Hmmmm, where do I come up with this stuff?
Anyway (a word you will hear me say over and over again if you follow this blog because I'm always going off on some kind of tangent - just ask Julie), I decided to create my own blog because I find myself involved in so many conversations, both in person and on Facebook, which really, in my opinion, needed some form of permanent documentation because they are indispensable to human existence and intellectual progress. Just kidding. I just find them interesting and sometimes even amusing.
Really (another word I say often), I just wanted to create a place where I can converse with folks about "stuff." I'll post whatever thoughts run through my head (news of the day, inspirations, rants, random thoughts, delusions, etc.); and, the reason I'll do this is simply to start a conversation with whomever is bored enough to listen. Feel free to post the same kinds of things yourself. Since we're all busy each day "doing our own thing," maybe in this way we can "keep in touch."
In such conversations, it's only decent to refrain from any personal attacks. I will freely disagree with someone on issues; but, I'll not "cast the first stone." Remember, once you resort to personal attacks, you've already lost the argument. I also hope that nobody will use any offensive language. Our children will (hopefully) see this blog from time to time. If you can't express yourself clearly without the aid of profanity ... please consult a dictionary or thesaurus and re-engage once you're properly "armed."
I guess I use quotation marks a lot, don't I? Maybe that's my chosen method of verbal emphasis? Oh well.
Anyway (see - I told you I say that all the time), I often crack myself up, literally. If you can't tell the difference between my earnest attempts at sincerity and my childish attempts at humor, please ask for clarification before lambasting me (oohhh - another big word). God invented laughter, and it has its place in our world.
So, I guess I should get back to work now. I hope you'll choose to follow this blog (whatever that means ... I'm not blog-savvy); and, I look forward to every conversation. Let the colloquy begin!
Gerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
